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

In a recent article, economist Mariana Mazzucato argues that achieving good economic growth in the UK requires getting public-private partnerships right by ensuring fair sharing of both risks and rewards. Mazzucato highlights the historical problem in the UK, where public-private partnerships often lead to the state overpaying while the private sector underperforms. The same issue is evident in the current system for outsourced court interpreting, and it raises an important question: Shouldn’t the private company contracted to provide court interpreting be held more accountable for the quality of the services?

Court interpreting, as an essential public service, ensures that individuals who are non-English speakers can access justice or provide testimonies when they are witnesses to a crime. So, this affects all of us. Providing an interpreter in court proceedings is a legal requirement enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998. However, this responsibility has been outsourced to one company, The Big Word, which has almost a complete monopoly on court interpreting. When it fails to provide interpreters who meet the necessary competencies for court interpreting, there are almost no consequences for The Big Word. This lack of accountability leads to a situation where the burden of poor service often falls on the interpreters themselves, or worse, on the non-English-speaking users who rely on accurate and fair interpreting.

When we consider the principle of equitable distribution of risks and rewards, it becomes clear that these outsourcing companies should be held responsible for the actions of their interpreters. After all, The Big Word is paid to recruit and vet the interpreters, and it’s their duty to ensure that those interpreters are competent and properly trained to handle such important tasks. Why, then, are there so few consequences when they fail to deliver?

Take, for example, the media sector. If a journalist writes a defamatory or inaccurate story, the media company is held responsible. The company faces financial and reputational consequences for the failure of its employees to meet the required professional standards. Why shouldn’t the same apply to the companies handling court interpreting? Why don’t we have a regulatory body like Ofcom or Ofgem to regulate translation companies? Why do outsourcing contracts not stipulate accountability and transparency?

More accountability could also serve as an incentive for these companies to invest in the training and professional development of interpreters. Professor Sabine Braun, in her oral evidence to the House of Lords Committee on 27 November 2024, underscored the importance of training opportunities for interpreters. She pointed out that interpreters in the court system should not be treated as isolated contractors. Braun advocated for a shared responsibility model for training, where translation companies and interpreters collaborate to provide up-skilling opportunities. She also emphasised that effective training should be joint, involving both interpreters and legal practitioners working together to understand and navigate the challenges of communication through an interpreter.

By ensuring that the risks and rewards are distributed more equitably in the court interpreting sector, we could create a more sustainable system where private companies are incentivised to maintain high standards and invest in training for interpreters. This, in addition to better pay and working conditions, would empower interpreters to perform their jobs without the constant threat of inadequate working conditions and enable them to up-skill, fostering a more skilled and motivated workforce.

I’ve already raised this issue with the House of Lords, advocating for more liability on the part of the contract holders in public service interpreting. The House has acknowledged some of the challenges, but much more needs to be done to address the power imbalance that exists in these outsourcing arrangements. I would like to invite others to join in this conversation and lend their voices to the cause. More accountability from companies like The Big Word could be a significant step toward improving the quality of interpreting services and, ultimately, ensuring access to justice for all.

A positive step came during the inquiry that the MOJ’s announcement that it is willing to pay 75% of the competency test (Level 6 Diploma) for some court interpreters. What remains perplexing is why not 100%, and why not for all languages? A critical question follows regarding the role of organisations supposedly representing interpreters. Why are they not making any effort to call for full coverage—especially those calling themselves Professional Interpreters for Justice (PI4J)?

It’s time to rethink the way we approach outsourcing, making sure that the system works for everyone, from the interpreters to the court users and the tax payers, in the interest of justice.