By Fardous Bahbouh, PhD researcher in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

This slightly modifies analysis was submitted to the House of Lords Inquiry into court interpreting and translation and published on their website.

I welcome the House of Lords Public Services Committee’s decision to conduct this much-needed inquiry into interpreting and translation services in the courts. As an interpreter and a PhD researcher in Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion within the UK’s Outsourced Public Service Interpreting (PSI), I have closely followed the debates in the House of Lords with concern. The debates have overlooked a crucial point: the core issue in PSI lies in ethics, political economy, and public policy, not just interpreter qualifications. I encourage the committee to consider three critical questions:

1. To what extent do public bodies fulfil their duty of care towards interpreters and translators within their supply chains, while adhering to corporate social responsibility standards and supply chain ethics?
2. How well do public bodies meet their duty of care towards individuals with limited English proficiency who rely on interpreting and translation services to access essential services?
3. Why is there a lack of financial transparency and accountability regarding translation companies?

To illustrate the third question, imagine John, who urgently needed to travel to attend a critical meeting with far-reaching consequences. He paid several thousand pounds to a travel agent who, in an attempt to maximize profits, booked John on the cheapest flight with multiple connections. As a result, John missed his vital meeting. Rescheduling was not only difficult but also incredibly costly, and the entire ordeal caused him significant stress. Worse still, the nearest time to reschedule the meeting was over a year later! When John spoke with the travel agent, he was simply told that next time he should pay more to the agent so he could secure a better arrangement. Naively, John hadn’t even asked how much of the money he paid went towards the flights versus how much went into the agent’s pocket as profit.

This scenario mirrors the chaos in our court system, where proceedings cannot move forward without an interpreter, leading to hearings being postponed—sometimes for as long as a year. How much money is wasted when a court case is postponed at the last minute because an interpreter doesn’t show up? Wouldn’t it make more sense to pay interpreters a fair rate, saving both time and money while preventing emotional turmoil? There is a troubling lack of financial transparency regarding the distribution of public funds between translation companies’ profits and interpreter wages. Some translation companies have self-reported gross margins of up to 77% for translation and 67% for interpreting, though it is unclear whether these figures pertain to public or private contracts (ATC and Nimdzi, 2021, p. 25).

Interpreters working in the outsourced PSI system face substantial challenges. These include precarious work, low pay, poor working conditions, lack of career progression, no access to employment benefits like paid leave or pensions, and a lack of a grievance process for addressing abuse or unfair dismissal. Many interpreters experience emotional stress and face complex ethical dilemmas, all while earning near or below minimum wage, despite the highly specialized skills required for their profession.

Furthermore, let me pose a question inspired by John Rawls’ theory of justice: Would you accept a job paying 18.9 pence per minute, with shifts as short as 15 minutes, resulting in just £3-4 per assignment, with no guarantee of further work for the rest of the day or week? The catch is that you must be fluent in two languages and have excellent communication skills, especially in high-stakes situations such as interpreting in hospitals. The outcome of your work could have life-saving or life-changing consequences for people with limited English proficiency. Moreover, you are expected to hold a university degree, a diploma in translation or interpreting, and many years of experience. Yet, the job offers little to no paid sick leave, maternity leave, compensation for unfair dismissal, adequate support, or pension contributions. While this may sound implausible, it is the stark reality.

TheBigWord, the sole contract holder for the Ministry of Justice since 2016 in addition to working with NHS trusts, offers some interpreters less than 19 pence per minute. This stands in sharp contrast to TheBigWord’s status as one of the UK’s highest-revenue companies, with reported earnings of over £68 million in 2023. Meanwhile, the UK’s language services market is valued around £2.20 billion, according to the Association of Translation Companies (ATC).

The ATC, an influential interest group representing translation companies, attributes the problems in outsourced public service interpreting to the fragmentation of services across the UK nations, government departments, and public services. It is unbelievable that your committee has cited this unscrupulous statement in the call for evidence on the Parliament’s website! The ATC is indirectly denying any responsibility on the part of translation companies. I strongly recommend that your committee remain vigilant regarding the vested interests of the ATC, as it may attempt to manipulate facts and divert attention from the core issue. Also, what business believes it is entitled to demand a unified client base with identical requirements?

It is worth noting that outsourcing in public services originated within the broader context of neoliberal economic policies, which aimed to promote competition, enhance efficiency, spur innovation, and reduce costs. Yet now, the interest group representing translation companies is complaining about the challenges of having more than one buying body! Where is the supposed efficiency and innovation of the private sector?

