The Argus of Sussex – that well-known racially and culturally tolerant, egalitarian county – has an article bemoaning the fact that “hundreds of learner drivers need interpreters”. In a muck-raking FOI exercise, it says that nearly 1,000 people “had to have” interpreters on their driving tests.
I doubt that the DSA information went into such minute detail (it rarely does – because it doesn’t need to), but there is a world of difference between “had to have” an interpreter and “chose to have” an interpreter. And yet The Argus bases its rant on the premise that none of these people could speak a word of English!
A few simple sums are also in order, I think. Looking at the year between April 2010 and March 2011, the Sussex test centres conducted at least 35,000 tests (not including Lancing and Brighton figures). Even if we round up “nearly” 1,000 to “actually” 1,000 interpreters on test, it still only equates to about 3%. The words “big” and “deal” spring to mind.
The Argus joins the dots in its story by claiming that they used interpreters “because they didn’t have a strong enough command of English”. How can it possibly know this?
If your first language isn’t English, there isn’t much you can do about it. You may be able to get by in normal life with a bit of arm-waving and a few laughs with your mates, but if you’ve got a driving test coming up – on which your future employment prospects might rest – given the opportunity to use an interpreter in your native tongue, you are going to take advantage of it unless you’re a complete fool. And why shouldn’t you?
Of course, the average Sussex resident – after having raised his Union Jack on his flagpole of a morning, and then gone to fetch his copy of the Daily Mail – will have made certain assumptions about the story. But he’d be wrong – the most popular languages requested appear to be Polish, Turkish, and Arabic. Gujarati, Urdu, and Hindi were way down the list.
The Argus points out that interpreters have to be supplied (and paid for) by the candidate. Obviously disappointed by this, it goes on to point out that the cost of the translation from English to various languages for the theory test questions is met by the tax payer. What it means is that the DSA pays for it, but since the DSA is a government body, WE pay for it.
All of this is being fomented by Mike Penning and his war on “politically correct” foreign language tests (this also needs translating: Penning is a Tory, and it is vital that every change be blamed on Labour, who introduced some of the things he is trying to reverse). Penning is stupidly arguing that people whose first language isn’t English are a danger on the roads purely because they don’t speak English too well.
Fortunately, intelligent life still exists somewhere – in this case, at the AA. Andrew Howard, Head of Road Safety, said:
…he did not feel drivers who didn’t speak English would pose a road safety threat.
He said: “Fundamentally road signs are designed to be symbolic and so reading ability isn’t a factor.”
He’s almost completely right. Far Eastern drivers do have a problem, though. I had a Chinese pupil a few years ago, and when she panicked she “saw things in Chinese”. On one occasion this led to her missing a 30mph sign. But for almost everyone else who uses Arabic numerals, it isn’t a problem.
So, The Argus is just stirring up racial prejudice, it would seem. Not intentionally, I’m sure.