Lack of English Language Skills Should Not Mark Someone Out As Second Class

Advocating professionalism in public service interpreting – especially in these days when all should have access to government announcements, changing rules, the criminal justice system and effective healthcare, no matter the perceived hindrance to comprehension or barrier to justice or healthcare

Lack of English language skills can represent a hindrance or barrier for many citizens or minority language speakers involved in dealings with the public sector, principally in the criminal justice system as well as medical settings – and particularly today as we go through tough Covid-19 times.

 While state resources are clearly not limitless, it is nevertheless critical to set public sector funding priorities on the basis of commitments to quality-principles, not just supply and cost considerations; especially when lives are at stake. The pressure to save money or recoup costs should not be allowed to insidiously undermine the principle of non-discriminatory access to public services and should certainly not hinder access to justice for all and free and clear access to medical services. 

 If someone does not speak English and need to access public services they need a professional, trained, qualified, experienced, independently validated public service interpreter; particularly relevant when focusing on access to advice regarding protection through this Covid-19 crisis.

 Much of the arcane debate in the language services ecosystem has been about models of service delivery and this debate is almost always a thinly veiled attempt to justify cost-cutting and filling the need for a slot to be filled (supply issues in procurement terms) at the expense of accessibility to quality service by the public.

 As a result, a high number of qualified interpreters have left the profession as they do not intend to work for the rates of pay offered by the privately owned agencies which have as their core principle the need to stimulate profit and dividends for shareholders at the expense of quality public service provision. As Adam Smith posited, the interests of the business person will always be at odds with the public interest.

 Such approaches from penny-pinching procurement in public services linked with the drive to sweep up funds from the public purse and squeeze professional self-employed practitioners has continued to affect the quality of interpreting and the exercise of justice itself as well as equitable healthcare delivery; moreover, the expertise and experience gathered over decades has been lost as professionals are driven out of the language services community to be replaced by pseudo or ersatz interpreters. The commercial provider’s introduction of tiers – along with other restrictive terms and conditions – and the drastic reduction of pay rates have been forcing professional interpreters to leave the profession.

 In some public sector situations, so called ‘interpreters’ are too often individuals who are bilinguals with no qualifications, linguists who have academic qualifications but no professional Public Service Interpreting (PSI) qualifications, have lower-grade community interpreting qualifications or they have the right degree-level PSI qualifications but little experience. For instance, when it comes to NHS settings, it is far too often that non-English speakers have to rely on bilingual friends or family for some form of interpreting, even when the consultation could easily be a life-threatening situation.

 No amount of oath-swearing in the court or deep affection for a loved one in a doctor’s consulting room can guarantee the requisite quality of accurate interpreting from a pseudo or ersatz interpreter who does not have the necessary competency.

 There are several reasons why un-qualified, semi-qualified and under-qualified interpreters are called upon to interpret in the courtroom or in police interviews or in a possibly life-threatening doctors’ consulting room. It may be difficult to find a suitable qualified, experienced and accredited interpreter within a reasonable time – a supply issue; availability of Registered Public Service Interpreters (RPSIs) at short notice cannot always be guaranteed, especially as many have been driven away from the profession as already discussed. An outsourced engagement agency could have a contract to deliver under-specified and inadequate interpreting services, and, in the interests of creating profits and dividends for owners, have a closed list of pseudo or ersatz interpreters; commercial reasons displacing quality imperatives.

 There seems to be, too often, a perception that costs will be saved by having a single point of contact for interpreter bookings and payment and that supply and cost far outweigh quality when it comes to public service interpreting. Commercial entities are effectively awarded a commercial monopoly for all language services offered to a public service, under which it would function as de facto coordinator and by proxy act as a commercial regulator of their own list of suppliers of interpreting language services. Consequently, the interpreters on the commercial list run by a privately owned company are certainly not independently validated nor proven to be appropriately qualified or experienced, nor are the lists visible for public scrutiny.

 In stark contrast to the existing standards enshrined in NRPSI, often these commercial arrangements allow unqualified or under-qualified and inexperienced bilinguals and linguists to practise in the public sector, leading to possible miss-trials and at worst, inadequate health provision leading to tragic consequences. This lowering of minimum standards is a direct consequence of introducing these tiered systems, which places interpreters and interpreting assignments into ‘tiers’ according to often ill-defined needs for the engagement and poor assessment of interpreters’ skills and qualifications; flawed design of tiered structures does not reflect the realities of the work and actually allows agencies to supply unqualified and under-qualified individuals drawn from the lowest tiers.

 NRPSI continues to prove itself to be a necessary tool for safeguarding the quality of legal interpreting, calling the public sector and private agencies to task for allowing falling standards to operate in their respective language services arenas

 In existence since 1994, NRPSI stresses the following aspects of PSI: performance standards (in terms of accuracy and completeness) and interpreters’ ethical conduct as members of the profession (in terms of confidentiality and integrity) based on verified qualifications, validated experience and ID as well as clearance checks and the adherence to an agreed Code of Conduct and Practice.

 Registered Public Service Interpreters are in the main not employees but independent individuals who have undergone rigorous training, with accompanying accreditation. They are bound by the Code of Conduct driving their professional practice and are expected to demonstrate a high level of expertise and professionalism at all times.

 NRPSI has been and is certainly today an important driver towards the regulation and professionalisation of all PSIs in the UK and endeavours to meet the unquestionable need for qualified public service interpreters as quickly as possible without jeopardising quality and standards through a publicly available register of independently validated and verified Registered Public Service Interpreters.

 There needs to be a cohesive voice explicitly recognising and identifying the public’s right to a RPSI who is independently verified to be competent as an interpreter for individuals who do not speak English. It needs to stress ensuring compliance with independent professional standards and the acceptance of and use of the recognised Code of Conduct and Practice.

 NRPSI ensures interpreting services are delivered by properly trained interpreters, contributing to safeguarding human and democratic rights whereas unregistered, unregulated, inadequately trained or untrained pseudo or ersatz interpreters can potentially trigger disastrous results.

 NRPSI is a beacon, continuing the work that still needs to be done. It is all the more necessary that language services institutions, associations, unions, membership clubs, language academics, professional practitioners, seriously minded public services’ management, the police and judiciaries, solicitors and barristers as well as NHS professionals continue cooperating and collaborating with determined will-power to further the cause of equal access to quality public sector interpreting. Make it mandatory for public services to use only RPSIs and make it a statutory requirement that if an interpreter is working with public services that they need to be a RPSI.

Mike Orlov

25th June 2020