Lost in Translation, Left in Danger: Kent’s Proposed Interpreter Cuts

Reform UK and Restore Britain want Kent County Council to change how it pays for translators and interpreters. But who pays the price if a vulnerable child cannot explain that they’re being abused, exploited or trafficked?

Kent County Council (KCC) will debate two motions on Thursday, 5 November, which could change how thousands of people who struggle with English communicate with the council.

Reform UK wants residents to pay for their own interpreters or use translation apps wherever possible. Restore Britain wants council information and communications to be in English unless the law requires otherwise.

Both say services required by law would continue. Neither motion would bring about immediate cuts. Instead, councillors are being asked to recommend reviews that could lead to changes later.

But there’s a much bigger question here. What happens when someone cannot explain that they’re frightened, being abused or need help?

Two political groups, one direction

Reform UK’s motion, proposed by Cllr Sarah Emberson and seconded by Cllr Garry Sturley (both pictured), argues that taxpayers shouldn’t routinely pay for interpretation.

   

Its supporting paper criticises the “nanny state” and suggests people should take greater responsibility for communicating in English.

Restore Britain’s motion, proposed by Cllr Paul Thomas and seconded by Cllr Brian Black (both pictured), takes a different approach. It wants a full review of translation spending, an English-first policy and annual publication of costs.

   

Restore also wants the findings reported within six months.

Both would protect British Sign Language services, while Reform also specifically protects Braille.

There’s nothing unreasonable about checking how public money is spent.

But translating a routine council leaflet is very different from helping a frightened child explain to a social worker that they’ve been abused.

And that distinction matters enormously.

What happens when a child cannot explain they’re in danger?

The Shepway Vox Team contacted Dr Razia Shariff (pictured), chief executive of Canterbury-based Kent Refugee Action Network (KRAN), about the proposals.

KRAN works with young refugees and asylum seekers, including children who’ve arrived in Britain without parents or other adults to care for them.

Shariff’s initial responses, provided while she consults her staff, raise serious concerns.

Many of these young people have only recently arrived in Britain. They may have experienced violence, trafficking, exploitation or frightening journeys. They often speak little English and don’t understand the systems meant to protect them.

“There are serious safeguarding implications if they cannot understand what they are being told by their social worker/PA,” Shariff told The Shepway Vox Team.

Safeguarding simply means protecting children and vulnerable people from harm.

Imagine a 15-year-old who has been trafficked into Britain. They’re frightened, confused and unable to speak English.

A social worker needs to establish what’s happened, whether they’re safe and what help they need.

Would a translation app be enough?

Shariff doesn’t believe so.

She explains that computer translation can help with simple conversations but is unsuitable for more complicated and sensitive discussions, particularly involving abuse or trafficking.

Even professional interpreters can struggle with different dialects. Arabic spoken in Sudan, for example, may differ considerably from other forms of Arabic.

And trauma can make understanding and communicating even harder.

Getting something wrong could mean missing a warning that a child is in danger.

The £1.2 million that needs explaining

Reform UK’s financial figures deserve closer attention.

Its motion states that KCC’s Oracle financial system recorded £183,438.25 in interpretation and translation spending over the previous 12 months.

But 52.7% of that spending was for British Sign Language and Kent Deaf Interpretation Service support.

Those are services Reform says it wants to protect.

The same paper admits that other translation spending is hidden across different council budgets, sometimes recorded simply as professional fees.

In other words, KCC doesn’t yet know its total spending on interpreters and translators.

Reform also identifies £1.2 million spent on translation services for children seeking asylum who arrived without parents or carers.

That’s a substantial amount of money.

But the paper acknowledges that some of these costs may be covered by government grants.

It doesn’t explain how much the Home Office reimburses, how much KCC actually pays from its own funds or how much could genuinely be saved.

Nor does it establish whether the £1.2 million overlaps with the smaller Oracle figure.

Shariff wants those questions answered too.

She asks how the spending compares with the Home Office funding KCC receives for each child.

And there’s another question: could cutting interpretation actually cost more if mistakes lead to failed assessments, legal challenges or children being placed at risk?

Until councillors have those answers, they cannot reliably say what savings these proposals would deliver.

Kent has been here before — and lost in court

KCC has already been found to have broken the law in its treatment of children seeking asylum.

In January 2020, the High Court ruled that the council had unlawfully assessed the age of a young Afghan asylum seeker.

The council had treated him as an adult without allowing properly for the possibility that its assessment was wrong.

The court ordered a fuller assessment.

The case, AB v Kent County Council, wasn’t about translation. It was about the dangers of getting an assessment wrong when a young person’s rights depend on it.

Then came a much bigger defeat.

In July 2023, the High Court ruled in ECPAT UK v Kent County Council that KCC had unlawfully failed to take responsibility for children arriving in Kent without parents or carers.

The council had argued that it couldn’t cope with the numbers.

The court made clear that its legal duties to children couldn’t simply be set aside.

KCC was required to protect them regardless of where they came from or how stretched its resources were.

These cases happened before Reform UK took control of the council in May 2025.

But today’s administration is bound by the same laws.

The Children Act 1989 requires councils to assess and meet the needs of children in their care.

That means understanding what a child needs in the first place.

And how can anyone do that properly if they cannot communicate?

Who decides whether a child needs an interpreter?

Both motions allow interpretation where it’s legally necessary.

That sounds reassuring.

But Shariff identifies a serious weakness.

Many young people arriving in Britain don’t know their rights. They may not realise they’re entitled to help or know how to ask for it.

She worries that deciding whether an interpreter is needed could be left to individual council officers.

She describes the proposals as creating a “slippery slope of insufficient protection for essential I&T in practice”.

There’s also the question of money.

These young people receive limited allowances for their basic needs. Expecting them to pay for professional interpreters is hardly realistic.

And while the law doesn’t require councils to provide an interpreter for every conversation, it does require them to carry out their duties properly.

Where an interpreter is needed to make a fair assessment or protect a child, KCC must ensure communication is effective.

The danger is that a child might be denied help before anyone has properly established what help they need.

Have the people affected even been asked?

Shariff says she’s unaware of any consultation on the proposed English-first policy.

She believes young asylum seekers should receive interpretation for important conversations affecting their lives for at least their first year in Britain.

Both motions acknowledge that KCC would need to examine how changes might affect different groups of people.

That’s important because the Equality Act 2010 requires public bodies to consider whether their decisions could unfairly disadvantage people.

Although language itself isn’t specifically protected under that Act, a policy could still unfairly affect people because of their race or disability.

KCC would also need to consider whether a public consultation is legally required before making changes.

Legislation.gov.uk

And where consultation is required, the Supreme Court has made clear that people must be given enough information, enough time and a genuine opportunity to influence the outcome.

A consultation cannot simply be a decision already made with a questionnaire attached.

So how will KCC consult people who cannot read or understand the language in which the consultation is written?

The real price of saving money

Nobody is suggesting councils should waste money.

Checking contracts, spending and unnecessary costs is sensible.

But before KCC changes its approach, councillors need to know what interpretation actually costs, how much is paid by government grants, which services are legally necessary and what happens if vulnerable people cannot communicate.

Most importantly, they need to listen to the people whose lives could be affected.

KCC has already learned in court that it cannot escape its duty to protect vulnerable children simply because money is tight.

Tomorrow’s debate will show whether those lessons have been understood.

Because saving money on an interpreter is no saving at all if the price is a child whose cry for help nobody understands.

The Shepway Vox Team

Not Owned By Barons, Hedgefunds or Offshore