Translating cuts into savings isn't easy
Cuts are not the same as savings. As the country waits for the axe to fall on public expenditure, one of the big questions is what the knock-on effect of the cuts will be. Some fear that slashing budgets in one place will simply force up spending somewhere else.
I was considering this as I scanned some of the latest spending data to be .
Having done some digging and a bit of basic arithmetic, I can tell you that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) spent Β£2.57m on translation/interpretation services in the six months from June this year. The to the language companies who make their living oiling the wheels of our increasingly multicultural, multilingual society.
On the 21st of July, for instance, the taxman signed six cheques totalling Β£474,346 payable to . The same month, HMRC paid out almost Β£30,000 to the translation firm .
Keeping such expenditure under control is a government ambition. The Ministry of Justice, for example, is currently "engaging with the market to explore how interpretation and translation can be delivered more efficiently". But they can't just pull the plug on these services.
The police and courts are obliged under articles five and six of the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms to interpret or translate "for those who are arrested and who face criminal court proceedings".
However, at the same time, the government is looking to halve the amount of money spent on English classes. In October, Labour MP Keith Vaz asked the Skills Minister John Hayes: "In our multicultural big society, which is being created, what specific help will there be for those who do not have English as a first language to help them acquire these skills?"
"Language is critical", the minister replied. "The chances for people in settled communities without a grasp of English to acquire that grasp are essential if they are going to learn and work."
The key phrase in the response was "settled communities" and it has since become clear that the coalition plans to end public funding of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes for temporary migrant workers, asylum seekers and others who are not permanent residents.
Many will regard this as a sensible distinction, focusing spending on educating those who have the potential to contribute to national life over the longer-term. But there are warnings from trade unions and educationalists that the cuts will rob Peter to pay Paul.
The last week suggesting that "English language proficiency is crucial to participation in the labour market, for accessing services, and to functioning independently in everyday life" and warning that "with language courses out of reach for many migrants, it will be all the more difficult for them to escape the traps of poverty and low-waged work.".
It may also push up the costs of employing translators and interpreters to help those without good English access public services.
Back in 2006 , prompting the Labour government to initiate a review. Since then, visa rules have been amended to push up the standard of English required for those wishing to live and work in the UK. New guidance has been issued to many departments on the necessity or otherwise of providing translated material for those already here.
But as I was totting up the 42 itemised payments for interpretation and translation services by HMRC since June, I couldn't help but wonder what impact the cuts to ESOL funding will have on the size of those costs in the future.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.