In a recent session of the House of Lords inquiry into court interpreting, the Association of Translation Companies (ATC) lamented their inability to “import” interpreters from abroad when local professionals refused to accept shockingly low pay and challenging working conditions. It was concerning to see the committee expressing interest in exploring the idea further. Such discussions reveal significant ethical and practical concerns about this approach to addressing the UK’s public service interpreting (PSI) crisis.

I was waiting for the “pseudo representors” at the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI), the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL), and the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI) to issue statements condemning such proposals or mobilize to expose the pitfalls. Unfortunately, their silence has left me, a solo researcher, to advocate for interpreters’ rights and challenge these exploitative narratives.

While the idea of recruiting interpreters from abroad might seem like a quick fix for the UK’s dysfunctional outsourcing model, it raises profound ethical concerns, particularly when considering the role of court interpreting as a cornerstone of justice. Below are the critical reasons why this approach is fraught with ethical implications.

---

1. Ignoring the Root Problem of Devaluation and exploitation of interpreters

The current outsourcing arrangement of the UK PSI is marked by systemic underpayment, poor working conditions, and limited career progression. Interpreters based in the UK face numerous challenges, including delayed payments, lack of health and safety protections, and low professional esteem. Many have already left the profession due to these conditions.

Rather than addressing these systemic issues, the proposal to import interpreters diverts attention from the real problem: the devaluation of the profession within the existing outsourcing framework. Failing to fix these structural flaws ensures that the profession remains unsustainable, perpetuating the cycle of shortages and exploitation.

---

2. Exploitation of Foreign Labour

Recruiting interpreters from countries with lower income levels risks creating exploitative labour practices. These professionals may be attracted by what appears to be higher pay compared to their home countries, only to find themselves working under precarious terms with minimal legal or union protections.

This pattern has been observed with the Health and Care Worker Visa which was introduced in 2020 and led to reports of foreign workers in the UK being underpaid or even living in destitution as reported by the Guardian. Importing interpreters under similar schemes could expose them to comparable exploitation.

Additionally, court interpreters often deal with sensitive and high-stakes cases, including those involving organized crime. Sending interpreters back to their home countries after their work contracts expire could expose them to risks of retaliation, further amplifying ethical concerns.

---

3. Compromising Justice Due to Contextual Gaps

Effective court interpreting demands more than linguistic fluency. It requires a deep understanding of the UK’s legal system, cultural norms, and even regional dialects. Interpreters from abroad may lack this contextual knowledge, increasing the risk of misinterpretations that could compromise justice.

Court interpreting is not merely about translation; it is a complex process that ensures individuals receive a fair trial and equitable treatment under the law. Any misstep can lead to miscarriages of justice, undermining trust in the judicial system.

---

4. Harming Sending Countries

Importing interpreters from abroad risks creating a “brain drain” in their home countries. These professionals are vital for their local economies and public service systems, and their absence could weaken essential services in their own nations.

This practice perpetuates global inequalities, where wealthier nations benefit at the expense of less affluent ones. In an increasingly interconnected world, the UK should strive for international solidarity, not exploitation.

---

Conclusion

The proposal to import court interpreters from abroad is ethically and practically flawed. It distracts from addressing the systemic issues plaguing the PSI sector, risks exploiting foreign workers, compromises justice, and harms the countries that supply these professionals.

The UK must focus on creating sustainable solutions by investing in its domestic interpreting workforce. This includes improving pay rates, providing better working conditions, and recognizing interpreters as essential public service professionals.

The Labour government, elected on promises of equity and fairness, must prioritize ending exploitative practices within outsourced public services. Championing the rights and dignity of interpreters is not just a logistical necessity—it is a moral imperative.

By valuing interpreters and addressing systemic inequalities, the UK can uphold its commitment to human rights, justice, and professional integrity. Let’s not compromise these principles in pursuit of short-term fixes. Instead, let’s build a sustainable future for court interpreting that reflects the fairness and equality at the heart of British society.