Literature Review: Experiences of the Scottish social security system among people for whom English is a second language

7.1 Introduction

This chapter highlights factors to consider when reflecting on the lack of existing relevant data for this review. It does not detail on all the gaps encountered, as these were substantial and are referred to throughout the report. It can safely be assumed that there is a need for significant improvement in data collection and research on how people with English as a second language experience the Scottish social security system. Throughout the report, the scale of evidence available has been noted; this chapter instead focuses on the main sources of evidence found for the review and briefly notes ways research with people with English as a second language could take place.

7.2 Overview of available data

This review identified a lack of evidence on experiences of the Scottish social security system among people whose first language is not English. Some Scottish based research, notably by the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland does include such participants. However, these are usually included as part of a wider participant cohort, such as people with communication needs or experiences of poverty and marginalisation. As a result of people with English as a second language being a sub-group within larger samples, there is a tendency to treat this population as a homogenous group.

A range of evaluations have explored how devolved benefits are working in Scotland. However, these rarely mention issues faced by those with English as a second language. Where issues are raised, these are often from the perspectives of stakeholders who may support them to engage with the social security system.

Due to data limitations, the review has taken a broader view of issues facing communities likely to have a higher proportion of individuals whose primary language is not English, notably research regarding people with minority ethnic backgrounds. Within this wider body of literature, certain areas are better evidenced than others. For instance, there is a considerable body of literature on high rates of poverty, and some on discrimination, faced by people from minority ethnic backgrounds. However, even in those areas data is limited.

Cebula and Evans (2021) highlight that poor quality data makes it difficult to determine the extent to which each type of structural inequality contributes to ‘unjustly high levels of poverty’ experienced by people from minority ethnic backgrounds.¹C. Cebula and J. Evans, “Ethnicity, poverty and the data in Scotland,” Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2021. They highlight that self-reporting of ethnicity, and the ‘prefer not to say’ option make the data unreliable for understanding structural inequalities in the social security system and recommend efforts to increase trust in the system as a way to improve willingness to report ethnicity. Meyer and Bridgen (2022) note the ‘very limited’ research on how social policies impact the household income of working migrants.² T. Meyer and P. Bridgen, “Open for the childless skilled only: the poverty risks of migrant workers with children under the UK points-based immigration system,” Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 9-36, 2022. Joshi, Finney and Hale (2025, p.1415) found only six qualitative studies in their scoping study of the lived experience of loneliness and social isolation among minority ethnic/immigrant older adults, arguing that discrimination and marginalisation remain ‘significantly underrepresented in the existing evidence base’.³M. Joshi, N. Finney and J. M. Hale, “Loneliness and social isolation of ethnic minority/immigrant older adults: a scoping review,” Ageing & Society, vol. 45, pp. 1395-1425, 2025.

It is difficult to accurately assess take up of benefits among minority ethnic communities and other seldom heard groups, due to data gaps.⁴E. Sharf, “Entitled to Benefit? A Review of State Benefit Take Up by Older People belonging to Black and Minority Ethnic Groups,” Reinvention: a Journal of Undergraduate Research, vol. 3, no. 2, 2010. ⁵Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, “Ethnicity and Poverty in Scotland 2020,” Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights / Scottish Government, Glasgow, 2020. ⁶The Poverty Alliance, “Social Security Committee: Benefit Take-Up – Submission from Poverty Alliance,” October 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.povertyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Poverty-Alliance submission-to-benefits-take-up-inquiry-October-2019.pdf. [Accessed 1 February 2026]. ⁷C. Cebula and J. Evans, “Ethnicity, poverty and the data in Scotland,” Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2021. ⁸Scottish Government, “Research into seldom-heard groups within the Scottish social security system,” Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2024. There have been calls for more data on take up of benefits among minority ethnic groups to identify whether measures in the Scottish Government Benefit Take Up Strategy are working, to ensure access to benefits for these groups, for instance, evaluations of awareness raising campaigns and simplified application processes.⁹Scottish Government, “Social Security Experience Panels: Ethnic Minorities,” Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2020. ¹⁰Scottish Government, “Research into seldom-heard groups within the Scottish social security system,” Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2024. Cebula and Evans (2021) argued Social Security Scotland collects higher quality (than UK based) ethnicity data, such as applications denied by ethnicity, though note reasons for benefits denied is not known.¹¹C. Cebula and J. Evans, “Ethnicity, poverty and the data in Scotland,” Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2021. The revised Scottish Government Benefits Take Up Strategy, due for publication in October 2026, may shed more light on take up among seldom heard groups.

An intersectional approach is likely to enhance understanding of the experiences of people who use English as a second language, such as the combined effects of poverty, disability, gender and age.¹² Women’s Budget Group, “Who bears the brunt? Intersectional analysis of social security cuts since 2010,” Women’s Budget Group, London, 2024. ¹³J. Stone, C. Blackwell and C. Shepherd, “UK benefit uptake among blind and partially sighted people,” RNIB, London, 2024. For instance, more research into the intersectionality of minority ethnic carers in Scotland has recently been recommended.¹⁴MECOPP, “Where are we now? Health and wellbeing experiences and supports for black and minority ethnic unpaid carers across Scotland.,” MECOPP/Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, 2025. Primary research on intersectionality and experiences of the Scottish social security system is limited, and an evidence synthesis by the Scottish Government on using intersectionality to understand structural inequality in Scotland highlights the importance of such work and makes suggestions for how best to engage marginalised groups in research.¹⁵Scottish Government, “Using intersectionality to understand structural inequality in Scotland: Evidence synthesis,” Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2022.