 A closer look at the absurd “Working Together” document ( issued by a “collaboration” between the ATC, and 11 interpreters and translators’ organisations, including sign language interpreters) reveals that its first two demands are written from the translation companies’ perspective, absurdly advocating for the continuation of outsourcing despite its well-documented failures, including miscarriages of justice, physical harm to patients, and the potential exploitation of interpreters and translators as cheap, precarious workers.

The second demand in the document calls for a pay raise—not for interpreters, but for the translation companies holding public service contracts. These companies, which potentially exploit interpreters and contribute to immense tragedies for end-users, provide no transparency about how much of the contract money actually reaches the interpreters themselves. The audacity of requesting a pay raise for companies responsible for substandard services that jeopardize lives and result in miscarriages of justice is astonishing. It’s as if the UK’s top priority should be ensuring the financial stability of TheBigWord, protecting it from inflation so it can attract further investments from the United States! This prioritization of business interests over public welfare and fair compensation for interpreters is deeply troubling.

Outsourcing is done through a tendering process, where public sector entities, such as the Ministry of Justice, invite private companies to bid for contracts. In this process, translation companies set the price for the services they will provide if they win the contract. It is ethically problematic for these companies to demand higher prices after securing the contract, as this would result in higher long-term costs for the public sector. By submitting a lower bid, they may have undercut other companies that could have provided better services—a practice known as “low-balling.”

The language used in their demands is equally problematic. Referring to the flawed outsourcing system as an “ecosystem” misleadingly suggests mutual reciprocity while ignoring interpreters, who often describe it as “the wild west” (BBC File on 4, 2023). Interpreters are paid meagre amounts, often months after completing a job, particularly by TheBigWord. The Chairperson of the Association of Interpreters and Translators told me that she had repeatedly contacted TheBigWord about some of their members’ delayed payments, with no success. She even resorted to asking the Ministry of Justice staff to request that TheBigWord speak with her so that she could diplomatically ask them to pay their interpreters, some of whom had been waiting for over two months without receiving payments!

Furthermore, as a democracy, when we hear that another country’s election was won by 99%, we know something suspicious has occurred. Similarly, the way the ATC managed to get unanimous agreement on the “Working Together” report raises many questions. I contacted the heads of some of these organisations, and they replied, stating they were led to believe that the only way to help interpreters secure better pay was through collaboration with the ATC. The ATC’s ability to manipulate the situation is remarkable!

I have a personal experience with the ATC’s attempts to spin narratives. The ATC was supposed to be an industry partner in my publicly funded PhD research on EDI (The ATC is no longer a collaborator on my research). In its 2023 industry report, the ATC stated that translation companies in the UK are struggling to recruit and retain interpreters for PSI due to low pay and challenging working conditions. However, they insisted that my research should focus on giving more people the “opportunity” to work as public service interpreters.

It is unbelievable that she wanted to misrepresent low pay and challenging working conditions as an “opportunity,” framing the research as a means to find ways to allow more people to be potentially exploited. Unfortunately for the ATC, I am not only an interpreter but also someone with a solid background in political economy, public policy, philosophy, and ethics.

Furthermore, I was appalled when I read reports that TheBigWord was given access to HMP Wealstun Prison, where they are attempting to enlist prisoners under the guise of providing them with “job opportunities” (TheBigWord, 2024). The audacity of deliberately misrepresenting precarious work—characterized by harsh working conditions, low pay, lack of career progression, absence of grievance procedures, problematic power dynamics, and the lack of basic employment benefits such as paid sick leave or pensions—as an “opportunity” is both shocking and unacceptable. What genuine opportunities can TheBigWord offer prisoners when it currently pays interpreters less than 19 pence per minute for phone interpreting, with assignments lasting only 10 to 15 minutes? They are vultures preying on the vulnerability of some of the most marginalized communities in our society.

Therefore, I strongly suggest that you view the current challenges in court interpreting as part of the broader issue of outsourcing public services to profit-motivated companies, which has had profoundly negative consequences for workers. These companies often reduce costs by lowering wages, cutting benefits, and increasing workloads, leading to a marked deterioration in the employment terms of many workers who previously held stable and well-compensated public sector positions. Consequently, this has resulted in increased work intensity, reduced job security, and the rise of precarious employment, which in turn has exacerbated inequalities and weakened trade unions (Heery & Simms, 2010; Kirton & Healy, 2013; Bach, 2016; Healy, 2016).

