In this work, I build on my proposed theory of change for the translation and interpreting sector. It examines the structure and role of the umbrella organisation Professional Interpreters for Justice (PI4J) within outsourced public service interpreting, as part of a broader effort to repoliticise interpreting and translation labour and to analyse the structural organisation of outsourced labour systems.

I argue that intellectual honesty and genuine representation require PI4J to critically reassess its structure and published statements that normalised outsourcing while failing to advocate for enforceable protections or meaningful accountability mechanisms. These assumptions must be reconsidered in light of empirical evidence and, crucially, the Government’s own acknowledgement that the current UK labour framework does not fully prevent worker exploitation, even within publicly funded outsourcing and procurement arrangements.

This analysis is developed in two parts. The first article focuses on the institutional structure and internal hybridity of PI4J. The second article examines the collaboration between PI4J and the Association of Translation Companies (ATC), an interest group representing translation companies often referred to as language service providers (LSPs). Together, they issued the Working Together document, which frames public service interpreting as an “interdependent ecosystem” and attributes sector problems primarily to fragmentation, procurement complexity, and economic pressures, while promoting stakeholder collaboration as the principal route to reform. The second article argues that this framing requires critical reassessment because it advocates the continuation of outsourcing while shifting responsibility away from outsourcing structures, intermediary contracting models, and LSP practices.

PI4J presents itself as representing the interests of interpreters and translators. However, within PI4J there is significant institutional hybridity. The Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI) is a professional body whose membership includes both individual practitioners and organisations operating within the language services market, including LSPs. This raises a structural question about whether a single organisation can simultaneously represent the interests of interpreters while also accommodating the interests of employers and intermediaries within the same governance space.

PI4J also includes the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL), which provides commercially operated training, examinations, and certification pathways. This creates an overlap between professional representation and qualification provision, where institutional incentives are also shaped by the expansion and uptake of certification frameworks. In a context where pay and working conditions in public service interpreting are often low and unstable, this raises questions about how professionalisation agendas intersect with the economic realities faced by practitioners and institutional incentives.

Similarly, PI4J includes the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI), which operates as an independent voluntary regulator while also lobbying for statutory recognition as the official regulator and for mandatory membership for practitioners in public service interpreting. This creates a structural tension in which interpreters contribute financially to regulatory and accreditation systems that are closely tied to the governance of the outsourced labour market in which they work. Comparable international models differ significantly; for example, in Australia, interpreting accreditation is publicly funded and administered rather than financed through practitioner membership fees.

Of particular significance is the inclusion of two trade union branches within PI4J’s membership: the National Union of British Sign Language Interpreters (NUBSLI) (a branch of Unite the Union) and the National Union of Professional Interpreters and Translators (NUPIT), (also a branch of Unite the Union). This reflects the extent to which sector-wide reform coalitions have developed within an overarching acceptance of outsourced service delivery as the prevailing organisational model. It raises important questions about how labour representation operates within governance frameworks that do not fundamentally challenge outsourcing structures, and how such frameworks may inadvertently reinforce the role of intermediary providers as central actors in policy solutions.

The term “Professional Interpreters for Justice” itself also warrants scrutiny. The designation “professional” is not neutral in this context, as it is often implicitly aligned with specific institutional pathways, particularly CIOL qualifications and NRPSI registration. This risks excluding other highly qualified practitioners, including those with university degrees, postgraduate training, and extensive professional experience in public service interpreting.

Overall, this combination of professional, commercial, regulatory, and labour representation functions within a single umbrella structure reflects a form of institutional hybridity that complicates claims of representation. It raises important questions about how representation, standard-setting, and market participation intersect in shaping the governance of public service interpreting, and why these intersections require greater ethical and structural scrutiny.

So, does PI4J function as a unified representative voice, or as a structurally hybrid space in which representation is inherently contested? This is a crucial question for institutional reflection, and a necessary step before meaningful change is even possible.

In the coming article, I will focus on the politically significant collaboration between PI4J and ATC in producing the Working Together document.

About the author
Fardous Bahbouh is a researcher and broadcast interpreter specialising in labour rights and the political economy of the translation and interpreting industry. Alongside her academic research, she continues to work with agencies and production companies that value interpreters and translators and provide fair working conditions. She also runs a small translation company and does not generalise critiques of unfair intermediaries to all translation companies or agencies.

Blog Image

Anton Grabolle / https://betterimagesofai.org / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/