Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coussins]

79: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of interpreters and translators under the Immigration Rules(1) The Secretary of State must amend paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules as follows.(2) For “an interpreter”, in both places in which it appears, substitute “a qualified, professional interpreter”.(3) After “interpreter”, in both places in which it appears, insert “or translator”.(4) After “case,” insert “or engage with any of the procedures or requirements contained in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025,”.(5) Omit “The Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview.””

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, the three amendments in this group are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who is unfortunately unable to be in the Chamber this evening. I thank him for his support. I also thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, his officials and the Bill team for the meetings they have had with me and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and for taking our concerns seriously and sympathetically. I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.

My amendments are designed to clarify and specify once and for all that, where interpreters and translators are needed by asylum seekers and others to whom the procedures in the Bill would apply, those interpreters and translators must be qualified professionals and, as I said in Committee, not just someone who happens to speak a bit of the language in question—someone from the office or a friend or neighbour, for example. We are talking about serious, possibly life-changing circumstances, and about procedures which will involve technical and specialist knowledge and vocabulary. The use of properly qualified interpreters is for the benefit not just of the individuals concerned but of the Home Office, because it is important for claimants to have their case accurately presented in order to avoid errors of fact or in understanding which could lead to time-consuming and costly appeals.

In the helpful discussions I have had, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, has brought my attention to Immigration Rule 339ND, which says, in part:

“The Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case, wherever necessary”.


So far, so good. I have also been made aware of the Home Office’s Interpreters Code of Conduct, which I had not come across before but provides a very strong foundation for what I am trying to achieve, even though there are some gaps there.

Apart from the need to clarify that interpreters and translators should be professional and qualified, my concerns are twofold. First, translators as well as interpreters should be included in the rules, regulations and the code. For example, the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007 mention only interpreters, not translators. These are two very different functions, requiring different skills and different training. Secondly, it must be made clear that the code—which is, after all, guidance and not statutory—is rigorously monitored for compliance.

On the question of translators, I understand that the reason why they are not currently included in the code of conduct or in regulations is because translation services are contracted out. Therefore, I would like to know a little more about the outsourcing process and contract, in particular whether there is consistency in the standards of professionalism and qualifications required of translators and interpreters alike.

I understand that the Government are reluctant to place those two key words of mine—“professional” and “qualified”—in the Bill in case that should lead to a loss of flexibility in cases where there is a need for an interpreter of a rare language for which the standard qualifications for public service interpreters simply are not available, meaning that the Home Office has to turn elsewhere for someone suitable. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain a bit more about why they feel this hesitation, especially in view of the fact that the National Register of Public Service Interpreters has its own protocols for interpreters of rare languages in this very situation.

I did not encounter that sort of hesitation or reluctance over those two words, “professional” and “qualified”, when we debated the then Victims and Prisoners Bill. At that time, Labour, in opposition, strongly supported an amendment to the victims’ code to make it say:

“If you have difficulty understanding or speaking English, you have the Right to”


be provided with a qualified professional interpreter to help you to understand and communicate effectively. I have been a bit nervous about promises to amend guidance and codes, simply because that amendment to the victims’ code has never happened.

However, I have had a much more positive experience with the Ministry of Justice on another issue. In lieu of amendments I proposed to the then Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2022, the MoJ responded very positively by commissioning a detailed, independent review of the qualifications and experience required of interpreters in our courts and tribunals. That has proved to be a successful exercise, which, when fully implemented, will no doubt improve both services and justice, as well as save the Government money by avoiding case adjournments and appeals.

I would very much like to hear something similar and convincing tonight, to reassure me that any strengthening or clarification of the Home Office’s code of conduct—however good a starting point it most certainly already is—will actually be undertaken and not just promised. That should happen in short order and be independently conducted with the involvement of stakeholders in the sector. If that were to be undertaken, along with an assurance about the consistency of standards for translators, I believe that my concerns about professionalism and qualifications could be satisfied without troubling the House to divide on the amendments. For now, I beg to move.

