The National Register for Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) keeps insisting that its role is to protect the public. I question this claim.

Established in 1994, NRPSI was intended as a step towards regulating public service interpreting. However, there is little evidence that this legacy organisation has updated its approach in response to the outsourcing of public service interpreting or the structural changes in the sector. NRPSI continues to focus on regulating individual interpreters, while large translation companies holding public contracts worth hundreds of millions remain largely unregulated. Unlike regulated sectors such as communications or energy—where bodies like Ofcom or Ofgem oversee market behaviour—outsourcing companies in language services often operate with limited effective oversight.

Translation companies have reportedly been paying interpreters between 17–19 pence per minute, with assignments often lasting 10–15 minutes. This can result in earnings of only £3–£4 per session, with no guarantee of further work.

The system of outsourced public service interpreting has been associated with communication failures in high-stakes contexts, including healthcare and justice. These failures can have severe consequences for vulnerable service users with limited English professioncy.

While NRPSI frames its mission as public protection, its regulatory focus remains primarily on individual interpreters rather than on the contracting structures that shape working conditions and service quality.

NRPSI has also participated in joint initiatives with commercial stakeholders, including the Association of Translation Companies (ATC), which represents language service providers operating within the outsourcing market.

In such collaborations, the structural realities of interpreter working conditions—such as low pay, insecurity, and uneven distribution of value—are often absent or marginal.

This risks positioning commercial organisations as neutral stakeholders in “equal opportunity” narratives, without addressing how value and risk are actually distributed within the supply chain.

Industry figures frequently cite multi-million or multi-billion-pound market sizes in relation to language services. However, such figures do not reflect how value is distributed between translation companies and the freelancers who perform the work.

According to self-reported industry data, gross margins in some segments can reach high levels (ATC & Nimdzi, 2021, p. 25). Yet little public discussion follows about how much of this value reaches translators and interpreters themselves. This gap raises important questions about transparency, fairness, and economic distribution within outsourced public services.

Outsourcing operates through public procurement processes, where public bodies contract private companies to deliver interpreting services. In such systems, companies set prices through competitive bidding. This raises structural questions about accountability: how pricing is linked to interpreter remuneration, how service quality is monitored, and how risks are distributed between contractors and workers. These questions are rarely central to NRPSI’s public-facing advocacy.

NRPSI charges interpreters annual membership fees for registration. At the same time, it positions itself as protecting the public interest while engaging in advocacy work that does not systematically address interpreter pay, working conditions, or outsourcing structures. This creates a fundamental tension between who funds the organisation and whose interests are most consistently represented in its public messaging.

Following the BBC documentary on interpreting failures (BBC File on four, 2023), NRPSI participated with ATC and other organisations in a joint initiative under the Professional Interpreters for Justice umbrella (PI4J). The resulting document, “Working Together,” was later incorporated into NRPSI’s 2024 manifesto.

A closer reading of this document shows that it reflects strongly the perspective of outsourcing companies, does not meaningfully address interpreter pay or working conditions, and frames “system improvement” largely without labour rights as a central concern. Instead, it risks reinforcing a narrative of “equal opportunity” that does not address how value is distributed in practice. The manifesto itself places significant emphasis on the regulation of interpreters, including proposals that would increase professional gatekeeping. However, it gives limited attention to outsourcing structures, procurement practices, pay levels, or monitoring of contractor performance.

Notably, in the same report that highlighted severe consequences arising from communication failures, the response presented by NRPSI’s executive director, Mike Orloc, focused primarily on interpreter qualifications and professional regulation (BBC, 2023). While these issues are important, the discussion gave comparatively little attention to structural factors such as outsourcing arrangements, deteriorating rates of pay, workforce insecurity, recruitment and retention challenges, or the responsibilities of language service providers and public bodies overseeing contract delivery. This reflects a broader tendency to frame service failures primarily as a problem of individual practitioners rather than examining the economic and organisational conditions in which interpreting takes place.

This imbalance raises questions about where accountability is placed within the system.

