Fardous Bahbouh investigates the progress – or lack of it – towards equitable pay for public service interpreting. This article was first published by the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI)

Consider this. The UK language services market is currently worth around £2.2 billion. Some translation companies have self-reported gross margins of up to 77 per cent for translation services and 67 per cent for interpreting services. Yet at the same time, many interpreters and translators struggle to make ends meet. It seems that interpreters’ and translators’ wellbeing and financial security are being left off a wider agenda. This also raises ethical concerns, especially when individuals’ rights to a living income – as recognised in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – are not upheld in practice.

Public service interpreting (PSI) has been particularly hard hit. In fact, a 2023 BBC investigation in collaboration with the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) revealed that 10 per cent of public service interpreters were unlikely to continue in the profession within the next 12 months, as the result of inadequate remuneration (BBC File on 4, 2023). The BBC also reported on protests and strike actions by court interpreters and translators over freelance working conditions, with one interpreter stating that many of her peers were ‘pretty much on the poverty line’ (BBC, 2024). Both academic literature and industry reports frequently characterise PSI by its low pay, difficult working conditions, limited opportunities for
career advancement, lack of health and safety considerations, and absence of employment benefits such as paid leave and pensions contributions.

Back to the 20th century: outsourcing

There’s been considerable concern about the way that outsourcing PSI has contributed to this, and it is worth looking at the history of this practice.

Outsourcing public services to private companies gained momentum in the UK during the late 20th century, spurred by the policies of Margaret Thatcher (prime minister from 1979 to 1990). This shift fundamentally transformed the landscape of public sector employment, across a whole range of services – from preparing prison meals through delivering probation services to interpreting in legal, medical and social service settings for individuals with limited spoken English proficiency.

Outsourcing frequently led to reduced wages and benefits, heightened work intensity and diminished job security. It also contributed to the rise of precarious employment, exacerbating social and economic inequalities while weakening the influence of trade unions. Outsourcing public services to private companies has dramatically reshaped public sector employment, leading to lower wages, fewer benefits, greater job insecurity and more intense workloads. It’s worth noting, too, that since public services are a state obligation funded by taxpayers, the government already controls the terms of these contracts and does not need to wait for broader legislation before changing them.

Outsourcing and interpreting

When it comes to outsourced PSI work, the rates on offer are low, but become even lower in practice. One particularly concerning trend, which appears to have received limited attention in academic literature on interpreting and in industry reports, is the practice among translation companies contracted for PSI to operate ‘virtual call centres’. In these settings, interpreters are compensated solely for the minutes they actively spend interpreting, with no remuneration for waiting times, breaks or personal necessities such as restroom use. While specific per- minute rates are not publicly disclosed, as a practising interpreter I am aware that current rates for phone interpreting range between 17 and 19 pence per minute. Given that assignments can be as brief as 15 minutes, interpreters often earn only between £3 and £4 per session, without any guarantee of additional work throughout the day or week.

Until recently the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) would book court interpreters for an entire day – or even multiple days – but only pay them for one hour if the hearing was brief, or pay them nothing at all if the hearing was cancelled at short notice. It’s a troubling contradiction from the very institution responsible for upholding justice. (Imagine the frustration of an interpreter who had already paid for transport, and probably childcare as well, to be told, ‘We do not need you any more!’). It was only after the launch of the House of Lords inquiry into court interpreting on 9 August 2024 that TheBigWord – the MOJ’s sole contractor for interpreting services – announced the introduction of a two-hour minimum payment per booking. While this is a step in the right direction, it remains inadequate, not to mention long overdue.

Considering the high level of skill required to be an interpreter, these rates seem strikingly low and potentially exploitative. It’s also worth noting that a significant proportion of UK interpreters come from migrant backgrounds. For example, 95 per cent of interpreters registered with the NRPSI in 2018 identified English as a second language.

Tender, inquiry and serious concerns

In October 2024, the MOJ issued a tender notice for interpreting and translation services – even as the House of Lords Public Services Committee continued its inquiry into court interpreting. On 2 December, Baroness Morris of Yardley, chair of the committee, wrote to Shabana Mahmood, Secretary of State for Justice, expressing serious concerns about current outsourcing arrangements.

As part of this, she highlighted issues such as poor pay and unfair cancellation policies. The committee warned that, without urgent changes, the new contract would perpetuate these problems, locking interpreters and public services into an unsustainable and ineffective system. However, during her testimony at the inquiry on 18 December, Sarah Sackman, Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, dismissed these concerns and insisted that the market should dictate interpreters’ rates of pay.

And indeed the statement I’ve received from the Department of Health, in response to concerns I raised about exploitative outsourcing practices in the NHS, says: ‘Non-NHS organisations contracted to deliver NHS services are independent and not bound to national terms and conditions like Agenda for Change. They determine pay and terms based on what is affordable within their financial models.’ This extends to interpreting services too. Yet, as a small business owner in the UK, many of my clients require me, for compliance purposes, to sign declarations stating that no exploitation occurs within my company’s work.

Ensuring rights and justice, in insecure conditions

Court interpreters play a vital role in safeguarding equality and human rights, ensuring that non-English speakers have access to justice. Yet they endure precarious working conditions, inadequate pay, and financial insecurity.

I strongly believe that an equitable distribution of risks, responsibilities and rewards could be the key to solving these issues. 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 also highlights the historical problem in the UK, where public-private partnerships often lead to the state overpaying while the private sector underperforms.

We need policymakers to acknowledge interpreters’ full humanity, equal standing in society and their right to earn an adequate income. To create change, we undoubtedly need a real alliance of academic scholars and interpreters’ and translators’ organisations along with other organisations that can also advocate for the importance of including interpreters’ perspectives in this debate and highlight the need to address the financial hardship many interpreters face from the monopolistic practices of large language service providers (LSPs). I also think it is time for interpreters and translators to consider a cooperative model – a worker-owned LSP that prioritises fair pay, ethical practices and professional autonomy (which was also discussed by Gökhan Firat’s in the April Bulletin). Such a model could challenge the status quo, allowing language professionals to collectively set standards, retain a greater share of the value they create, and make decisions in the interests of those doing the work.

It is also crucial to emphasise that scrutiny works – and we need much more of it now.

___

Fardous Bahbouh is an Arabic broadcast interpreter, voice-over artist, and PhD researcher examining structural inequality, precarious work, and the effects of outsourcing in the UK’s public service interpreting (PSI) sector. Her interdisciplinary research draws on political philosophy, economics, and critical intersectionality to explore how systemic factors shape job quality and equality outcomes. Engaging with scholars such as Mariana Mazzucato and Joseph Stiglitz, her work contributes to wider debates on labour rights, public service reform, and child poverty. Fardous’ research is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) through the White Rose College of the Arts and Humanities (Wrocah).