Translations do not help integration, warns Kelly
The Independent
By Andrew Grice
Published: 11 June 2007
The Government has called on local authorities to encourage immigrants to learn English instead of routinely translating documents into foreign languages. Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, said translation had been used “too frequently” and could become a “crutch” which discouraged integration. The practice enabled new immigrants to avoid learning English when they first arrived - meaning they never did, she said. A report this week from the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, set up after the 7/7 bombings in London, is expected to address translation services. They are estimated to cost taxpayers more than £100m each year, with National Health Service trusts spending £55m, the courts £31m and councils £25m. Ms Kelly told BBC1’s The Politics Show yesterday that the commission would issue guidance to local authorities leading them away from “routine” translation. It would then only be used in appropriate situations, such as emergency services. She said: “I do think translation has been used too frequently and sometimes without thought to the consequences. So, for example, it’s quite possible for someone to come here from Pakistan or elsewhere in the world and find that materials are routinely translated into their mother tongue, and therefore not have the incentive to learn the language.” Ms Kelly added: “I think speaking the language is absolutely key. Something the commission looked at specifically is whether we should be translating from English into different languages as a matter of routine.” David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: “This is an attempt, albeit overdue, to deal with a very real problem.” But Andrew Stunell, the Liberal Democrats’ communities spokesman, said: “This is another wild swing in the dark by Ruth Kelly. Her government has cut access to language classes but now wants to leave vulnerable members of ethnic minority communities - many of whom are women - cut off from mainstream society and public services.”
27 responses so far ↓
Nahid Aslam // June 12, 2007 at 11:31 am
In part I would agree with Ms Kelly. But I also think Ruth Kelly needs to make funding available to those colleges and establishments were ‘English as a second language’ is being taught so that they can provide more and better English langauge classes.
People need to know the language of the country they are living in. BME organisations who are working with first generation migrants should be given funds to put on English language classes and these classes should be inspected to make sure that people are learning English and not just coming to have a blether in their own language…
People WILL learn the local language if they know that by doing so they will benefit in some material way …
Also migrants need to be encouraged to mix more with local English speakers - the wider society needs to be more welcoming / accepting / open to the newcomer.
I would like to think that humans are naturally curious and one of these curiosities is to knwo what is happening around about them. For that to happen they will WANT to learn the langauge of the wider Community - if they do not want to it is probably becaus ethey are afraid / depressed / or prevented by some other powerful person in their circle from learning the language.
Alexis Hood // June 12, 2007 at 11:37 am
I agree wtih Ruth Kelly. If I went to live abroad and could get away with leaning the language because english translations were available I would probably not learn but to become and belong to the country I was living in I should learn. So I feel true integration should mean speaking the language of the country you have chosen to live in. I feel communities embrace those who join in much more easily. Some of the money saved must go into setting up English classes in various settings and timeslots to suit all, this process needs to be introduced gradually and not overnight.
Robert Anderson // June 12, 2007 at 11:46 am
Why stop there?
Why don’t we stop doing heart by-pass operations to encourage people to look after their health better?
Why don’t we do away with speed limits and traffic lights to encourage people to drive more carefully?
Why don’t we close down all schools to encourage people to take their education more seriously?
Why don’t we just give people the help they need at the time they need it and be glad that we can?
Kathy Harden // June 12, 2007 at 11:56 am
Speaking English should certainly be one of the goals of everyone who wishes to reside in the UK. The reason has less to do with the costs of translating material than to do with exclusion issues. However, a new language is not something you can pick up in a couple of days or even months, so translating information must continue alongside the opportunity to access language courses.
ann black // June 12, 2007 at 12:02 pm
While it is beneficial for people to understand the language of the country they live in, cutt1ng access to classes and then cutting translations is not going to help. How are they going to know there are ways to learn English if the notices are all in English?
Crafty Green Poet // June 12, 2007 at 12:24 pm
People need to be helped and supported from the point when they arrive unable to speak functional English to the point where they can speak English well enough to function in their new community. This surely means translations at certain points (eg on arrival, in healthcare settings etc) and then funded support to learn English.
RaeBrady // June 12, 2007 at 12:29 pm
All the comments are valid,even tongue in cheek. If people were
taught to look after their heart they wouldn’t perhaps need a
bypass.(Or if they had their Helecobactor erradicated.)