Amendment 79ZA (to Amendment 79)

Moved by

[Baroness Coussins]

79ZA: After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) After “wherever necessary” insert “and in compliance with the Interpreters Code of Conduct version 5.0”.”

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I second what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has said, in the same way as I supported her in Committee. I was pleased to join her in one meeting with the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and I apologise that I was unable to do so again yesterday. He has been very helpful in making himself available to discuss this subject.

Although the merits of the issue speak for themselves, I was specifically drawn to supporting the noble Baroness because I was involved, in a previous life, in promoting access to interpretation and translation services for defendants in the criminal justice system—that was an EU directive. Therefore, I wanted to transfer my support to the area of asylum law.

I will say a few words on EU-derived law. The noble Baroness mentioned the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007. I was interested to see a reference to that in a letter, which was also kindly made available to me, that the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Katz, sent to the noble Baroness on 24 October. That followed the meeting we had had with him and officials, in which it did not cross my mind to look at the implementation of the EU asylum procedures directive. This stuff is all getting quite old for me now; I was involved in the debates on that directive in 2005—good heavens, that was 20 years ago. I was interested, if a little surprised, to see the UK regulations which implemented that directive mentioned, after our meeting, in the letter of 24 October. In it, the Minister says:

“The Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007 … implemented basic standards for asylum system procedures including translation provision as part of the UK’s transposition of Council Directive 2005/85/EC … on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status. Regulation 5 provides for a right to an interpreter during asylum appeals and in proceedings in the higher courts. This regulation remains in force”.


I think that there is some confusion or confounding of translation and interpretation in that paragraph.

The second to last sentence there is right that:

“Regulation 5 provides for a right to an interpreter during asylum appeals”.


I have checked the directive and, indeed, it refers only to interpreting; it does not refer to the translation of documents. However, this paragraph in the letter referred to “translation provision”. It is absolutely true that those two terms sometimes get conflated, but I think I have properly understood that the Government are saying that this applies only to interpretation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, the asylum interview is an important part of the asylum process for many asylum seekers, because it is one of the main opportunities to provide relevant evidence about why they need international protection. Similarly, for the asylum decision-maker, and indeed for the whole of the Government’s processes, it helps draw out and test the evidence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said in moving the amendments, paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules provides that:

“The Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case, wherever necessary. The Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview”.


Interpreters are required to interpret to a high standard on a range of protection-based and human rights topics, including, although not limited to, religious conversion, female genital mutilation, sexuality and gender-based claims, all types and forms of persecution, physical and mental health, and political activity.

It is really important that we are having this debate. I am again very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Ludford, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also salute the indefatigability of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this subject, being flexible and meeting myself and officials to get clarification on this important subject area.

Amendments 79ZA and 79F seek to amend the provisions relating to interpreters in the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007. Amendment 79F seeks to include the provision that interpreters must be professionally qualified. For an interpreter to join the Home Office panel of freelance interpreters, they must be either a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters or hold one of the qualifications or assessments listed in the Interpreters Code of Conduct, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred. The code exists to ensure that expected standards of conduct and behaviour are met and that any potential misconduct issues are addressed at an early stage.

Throughout this process, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has been tenacious in stressing the importance of experience and professional standards. We feel that that is very much the spirit of the code of conduct and its practice. Interpreters must conduct themselves in a professional and impartial manner and respect confidentiality at all times, irrespective of whether they are attending an interview in person, remotely via video conference or by audio only. Prompt and decisive action is taken when the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct by an interpreter.

The Home Office requires interpreters who wish to join its panel to already be a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters—NRPSI—or hold a specified qualification or assessment. There may be instances, where a language is particularly rare, when the Home Office will accept documented proof of hours worked as an interpreter in that language for a reputable business or charity, but these are assessed on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by a senior manager. We wish to preserve the spirit of flexibility that the current system has for these exceptional cases, and specification in the Bill might prohibit that sort of approach to a particularly rare language or dialect where interpretation is required.

