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

In a recent House of Lords inquiry into public service interpreting, the heads of key linguist organisations—the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL), the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI), and the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI)—were questioned on the state of the profession. During the inquiry, a Lord asked a fundamental question: “How much does a public service interpreter make annually?” To everyone’s surprise, none of the representatives could answer or even provide an estimate. Instead, the CEO of ITI suggested that this information should be collected by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

This moment underscored a serious data gap in public service interpreting. It also revealed a systemic failure within these organizations to collect and analyse data on interpreters, leaving a fragmented and incomplete picture of the profession. While it’s tempting to expect government bodies to track this information, I would argue that the primary responsibility should lie with the organizations representing interpreters. How can these organizations effectively be consulted regarding the profession if they lack basic data on their pay rates and financial stability?

As a PhD researcher focusing on Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) within public service interpreting, I am keenly aware of the need for robust data to support interpreters’ rights and well-being. My research centers on interpreters’ pay rates, annual income, and the impact of low pay and challenging work conditions on interpreters’ lives. Watching the House of Lords panel, I felt reassured about my research direction, knowing it’s essential to address this gap. However, I was also disheartened to see these organizations overlook the power and importance of data.

Why Data Matters

Without data, we lack proof of potential exploitation and inequality within public service interpreting. Data illuminate injustices and provides the foundation needed to push for meaningful change. When organizations fail to collect essential information, they limit their ability to advocate effectively. This leaves interpreters without a collective voice and keeps issues like low pay, job insecurity, limited career progression, a lack of grievance processes, and problematic power dynamics hidden in the shadows.

Some may argue that having these CEOs present at the House of Lords was progress and a sign of recognition for the profession, as the knowledgeable interpreter and translator Hugh Morgan rightly pointed out. I welcome constructive criticism on my previous articles, but we also need these organisations to step up and move beyond anecdotal information. They must fulfil their duty to interpreters by prioritising data collection and creating case studies that offer real insights into the working lives of the professionals they represent.

With the right data, we can highlight the financial challenges and stressors interpreters face, raise awareness about the impacts of precarious work, and support the case for better pay and working conditions. To make real progress, these organizations need to organize with purpose, actively listen to interpreters’ concerns, and take meaningful steps to gather and analyze data. After all, if we can’t measure the problem, how can we ever hope to solve it?

Interpreters deserve organizations that truly represent them, armed with the knowledge to champion their needs. Strong data is the key to creating a fairer, more effective system for everyone.