Economists Mariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington conclude that outsourcing public services leads to a decline in service quality, lowers payment rates for workers, and in some cases, renders those workers dependent on state benefits as they can’t cover their expenses due to the reduced payment by companies holding public service contracts. This outcome contradicts the initial aim of outsourcing, which was to reduce costs for the state. Additionally, Mazzucato and Collington argue that outsourcing public services infantilizes government and public institutions by reducing their internal capacity to efficiently manage and monitor outsourced contracts, or to conduct the services in-house, thereby creating an unhealthy long-term dependency on profit-oriented companies that could, in turn, compromise the ability to provide adequate public services (2023, pp. 68-97).

The 2014 independent review of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Language Services Framework found that 76% of UK-based interpreters and translators do not work with the MoJ’s outsourced interpreting services due to “issues around remuneration,” and 67% due to poor working conditions (p.7). The review recommended that language services should not be outsourced to for-profit agencies and that the MoJ should book language services directly with interpreters and translators (p.58). However, nearly a decade later, these problems persist—or probably have even worsened—without any significant changes to the system.

In academic literature, public service interpreters are usually described as cheap, precarious labor (Hale 2007; Dong and Turner, 2016; Leminen and Hokkanen, 2024). Research on payment rates, working conditions, and job security of interpreters in Public Service Interpreting (PSI) is limited, with significant insights provided by Jiqing Dong and Graham Turner (2016) and Joanna Drugan (2020).

Drugan’s research (2020) focuses on the impact of outsourcing on police interpreting in the UK. She finds that outsourcing has complicated the relationship between interpreters and public service providers, with profit-driven intermediary companies creating new challenges in collaboration and quality control. Interpreters are now subjected to problematic booking systems, face fines for non-attendance, and lack basic protections like sick leave. Furthermore, Drugan highlights concerns over the outsourcing of quality control, where interpreters may assess their peers without proper training, leading to issues in maintaining quality standards.

Dong and Turner’s study (2016) explores the ergonomic and professional challenges interpreters face when working with agencies. Their ethnographic research reveals that interpreters have limited recourse to formal grievance procedures, face tight control over work allocation, and struggle with procedural demands that increase stress. Health and safety concerns are prominent, especially in high-risk environments like prisons, with inadequate training and support. Interpreters report feeling pressured to accept assignments, fearing reputational damage or blacklisting if they refuse. This results in interpreters feeling more like low-paid, precarious workers than skilled professionals, contributing to a professional identity crisis. The study underscores the growing disparity between regulatory measures and deteriorating working conditions within the PSI sector.

Similar issues persist in the outsourced translation. Joss Moorkens has pointed out that translators working in public services in the UK, like interpreters, face significant challenges due to neoliberal policies and the outsourcing of services. Translators are pressured to meet unrealistic work demands, often having to be available 24/7 while coping with job insecurity. Outsourcing allows translation companies to avoid minimum pay regulations, exacerbating precarious work arrangements. As a result, translators face low pay, lack of support, and diminishing professional prestige, mirroring the unfavorable working conditions experienced by interpreters (Moorkens, 2017; 2020).

Joseph Lambert and Callum Walker (2022) explore the precarious working conditions of freelance translators, noting the growing dominance of large translation companies that dictate lower pay rates. Freelancers are often forced to choose between accepting lower-paying jobs from these companies or pursuing direct-client work, which may offer higher pay but less job stability. This creates a difficult balancing act for translators, as they navigate between financial insecurity and unpredictable workloads.

Lambert and Walker (2022) also address the issue of translation qualifications, observing that translators with postgraduate degrees tend to earn slightly more than those without such credentials. However, as Chan (2010) points out, while certifications may improve the professional image of translation companies and ease their hiring process, the financial benefits for individual translators remain minimal. Lambert and Walker emphasize the need for open discussions on pay rates, noting that compensation is a primary ethical concern raised by translators in surveys (2022).

Economist Guy Standing writes extensively about the “precariat”—those engaged in insecure and temporary work, usually at low payment rates, lacking employment benefits such as pensions, sick pay, and other social protections. Standing elaborates on the negative effects of this insecurity on workers, including deteriorating health, loss of control over their time, and increased financial insecurities. Standing also warns against situations where precarious workers often earn less than their financial needs and find themselves forced to rely on debt to survive if they do not have personal or family wealth, resulting in a vicious cycle of persistent poverty (Standing, 2011; 2023).