Obviosly people should be made aware that before they come to
this country that they will experience difficulty if they
cannot speak the language.And if they are encouraged to come
becuse of friends and relatives then these people should be pre
pared to assist them. This would free up much needed resourses for others.
(I had difficult completeing this as I had to work round the blog)
So will desist from further comment.
Emma Crawshaw // June 12, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“Routine” translation would probably not cost so much if English as an Additonal Language teaching provision in higher education, schools and community setting was better valued, supported and funded.
I would be interested to know more about the research upon which the Communities Secretary bases the assertion that people have never learned English because of “too frequent” translation.
Perhaps it also mentions the part played by personal, social and institutional racism, gender discrimination and cuts to services for the most vulnerable people in society?
Perhaps it also mentions sums of money in context, for example as compared to the costs to the public of spin doctors, consultants and hairdressers paid for by the current government…..
Paul // June 12, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Like many policies designed to assist, the provision of translation services helps to perpetuate exclusion by removing incentives, in this case to integrate. The huge cost of ongoing translation services will be dwarfed by the social and economic cost of having large numbers more likely to be economically inactive and socially and culturally excluded. Presuming free classes are made available maybe the only sign required in multiple languages in a few years time will be “free english lessons here”.
Bence Solymar // June 12, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with Robert Anderson (Comment No. 3).
Keeping translation services widely available is an sensible thing to do.
If they take away a service that people can have recourse to when needed only makes them more vulnerable.
Has anyone heard about translation services being forced on people?
One of the principle characteristics of communication is that the participants of a communicative situation are actively maintaining it, ensuring the flow of communication. An interpreter is an awkward factor in it. Who would require interpertation when it is not entirely necessary?
Nina Graham // June 12, 2007 at 1:44 pm
This government is unwilling to pay qualified and experienced ESOL tutors to deliver much needed, and wanted, English language classes - funding has already been cut despite promises of easy and free access. When people have studied and paid for an ESOL qualification, why should they be expected to provide their services for free? Most ESOL tutors are volunteers.
Robina Qureshi // June 12, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Ruth Kelly and Hazel Blears want to cut translations to ‘force’ people to learn english and ‘integrate’.
Firstly, it was this government which imposed cuts on ESOL classes earlier this year – so what are they talking about?
Secondly, I have never met or heard of anyone who did not want to learn English. Even abroad, there is a clamour to learn the English language.
Thirdly, the government says that translations will be restricted to the emergency services as tens of millions are being spent on the NHS and courts. So if a woman needs an interpretor for breast cancer, is she to be told to come back when she’s learnt English? If someone is a witness in a murder enquiry, should we wait till they know English before we bring them up onto the witness stand? There is no such thing as ‘routine’ translations – and I certainly never heard of any on ‘traffic matters’ as Blears appeared to suggest.
Millions seems like a lot of money, but not on a human level, and certainly not for Britain as a multiracial society. Additionally, what they are suggesting contravenes the Race Relations Amendment Act which makes it a duty of local authorities to ensure everyone has equal access to jobs and services.
Finally, circumstances, e.g. taking care of a family or working in low paid menial work - e.g. airport and hospital cleaners, washing dishes at the back of restaurants and carryouts - has often meant that those whose first language is NOT English have very little real, meaningful, and most importantly, equal contact with the society they serve. Nor the money to pay for English classes. Hence, they are left in the underclass and unable to ‘integrate’ with mainstream society. These are the people that need most to access English whether through classes or mixing with the rest of society.
Integration is not my choice of terminology but is supposed to be a ‘two way thing’, but i don’t see mainstream society integrating right back with the very people who effectively stay poor and invisible in order that we may keep our living standards high. Mainstream society wants their labour but not a conversation.
Giuliano Simeone // June 12, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I’d like to know what concrete evidence the government has for saying that the availability of translations discourages people from learning English. I would have thought there was a good case for saying that interpreting/translating breaks down barriers to accessing public services and therefore enables people to take a first step towards playing a full part in British Society. So let’s get the facts straight before making up policy on the hoof. Frankly, this looks like more ignorant New Labour chasing a headline nonsense showing how “tough” they are on immigrants to shore up their middle England votes. Funny how we always hear about how much immigrants cost “the taxpayer”. 100 million a year sounds like pretty good value for money to me. Some of this could be funded for instance by a fairer distribution of the tax burden or a reduced reliance on consultants. I’d be interested to know what proportion of the 100m (roughly 20 olympic logos incidentally) would have been financed by scrapping Blair’s grandiose farewell tour of a grateful world. In any case if the government is that interested in encouraging migrants to learn English it might want to consider providing adequate funding for the relevant courses…
Giuliano Simeone // June 12, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Erm…it would buy you 200 olympic logos actually (never could count-sorry!)…still better value tho!
