THE recent call by the Government's then Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly for local authorities to move away from routinely translating documents into languages other than English should be opposed on moral grounds since doing so will adversely impact on black and minority ethnic minorities communities.

She correctly accepts that there is a need for interpretation in some circumstances. Indeed, it is a sign of a fair society that people receive translation assistance, for example, when having to make decisions relating to their medical treatment.

The alternative might mean the use of inappropriate interpreters which runs contrary to the right to confidentiality and dignity. Although it isn't just in medical emergencies that interpretation is needed. It is necessary for people who are in contact with a wide range of public authorities to be provided with support in navigating often complex issues.

Public authorities would themselves be unwise to cease translation services because they benefit from their availability. They aid the efficiency of their work with ethnic communities, and more importantly are inclusive in ensuring a level playing field.

It could result in more expense, for example, if local authority environmental health officers move to prosecution because they have not been able to communicate essential requirements.

There is also a failure to acknowledge the immense economic contribution of BME communities both in businesses and as essential workers particularly in the health, construction and transport sectors. In this context the loss of translation will be financially counter-productive as any initiative savings will be off-set by other costs.

Far from being a crutch that prevents integration translation services are vital to ensuring social inclusion.

Any retreat from providing them will impact on the ability of black and minority ethnic communities to fully participate in society. Which is a loss for all of us.

VANDNA GOHIL, director, Voice4Change England.