https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-technical-review-of-qualifications-and-experience-requirements-for-the-provision-of-spoken-language-interpreting/independent-technical-review-of-qualifications-and-experience-requirements-for-the-provision-of-spoken-language-interpreting
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. […]
