So the 23 million wouldn't be spread evenly across the whole NHS.

So how would you decide which specific patients this money would then benefit? And what priority do they have over the rest of the NHS?

Non essential?

You do realise interpreters are used for a hell of a lot more than Mr Muhamad from Bradford who has no interest in learning English?

Of course. But that workload could be reduced and therefore money saved. Again not rocket science.

Mr Mohamed from Bradford shouldn't be here if he has no interest in integrating. I therefore have no interest in him.

Economic migrants yes, if they dont know english then they have to take ****ty jobs and live in poverty, which is not fair on them, it disgusting the driving down of wages and really unfair on the people who came here looking for a better life.

hi adam - with out being rude please could you put your question a different way as I am having difficulties understanding what you are asking.

if you want it to sink into my brain you can write me a poem - jingle - rhyme and I will heed as poetry is my communication. :joker:

You clearly do since it's lazy people like him is the entire reason for this argument about wasting money on interpreters.

I think the question in the OP is a valid one.

It would be good if more or all had a good basic level of English.
I myself just would prefer it not to be made mandatory however,hence why overall I answered no at this time,to the question put.

So, if £23 million is the entire amount spent on interpreters, and we're not getting rid of them all then it wouldn't be £23 million savings but actually a lot less now.

And, again, where are we spending this saving? Because spreading it equally across the whole of the NHS would make approximately 0 difference.

Focussing the entire saving on one area might make a difference, but which are deserves it more? :think:

No, it should definitely not be mandatory, but it would be beneficial to all parties if they could.