NRPSI’s public discourse has, at times, used terms such as “pseudo-interpreters,” “bilinguals,” or “ersatz interpreters” (NRPSI publications, 2018; 2023). This framing risks oversimplifying the workforce and obscuring the structural reasons why a significant proportion of interpreting work is delivered by practitioners with diverse training routes and professional backgrounds.

NRPSI presents itself as a public protection body.

Yet the central unresolved question remains:

If interpreter pay, outsourcing structures, and working conditions are consistently outside its core advocacy focus, while responsibility is placed primarily on individual practitioners, then whose interests are being most effectively represented?

I am writing this blog after reading Guy Standing’s work, including The Politics of Time. His work helped me understand the pressures placed on individuals who have been stripped of employee protections and left to navigate highly unequal and uncertain working arrangements. This is particularly visible in outsourced public services, where workers are often engaged on a precarious basis and, in some cases, at or near minimum wage levels.

These conditions are not incidental; they are structurally produced through outsourcing systems that shift risk onto workers while concentrating value elsewhere. I find Standing’s analysis useful for situating translation and interpreting within this broader pattern of precarious labour. A relevant talk is available here:

References:

Some of these points are excerpts from my PhD Research

Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York, NY: Random House.

ATC, and Nimdzi. 2021. “UK Language Services Industry Survey and Report.” Accessed 24 November 2023.https://atc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ATC-UK-Survey-and-Report_2021.pdf

BBC. 2023. NHS interpreting service problems contributed to patient deaths. NHS interpreting service problems contributed to patient deaths – BBC News

BBC File on 4. 2023. “Lost in Translation.” Accessed 21 November 2023.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001sm8z

Chan, A. 2010. “Perceived benefits of translator certification to stakeholders in the translation profession: A survey of vendor managers.” Across Languages and Cultures, Vol. 11 (1), p.93-113.

Dinisman, T.; Moroz, A.; Anastassiou, A.; Lynall, A. 2022. “Language Barriers in the Criminal Justice System.” Accessed 30 March 2024. https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Language-barriers-in-cjs_The-experience-of-victims-and-witnesses-who-speak-ESL.pdf

Domberger, S., & Jensen, P. (1997). Contracting Out by the Public Sector: Theory, Evidence, Prospects. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 13(4), 67-78.

Ganz, M. (2009). Why David Sometimes Wins: Leadership, Organization, and Strategy in the California Farm Worker Movement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kahane, A. (2010). Power and Love: A Theory and Practice of Social Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Lambert, J.; Walker, C. 2022. “Because We’re Worth It: Disentangling freelance translation, status, and rate-setting in the United Kingdom.” Translation Spaces, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp. 277 – 302.

Leminen, A.-K. and Hokkanen, S. 2024. Exploring ethical dilemmas encountered by public service interpreters and their effect on job satisfaction.  Translation Spaces. 13(1), pp.149–169.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.

MacLellan, J.; Collins, S.; Myatt, M.; Pope, C.; Knighton, W.; Rai, T. 2022. “Black, Asian and minority ethnic women’s experiences of maternity services in the UK: A qualitative evidence synthesis.” J Adv Nurs, 78(7): 2175-2190.

Mazzucato, M.; Collington, R. 2023. The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens our Businesses, Infantilizes our Governments and Warps our Economies. UK: Allen Lane.

Neumark, D., & Wascher, W. (2008). Minimum Wages. MIT Press.

NRPSI. 2018. NRPSI Annual Review of Public Service Interpreting in the UK. Accessed 22 August 2023. https://www.nrpsi.org.uk/downloads/1240_NRPSI_Annual_Review_6th_Edition.pdf

Rowntree, M. 2024. “Hear me.” Royal College of Midwifery. Accessed 12 August 2024 https://www.nrpsi.org.uk/downloads/49-53-Maria-research_v5.pdf

UK Parliament. 2023. Victims and Prisoners Bill. Accessed 19 August 2024. https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/lord/baroness-coussins2/debate/2023-12-18/lords/lords-chamber/victims-and-prisoners-bill