Laura Mustian // June 12, 2007 at 2:16 pm
This could only be said by someone who has never travelled, in their mind, at least, even on holiday. How narrow! How insular! how lacking in any empathy or awareness. Think of youself, Ruth Kelly,landed in Morocco, shall we say, or Greece, Russia, China or Japan, and trying to cope with the Arabic, Cyrillic, or whatever. Even if the script is familiar (and leaving aside the trauma you have suffered in your arrival and your former life, which by definition must be bad enough for you to have had to leave home) even then, think of yourself dealing with the life-, health- and liberty-threatening situations you are bound to meet with, without the visual clues of familiar writing, and the support of an enterpreter.
Yes, learning English is an essential - and how is this to be done, without free-to-user English-as-a- foreign-language couses? But courts, councils and hospitals must, in justice, translate.
Laura Mustian
Christina Soper // June 12, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I work for a refugee association and many of our clients who have recently arrived have serious mental or other health related problems and would not be able to get the help they needed without interpreters.
In my experience our clients are eager to learnt English and are already aware that not speaking it is a barrier to their integration.
If Ruth Kelly is concerned about community cohesion, surely a better strategy would be to spend more money on ESOL classes rather than make it harder for people to access services when they are already extremely isolated.
Bill Scott // June 12, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I think the idea of withdrawing translation services as a way of “encouraging” integration is a disgrace. If NHS leaflets are not translated people will die. If Council’s fail to produce translated materials some of the most vulnerable people in the country will be unaware of services - far less able to access them. This is all about the costs of translating for accession country migrants rather than building a cohesive, integrated society.
souad // June 12, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I have always believed that learning English is very important to integrate, how can local people understand us if we do not speak their language. Relying all the time on interpreters will not help, people should make an effort and join English classes.
I have been learning English since i came here and i am still learning.
I have seen people coming to these country for years but they have chosen not to go to college to learn English.
I agree partly with Ruth Kelly because learning English is not easy for an adult , it can take months or years ,so cutting funding for translation should be gradually.
Fatima Uygun // June 12, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Ruth Kelly and New Labour’s routine attacks on asylum seekers and refugees and cuts to already inadequte services for the vulnerable, poor and destitute have nothing to do with community cohesion but are another way in which to subsidise their bloody war. The 100million will go towards more killing machines in Iraq and Afganistan no doubt?
Tesfu Gessesse // June 13, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I think it is very important that immigrants/new arrivals learn the language and culture of the host country. However forcing people to learn English without taking into account their general welfare and wellbeing is not the solution to harmonisation. Ms Kelly needs to learn from the Swedish government how it caters for the welfare of its citizens including minority ethnic people. She can also learn from Canada in terms of the government’s commitment to the provision of interpretation and translation services to minority ethnic people and how it encourages the development of various minority ethnic languages in Canada. In my view the experiences of Sweden and Canada would be a better way to go about harmonisation rather than Ms Kelly’s current proposal.
John Perry // June 13, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I agree with many of the comments, including much of what Robina says.
One point not yet made is that the speech is a prelude to the report of the Singh Commission on integration and cohesion. When their interim report came out in March, a similar thing happened - all the publicity focused on people learning English. Whereas the report itself had a lot of good material on tackling deprivation, etc.
I think Ruth Kelly is putting a spin on the forthcoming report that will be attractive to the press - instead of focussing on the real substance of the report, which I expect will have many good recommendations. This is a shame, as a more intelligent debate is needed on cohesion issues and the government should be leading it .
Hakeem Lateef // June 13, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Well, I have mixed feelings. Yes, it is very imperative for new migrants to learn english. But, perhaps there are some disincentives that make them not wanting to learn english. If I find myself in an environment where I do not understand their language, and I have to survive by speaking their language, then I must learn to speak that language-that is natural. By interacting with the poeple I will learn to speak their language fast. But this also depends on how accommodating and inviting and friendly the natives are. But when migrants are being spoon-fed or made to beleive there is no imperative to learn the native language by providing translations and the rest, then they will not aspire to learn it. And integration will be hampered.