Literature on Gaelic speakers, particularly in relation to their perceptions of public services, is notably lacking. No known research or published information was found on Gaelic use in the Scottish social security system, other than limited information identified in FOIs responses about translation and interpretation services. Therefore, it is unclear what measures have been taken by Social Security Scotland to support clients who may be a Gaelic speaker, nor how the rights or expectations of Gaelic speakers are met under the social security charter.

7.3 Social Security Scotland data

While there is uncertainty about the type of data captured by Social Security Scotland, its client satisfaction survey reports include questions as to whether a client’s main language is not English and if they who do not speak, write, understand and read English well though findings are not reported in-depth in the published reports. People for whom English is not a main language who respond to such surveys are likely to be underrepresented, given surveys are sent in English to clients. In addition, given the data is based on self-reporting, English competence levels are likely to be based on subjective opinion.

Further, Social Security Scotland has been subjected to various Freedom of Information Requests (FOI) related to those for whom English is not a main language, such as on their translation and interpretation service.¹⁶Social Security Scotland , “Social Security Scotland cost on translation and interpreting services: FOI release,” 1 July 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.socialsecurity.gov.scot/publications/2025/07/social-security-scotland cost-on-translation-and-interpreting-services-foi-release. [Accessed 1 February 2026]. However, the data obtained was sourced from their third-party translation and interpretation provider rather than being captured directly by Social Security Scotland. When asked in another FOI about the percentage of applications made with assistance from local delivery teams where clients preferred language is not English, Social Security Scotland did not answer the query stating, ‘to locate and retrieve the information requested would require complex analysis’. It is unclear in this case whether the data is collected or not.

7.4 Social Security Experience panels

The Social Security Experience panels which ran between 2017 and 2024 were a valuable source of longitudinal, qualitative information, which gathered evidence about the lived experience of using social security services. These were designed to help inform how the benefits devolved from the UK to Scottish Government would operate. However, the evidence suggests there were some issues with this methodology.

Although there was not a spotlight on people with English as a second language in research with the panels (except for research on carers with English as a second language), their voices could be somewhat heard. However, even within the panels, a 2020 report noted that the percentage of people from minority ethnic communities on these panels was only 2%.¹⁷Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights, “Ethnicity and Poverty in Scotland 2020,” Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights / Scottish Government, Glasgow, 2020. A staff member reflected in a ‘Legacy report’ on the panels indicated one that diversity had been greater in earlier panels, suggesting the percentage may have been lower in later years.¹⁸ Scottish Government, “Social Security Experience Panels: Legacy report,” Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2024.

The Poverty and Inequality Commission (2021) suggested that the focus on ‘lived experience’ in social security experience panels had led to policy makers disregarding other approaches, even in the face of supporting evidence.¹⁹Poverty and Inequality Commission, “Intersectionality: Revealing the Realities of Poverty and Inequality in Scotland,” Poverty and Inequality Commission, Glasgow, 2021. The authors queried how well government policy makers were able to facilitate research with groups facing multiple oppressions. They argued that while a ‘lived experience’ perspective was useful, there is a vital need to examine the perspectives and processes of the powerful in shaping policy and developing strategies to tackle inequality.

7.5 Engaging people in research

Attempts to gather more data on how people experience social security systems where English is not their primary language should be handled sensitively. Given language barriers, it may be preferable to allow people to talk in their native language, an approach taken by Trust, Hanover (Scotland) and Bield Housing Associations in their 2020 study of minority ethnic older people.²⁰ R. S. Joshi, “Count us in: meeting the changing needs and expectations of ethnic minority older people in Scotland,” The Hanover Trust, Edinburgh, 2020.

Further, as trust in statutory services can be an issue people may find it easier to give their views freely in research led by third sector or community-based providers. It is important to be aware of what is called the ‘chilling effect’ or social desirability bias, where individuals might misreport, avoid or soften criticism of public services due to fear of reprisals such as deportation, loss of eligibility or other sanctions.²¹ L. Chen, M. A. Rodriquez, K. Kietzman and M. De Trinidad Young, “Immigrants’ Enforcement Experiences and Concern about Accessing Public Benefits or Services,” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, vol. 25, pp. 1077-1084, 2023. ²²B. Jann, I. Krumpal and F. Wolter, “Editorial: Social Desirability Bias in Surveys – Collecting and Analyzing Sensitive Data,” Methods, Data, Analyses, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 3-6, 2019. There is also a need to be mindful that while there is evidence some people value being involved in research, others can feel fatigued by this, particularly if insights are not acted upon.²³Social Security Scotland, “Measuring Our Charter 2024/2025,” Social Security Scotland, Dundee, 2025. ²⁴The Poverty Alliance, “The impact of stigma on benefit take-up: Report of a Get Heard Scotland Citizens’ Panel,” Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2024.

7.6 Summary

There are numerous, wide ranging evidence gaps in relation to how people with English as a second language experience the Scottish social security system. The way individuals have been included as a group as part of larger cohorts of people with other needs could potentially reinforce a view that the group is a homogenous one as reporting in a differentiated way becomes more challenging or can mean their voices are lost amongst others. Uncertainty regarding the extent of data collected by Social Security Scotland on people with English as a second language, and sensitivities when undertaking research with this group need to be considered.