Recommendation and Suggestions I suggest the obvious solution:

1. End problematic outsourcing and bring public service interpreting back under the control of public bodies.

I acknowledge that bringing interpreting and translation services back in-house might be a lengthy process. In the meantime, I recommend the following steps:

1. Prohibit the exploitation of interpreters and translators, introduce fair pay and linguists’ protection clauses into outsourcing contracts, and end the practice of paying interpreters per minute of work.
2. Bar exploitative and underperforming translation companies from holding public contracts, as they cause or contribute to miscarriages of justice, delays in social and health services, bodily harm, and even death—accountability for these failures is essential.
3. Hold translation companies’ bosses personally responsible for the exploitation and mayhem they cause or contribute to.
4. Create a regulatory body for translation companies holding public service interpreting and translation contracts.
5. Ensure financial transparency for companies receiving public funds, potentially implementing a cap on the amount of public money that ends up as profit.
6. Involve policymakers in governing, managing, and regulating public service interpreting, ensuring the rights of interpreters and individuals reliant on interpreters to access public services.
7. Ensure transparency regarding responsibility for health and safety provisions, as well as continuous professional development for interpreters.
8. Involve interpreters in the planning and implementation of outsourcing arrangements.
9. Increase transparency regarding quality control, including interpreters’ competencies, qualifications, and training.
10. Monitor the extent to which phone interpreting is outsourced to individuals outside the UK who may lack the necessary contextual knowledge of our public services.
11. Establish transparent protocols detailing contingency measures to be implemented in the event that contracted translation companies face insolvency or operational failure, ensuring protection for interpreters and continuity of essential public service interpreting provisions.
12. Clear standards of practice, rigorous training requirements, and thorough vetting for interpreters to ensure they possess the linguistic proficiency, cultural understanding, and subject knowledge necessary to perform their duties effectively and ethically, preferable funded by the government or the translation companies.

The time has come for the UK to acknowledge the critical importance of public service interpreting and to take concrete steps to protect both the interpreters and the public they serve. For full details about my PhD report, please check this link.

References:

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

ATC, and Nimdzi. 2023. “UK Language Services Industry Survey and Report.” Accessed 24 November 2023. https://atc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ATC-UK-Language-Services-Industry-Survey-and-Report-2023-1.pdf

Bach, S. 2016. Shrinking the State or the Big Society? Public Service Employment Relations in an Era of Austerity. Industrial Relations Journal, 47(1), 2-17.

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.

Dong, J.; Turner, G. 2016. “The ergonomic impact of agencies in the dynamic system of interpreting provision: An ethnographic study of backstage influences on interpreter performance.” Translation Spaces, Volume 5, Issue 1, Jan 2016, 97–123.

Drugan, J. 2020. “Complex Collaborations: Interpreting and Translating for the UK Police.” In Translaboration: Exploring Collaboration in Translation and Translation in Collaboration, edited by A. Alfer and C. Hauer, pp. 307–326.

Hale, S. 2007. Community Interpreting. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Healy, G. 2016. “The Politics of Equality and Diversity: History, Society, and Biography” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations, edited by R. Bendl, I. Bleijenbergh, A. Mills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heery, E.; Simms, M. 2010. “Employer responses to union organising: patterns and effects.” Human Resource Management Journal, 20(1): 3–22.

Kirton, G.; Healy, G. 2013. “Commitment and collective identity of long-term union participation: the case of women union leaders in the UK and USA.” Work, Employment & Society, 27(2): 195–212.

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.

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.

Ministry of Justice. 2014. Independent Review of Quality Arrangements under the MoJ Language Services Framework Agreement. Professional Services Survey Analysis – Interpreters. Accessed 3 December 2023. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e3095e5274a2e8ab466b5/survey-analysis-supply.pdf

Moorkens, J. 2017. “Under pressure: translation in times of austerity.” Perspectives, Studies in Translatology, Vol. 25(3), p. 464-477.

Moorkens, J. 2020. “Translation in the Neoliberal Era.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Globalization, edited by E. Bielsa and D. Kapsaskis, 323-336. Abingdon: Routledge.

Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Standing, G. 2011. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury Academic.

Standing, G. 2023. The Politics of Time: Gaining Control in the Age of Uncertainty. Pelican Publishing Company

TheBigWord. 2024. thebigword visits HMP Wealstun Prison in Wetherby. Accessed 14 August 2024. https://en-gb.thebigword.com/news/thebigword-visits-hmp-wealstun-prison-in-wetherby/