FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Translators and interpreters
CIOL, ITI and NRPSI have each published views on AI, but none has issued a binding AI rule for translators or interpreters. Their guidance still shapes what clients, buyers and courts treat as reasonable professional practice.
Part of: AI in Translators and interpreters
In short
There is no statutory regulator for UK translators and interpreters. CIOL's AI Voices papers (2023 and 2025) and a 2025 speech stress human oversight in high-stakes work and say AI is not accountable for its output. ITI's AI Working Group reported to its Board on 3 September 2024, urging members to engage with AI and suggesting risk-based workflows. NRPSI's 5 March 2026 article calls for regulation, human oversight and data safeguards in public service interpreting. None is a binding rule, but buyers such as the Ministry of Justice and NHS England set their own expectations on accuracy, confidentiality and safety.
Anyone can call themselves a translator or interpreter in the UK. There is no statutory regulator and no statutory AI rule. Standards come from three professional bodies, CIOL, ITI and NRPSI, and from the public bodies and companies that buy language services. Each professional body has a code of professional conduct, and their general duties apply to AI-assisted work. What the bodies have published on AI is guidance, research and advocacy.
The Chartered Institute of Linguists has published two collections and a speech that together set out its view. The AI Voices white paper, published in late 2023 and introduced by the Chair of CIOL Council, makes several points:
AI Voices 2025 refreshes the collection, with contributors including GCHQ linguists and academics from Surrey and Bristol. Its tone is that AI is "a capability we need to shape" rather than something to ban.
In its 2025 Translators Day speech, CIOL called AI the biggest challenge facing translators. It said precision and accountability remain essential in certified, legal, contractual, governmental and public service translation, and that AI "is not accountable" for its output, so responsibility rests with people. It warned that LLMs can amplify bias and perform worse in less-resourced languages, including many UK community languages, and said it will advocate for qualified linguists with government.
The Institute of Translation and Interpreting's Board approved Terms of Reference for an AI Working Group on 12 September 2023. They treat generative AI as a strategic priority, commit ITI to "champion the value of human translators and interpreters", and make clear the group can only make recommendations.
The Phase 1 Report to the Board, dated 3 September 2024, argues that clients will use AI regardless, so members must engage with it. It says core skills matter more than ever: understanding the brief, research and critical evaluation. Because clients find quality hard to judge, it suggests a risk-based approach to choosing workflows. It also flags the EU AI Act. These documents do not set an ITI Code provision specific to AI, disclosure or post-editing.
NRPSI's article on AI, dated 5 March 2026, notes that AI speech recognition, automated translation and AI transcription are increasingly used in public services. It points to Ministry of Justice interpreter guidance, which stresses accuracy, impartiality and confidentiality "linked to fair trial rights", and cites ISO 13611:2014, which favours trained human interpreters for complex, interactive and culturally sensitive communication. It calls for regulation, human oversight in high-stakes settings, data protection safeguards and continuing professional accountability. It is an article, not a rule.
NRPSI also backed University of Birmingham research into the impact of AI on public service interpreting, surveying registered interpreters with three or more years' experience. The call for participants closed on 24 September 2025.
Buyers often matter more than the professional bodies, because they write the contracts. The Ministry of Justice expects accuracy, impartiality and confidentiality in court and tribunal interpreting. NHS England's improvement framework for community language translation and interpreting, published on 27 May 2025, raised concerns about "AI translation apps that are currently widely used across the NHS", accepting they are convenient but noting accuracy and patient-safety risks. It recommends a national policy briefing on when AI is suitable and when alternatives should come first. That briefing is still on the watch list.
The table sets out each publication, its date and its status:
| Publisher | Document | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIOL | AI Voices white paper | Late 2023 | Guidance |
| CIOL | AI Voices 2025 | 2025 (undated) | Guidance |
| CIOL | Translators Day speech | 2025 | Position statement |
| ITI | AI Working Group Terms of Reference | 12 September 2023 | Internal governance |
| ITI | Phase 1 Report to the Board | 3 September 2024 | Recommendations |
| NRPSI | Article on AI | 5 March 2026 | Article |
| NHS England | Community language services improvement framework | 27 May 2025 | Framework |
Although none of this is binding, it shows what a peer, a client or a court is likely to treat as reasonable care. A linguist who follows it is in a stronger position. In practice that means:
No CIOL, ITI or NRPSI requirement or statement on AI and PI was verified, and there is no statutory PI requirement for translators. PI is usually a contract term set by agencies and public sector buyers. If a claim arises from AI-assisted work, the professional body guidance may be used as a benchmark for what a competent linguist would have done. Cover then depends on the policy wording and what the insurer was told, which is covered in Does translators' PI cover AI mistakes?.
Apex arranges professional indemnity for translators and interpreters. A broker can check that your policy describes how you actually work, including MT and AI tools. Return to the AI in translation and interpreting hub for the full set of guides.
No. CIOL describes AI as a capability to shape, ITI says members must engage with it, and NRPSI calls for human oversight and regulation in high-stakes settings. None has issued a binding ban or a binding AI rule.
Not directly. It is an improvement framework for NHS language services that raises concerns about AI translation apps and recommends a national policy briefing. NHS buyers may reflect it in their contracts and service specifications, so translators working for NHS bodies should expect questions about AI use.
The legal standard is reasonable care and skill under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 or the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Professional body guidance and buyer requirements help show what a competent translator or interpreter would have done in the circumstances.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
