Devolved differences in social security support affecting families across the UK
Published: 30 September 2026
Differences in social security policy across the UK are having a significant impact on people’s experiences, opportunities and outcomes, finds new research led by Safety Nets.
Differences in social security policy across the UK are having a significant impact on people’s experiences, opportunities and outcomes, according to research undertaken by the Safety Nets project.
Although devolution is a topical issue, thanks to Andy Burnham’s plans to increase devolutionary powers in all four nations, there is still little understanding of how it operates in practice, and the impact it has on people’s lives. This is especially the case for social security - a central tenet of Burnham’s approach to tackling the cost of living, where people’s eligibility and entitlement increasingly differ across the UK.
Led by the Safety Nets project, Devolved Conversations comprises six briefings funded by the Nuffield Foundation that offer new insight into how low-income parents across the UK’s four nations experience differences in social security provision.
The research brings together perspectives of 200 parents, providing a rare UK-wide picture of how devolved differences in social policy are understood and experienced by people directly affected by them. It also highlights how these experiences can vary, depending on where people live.
While devolution can bring benefits, it can also create disparities, which often go unnoticed. The research found that people often have little awareness of which aspects of policy had been devolved, or how they were accessed and delivered.
This comes at a time when free school meals are being extended to every household receiving universal credit – but only in England.
Free school meals (FSM): There are very significant differences in the FSM policy offer to parents and children across the UK and participants expressed a sense of injustice about this. Participants across the UK consistently raised concerns about the poor quality and limited choice of food available through FSM provision, alongside inadequate support for children with SEND and dietary requirements.
Employment support: Experiences of conditionality and sanctions were broadly consistent across the four nations and were not limited to people out of work. Conditionality remained a significant challenge for people already in employment, particularly those with caring responsibilities or fluctuating hours. People generally didn’t know about devolved programmes of support, due to the continued centralisation of Job Centre Plus.
Disability: Participants in Scotland receiving Adult Disability Payment (ADP) reported more positive experiences, characterised by greater dignity and attentiveness to individual needs. Those across the rest of the UK described largely negative experiences of the PIP application process, alongside a common failure by government to recognise the additional and often invisible costs of disability.
Universal Credit: Participants in Northern Ireland shared that payment flexibilities available to them supported better financial management and reduced stress. There are no conceivable reasons why these flexibilities should not be available to all claimants in the UK. Yet participants across all four countries described difficulties in accessing vital information, inadequate payments, disincentives to enter or progress in paid work, and feelings of shame, stigma and fear when interacting with the system.
Mitigating benefit cuts: Participants in areas with more comprehensive or targeted support, particularly Scotland, reported less severe levels of hardship. However, localised measures intended to offset the impact of benefit cuts across the UK, such as the mitigation of the Benefit Cap and housing-related cuts, were widely viewed as inadequate. Participants were often unaware of differences in support across the UK and on hearing of these differences, frequently viewed them as unfair, expressing a preference for more consistent and equitable provision.
Childcare: Despite significant differences in childcare entitlements and funding across the four nations, families described many of the same barriers. Parents reported difficulties finding clear information, securing suitable places, and accessing childcare compatible with the realities of work, study and family life. These challenges were particularly acute for parents of children with SEND, families in rural areas, and those with No Recourse to Public Funds.
Professor Ruth Patrick, Project Lead for Safety Nets at the University of Glasgow, said: “Since Andy Burnham entered Downing Street, we have heard a great deal about his plans to devolve power to local communities, but much less about the impact of devolution already in place. For families on a low-income, the support they receive can differ very markedly depending on where in the UK they live.
“In tandem, with any increased devolution there is a pressing need to better understand the consequences of different provision depending on where in the UK someone lives, and the very real trade-offs between getting power closer to local communities, creating new inequities in support, and potentially entrenching socio-economic inequalities.”
Ciara Fitzpatrick, Co-Lead on Devolved Conversations, Ulster University, added: “Our conversations with parents and carers from the four different countries of the UK revealed a poor understanding of what devolution means for them, revealing a low level of awareness about its potential benefits.
“Ultimately, devolution creates both winners and losers and it's imperative that the current Government doesn’t view devolution as a panacea in its efforts to create thriving, prosperous communities.”
First published: 30 September 2026