Published 17 March 2025
Independent Technical Review of Qualifications and Experience Requirements for the Provision of Spoken Language Interpreting
[…] Executive Summary
This report, undertaken between March and September 2022, reviews the technical qualifications and experience requirements for spoken language interpreters deployed on MoJ assignments. It is part of a wider policy review of language services commissioned by Lord Wolfson in early 2022 following concerns raised by the profession about the standards of interpreting in courts. Proposals for a new qualifications framework are included in a separate annex.
[…] Recommendations
Recommendation 1: In recognition of the specialist nature of interpreting work, the title of interpreter should be used in all contexts and documentation relating to MoJ contracted interpreting services. For ease of use or reference, in this context only, the title refers to those who are professionally qualified, community level interpreters or, exceptionally, others providing an interpreting service within the limits of this contract.
Recommendation 2: National and international qualifications frameworks recognise the equivalent of RQF Level 6 as the standard required for professional activity. This level defines the knowledge and skills required to undertake professional activity and assignments. Language frameworks and related language assessment schemes have been mapped against these frameworks. Equivalences, although not always absolute, can be drawn to demonstrate in each case where professional standards are met. The key, relevant language standard in this respect is the CEFR level C1. These professional levels and standards should be used when defining standards for MoJ language services.
Recommendation 3: Interpreting standards exist nationally and internationally to describe the competences, knowledge and skills required to undertake professional legal interpreting work. These are based on principles derived from study, research and practice and provide a theoretical framework for the development of qualifications, the mapping of educational programmes and the management of professional activities. A professional standard, RQF Level 6 or CEFR C1, is the equivalent of a Bachelors degree programme. A community standard, RQF Level 3, is the equivalent of a UK A-Level and provides for interpreting in community settings. Each standard has one or more established and respected qualifications accrediting interpreters with the knowledge, skills and techniques, including language skills, modes of interpreting and specialist sector expertise, at the relevant standard. MoJ should consider applying these recognised standards, at two levels, to the provision of MoJ interpreting services recognising both a professional and community level.
Recommendation 4: Interpreters who do not meet the minimum community standard equivalent to RQF Level 3, or are unable to present suitable equivalent evidence and/or experience, should not be included in the MoJ interpreters’ listing. They should be encouraged to undertake training or development to qualify at community level. This guarantees a base-line competence and reassurances on fairness and justice to all stakeholders within MoJ language services delivery.
Recommendation 5: An analysis of interpreter registrations where qualifications are only partially completed should be undertaken to reveal the causes. Where this is due to a different script and lack of reading/writing skills, consideration should be given to where and how the interpreter is best deployed. In cases of intentional non-completion for the purpose of reaching minimum registration requirements, processes should be identified and implemented to encourage interpreters to become fully qualified. This might include time-limiting registration until full completion is achieved.
Recommendation 6: An experience requirement should apply to all registrations across all languages and all levels. In exceptional circumstances, where qualification and/or experience requirements cannot be met, but use of an interpreting resource is unavoidable, additional measures should be applied during preparation for the assignment, to assess performance and manage any potential risk to MoJ.
Recommendation 7: The move to use of remote interpreting services, exemplified by the response to Coronavirus restrictions, requires an additional interpreter skillset in respect of technical skills and practice. Interpreters should receive training or CPD on the specifics of the MoJ Cloud-Video-Platform (CVP) and longer term be assessed on remote interpreting as part of the skillset requirements.
Recommendation 8: Experience requirements should reflect the challenges of delivering a language service in a complex setting where a multiplicity of languages is required. Where possible, experience levels should be the same across all languages, be set at a level where this is achievable and be sufficiently flexible for experience to be evidenced in a variety of ways, from worked assignments and live experience to a range of other supplementary or developmental activities.
Recommendation 9: Set an experience requirement that recognises different routes to registration either through qualification plus experience or through experience alone. An experience alone route should require a higher number of hours of experience as a substitute for qualification. Required hours should take into account widely accepted professional standards adapted to the context of a complex service delivery environment.
Recommendation 10: MoJ to coordinate activity with the profession, suppliers and stakeholders to identify rare languages with higher numbers of interpreters with the aim of developing qualifications and/or assessments, reducing the rare language list and increasing the number of interpreters with professional qualifications.
Recommendation 11: Explore the potential for RQF Level 3 (or equivalent) qualification, or if necessary, a specially prepared equivalent level assessment, to be used to assess the knowledge and skills of all rare language interpreters who do not have formal qualifications at this level to provide a base-line assurance of interpreting service quality.
Recommendation 12: A three-tier system of complexity levels is overly complicated particularly when there is a level of opaqueness about how levels are allocated. There is a resulting challenge in ensuring that the interpreter requirement properly matches the assignment type and its designated complexity level. Consideration should be given to reducing this to two tiers in line with recognised professional and community interpreting standards.
Recommendation 13: A new framework aligned to professional and community standards must use common terminology when referencing both assignments and interpreter requirements to ensure that standards, qualifications, skills and experience are clearly defined and that there is common understanding of the standards by all stakeholders.
Recommendation 14: Review the guidance on complexity levels and interpreter requirements that is available for those booking interpreters and update, or create new documentation with input from the profession so there is greater clarity for those requiring and booking interpreters concerning assignment types, levels, standards and skills.
Recommendation 15: Consider reducing the number of assignment types, in consultation with interpreting and legal professionals, to reduce repetition and create a simplified set of assignment types where allocation to one of the two standards (professional/community) can be achieved with greater clarity.
Recommendation 16: To obtain a full understanding of the extent to which interpreter requirements, complexity levels and fulfilment work together and whether quality standards are maintained, a more extensive data set is required including a breakdown by language and by complexity level.
Recommendation 17: MoJ to consider how knowledge and expertise held by bookings officers and managers is managed and retained over time, considering succession planning, recruitment and training and development of new staff.
Recommendation 18: Future framework arrangements should provide for the recording centrally of all downgraded, exceptional and off-contract deployments. An exceptions policy would help to ensure that additional measures can be applied to such bookings and that extra quality assurance processes are in place where an interpreter is engaged outside the specified standards, levels and qualification requirements. The aim overall must be to reduce the number of off-contract bookings.
Recommendation 19: Adding further details to the booking offer including a case overview, particular skills required or any significant features of an assignment (e.g. distressing/disturbing content or high media profile) would ensure that a booked interpreter is fully aware of the context and content of the case and prevent unnecessary delays or cancellations. […]
No comments:
Post a Comment