My impression with the society here is that few people are not interested in helping migrants learn english because of the negative perception of migrants by some poeple. In that case, institutional centres to learn the language becomes important and the government must fund such institutions as part of the integration process. However, compulsory knowledge of english language should have a caveat. The new Home Office guidelines which exempt some poeple from this obligation is welcome. Not everyone is capable of learning due to physical and mental impairment. These category of poeple must not be discriminated against in society. Therefore, government must make allowance for these poeple with language difficulty in public affairs. Apart from educational institutions to learn english, these poeple might benefit from mentoring by english speakers who, with patience, can teach them how to communicate in english from day-to-day. The host community must be reorientated to see immigrants in good light and offer hands of freindship, which will promote better integration and improve their ability to speak english. Unfortunately, government has always tended to focus their efforts on immigrants alone. A little admonition to the host from time to time will help change attitudes and improve relations thereby developing further integration and mastering of the language by immigrants.
Prof Bernard Crick // June 14, 2007 at 9:31 am
I was chair of the advisory group (half new Brits, half Old, half men, half women) who produced the the “New and the Old” report on which the government based the new regulations for citizenship. We put great emphasis on language teaching with a citizenship content (most useful information relevant to settlement and integration). Our report explicitly took a multitural appraoch not at all assimilationist. Ministers accepted our recommendations that a low level of progress in ESOL classes was sufficient for citizenship. Only those with good enough English already could take the formal machine-readable Test instead of classes.
Bernard Crick // June 14, 2007 at 9:56 am
As far as they go I think Ruth Kelly’s guidance on translation is sensible. People only get to a multiingual document or sign if they know what they are looking for and then some friend can translate. The omeny could be better spent.
ESOL provision is inadequate. The “New and the Old” report (whose advisory group I chaired — half old Brits, half new Brits, half women, half men) recommended increased funding for ESOL. This has not happened in the UK as a whole, but a bit better in Scotland. Our recommendations of a fairly easy language qualification for naturalisatoion (based on progress in ESOL classes not a single standard of English for employment in an English-speaking employmeny situation) were accepted by Ministers
(the good side to Blunkett compared to his toughness on asylum). Only those who believe they have enough English already need take the formal Test, the machine-redable test. But we recommended that they should have either some extra-mural citizenship classes first or some voluntary work in an english-speaking environment. These were turned down on grounds of cost. Without them I have called the Test “little better than a pub quiz”, because we explicitly defended multiculturalism as integratioin (a two way business!) rather than assimilation. Also we found in oiur work that many immigrants, including many long settled, hadn’t a clue what the requirements for naturalisation are or their entitlement to free language classes. So we recommened a targetted publicity campaign in ethnic languages. This also was turned down on grounds of cost.
Some of the money wasted on often token local government translations could be put to better use.
The helpful paradox is that naturalisation is a United Kingdom reserved power but that the implementation of language and community support are devolved matters. Scotland already does a wee bit better than England and has the powers to do more.
Mahamad Al Shagra // June 15, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I agree fully with Ruth Kelly…If less than half of that amount was divided between official translations and teaching English…Integration would have been advanced to a far much better level.
A. Evans // June 18, 2007 at 9:41 am
It is all well and good that the Minister wants to instruct Councils to not translate documents but her intervention does not appreciate or is indeed sensitive to the wider issues - surprising for a government minister. Where it is essential for employers to employ migrants for jobs that cannot be filled by the indiginous population, it is inevitable that not all will have a command of the english language. Employers from day one need to be able to communicate health & safety sissues as well as employment terms in a language the employer can understand. Also, for newcomers to the UK they need to be helped to understand our systems and processes and how you access a variety of services. Given that ESOL provision is not adequately developed throughout the UK and agencies do not have the resources to manage the language barriers I would have thought Councils should take the lead to try and help break downsome of the barriers, including myths that have been stated by people who do not fully understand all the issues. I suggest the minister tries harder to speak to a wider range of people who are confronted by the difficulties and promotes a more diverse communities that are based on something more than a typically monolinguistic society that she is currently promoting.
Joan Weir // June 19, 2007 at 11:31 am
Interpreters and translated materials are essential elements for equal access for many people, even those with “adequate” English, to many areas of life and public services. I’m an English language teacher and also a former interpreter trainer. The two areas are complementary, not either or. There have never been enough trained interpreters - if they are obligatory in court why not in other important contexts. Just imagine yourself in any situation where it’s important to understand and make yourself understood. How would you feel if you have to use another language?
Leave a Comment