The minimum standards are long-standing and demonstrate that interpreters already need to prove that they are proficient before being accepted on to the Home Office interpreters panel. They also allow for a level of flexibility which ensures that even those who speak rarer languages can be serviced by the Home Office, protecting the proficiency and standards of Home Office interpreters. The qualifications needed by interpreters are freely available to all, published on GOV.UK.

It is considered that amending the Immigration Rules in the way envisaged by the amendment would have little impact. The code of conduct sets out clear expectations around impartiality and the standards of conduct and behaviour that interpreters are required to meet. Interpreters must hold recognised qualifications. They undergo rigorous background security checks and are required to sign a declaration of confidentiality.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about enforcement of the code. Feedback is collected on interpreter performance, and any incidents of alleged behaviour falling short of the code of conduct will be fully investigated. Feedback is primarily compiled by interviewing officers completing an interpreter monitoring form, but this form may also be completed by other Home Office officials. Prompt and decisive action will be taken as soon as the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct, and this is obviously in the best interests of the department, the interpreter, the wider public and, of course, the claimant. The way in which the code of conduct is managed and enforced minimises any risk of bias, including for sensitive, asylum and immigration cases.

Interpreters must comply with any requests from the Interpreter & Language Services Unit for information within the time specified. If there is evidence of behaviour falling short of the code of conduct, interpreter monitoring may be considered, to determine any further action.

The amendment also seeks to include “translator” within the provisions relating to interpreters in paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations. This relates to providing at public expense a translator to allow an applicant to submit their case and appeal their claim, as well as a translator to ensure appropriate communication at interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in her contribution, raised a number of questions around the role of translation in the Home Office rules and code of conduct; I will come to what she was referring to in a short time.

The asylum interview guidance makes clear that where a claimant wishes to submit documents relevant to their claim, where those documents are in a foreign language, the asylum decision-maker must ask what it is and what relevance it has. If the document is or could be useful, they must give the claimant an agreed period to submit a translation, noting this on the interview record.

Specifically on translation services, to be clear, the code applies to anyone conducting any assignments on behalf of the Home Office. The Home Office contract for written translation is held by thebigword, whose stringent quality control processes in place should ensure that translations meet the high standards required.

Although I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for the amendments and indeed the wider debate we have had on this issue both tonight and in Committee, the Government see no reason why the existing framework should be changed in the way suggested by the amendment, and for that reason I invite her to withdraw the amendments.

As I said, it is important that we are able to retain some flexibility in the way that we provide interpreter services particularly, specifically because of very rare languages. Too much specificity in the Bill could constrict the effective service that we want to provide to asylum seekers and might also have a negative impact on our ability to provide a fair, effective and efficient system.

However, I am pleased to say that, following our extensive discussions with officials, I am happy to commit from the Dispatch Box that the Home Office will work with stakeholders to review the Interpreters Code of Conduct and provision of translation services—to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—including a section in the code that outlines the criteria for becoming a Home Office interpreter, reflecting the need for qualification or professional experience, including reference to NRPSI standards, as I have set out. Given that additional commitment tonight and the conversations that we have had over the past days and weeks, I very much hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and that she will see fit to withdraw her amendments.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, very much for his response, and I especially thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her support. I am encouraged that my concerns have been well understood and I appreciate the commitment to review the Interpreters Code of Conduct, including the involvement of stakeholders and the commitment to look at the role of translators as well as interpreters. At this stage, I ask only that the Government resist kicking this issue into touch and forgetting it, as happened with the victims’ code, but go very quickly to agree a timetable as soon as possible for the review, which I warmly welcome. On that hopeful note, I thank the Minister once again and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 79ZA (to Amendment 79) withdrawn.