EU: Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Justice

EU: Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts
Monday 9th July 2012

(12 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally Portrait Lord McNally
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Has it gone up since the scheme was implemented? Yes, it has, because the scheme implements a single supplier that will pay interpreters less than they were being paid on an ad hoc basis. That combination of greater discipline in where and when interpreters are hired and at what fee is not likely to be welcome to the interpreting community. That I understand. But it was the previous Administration who initiated an inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of the old interpreter system. We have readily acknowledged that this new system has had teething problems, but there is no ministerial interest or MoJ interest in having questions such as this time and again about performance. The supplier has contracted to a high-quality performance, and we intend to keep it to that.

Lord Anderson of Swansea Portrait Lord Anderson of Swansea
- Hansard - -

How is the performance of that supplier adequately monitored? Is there an independent monitoring system?

Lord McNally Portrait Lord McNally
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

There is not an independent monitoring system—there is a client. We are the client, and we do not intend to pay good money for a shoddy service. As I have just said, as the client we brought this in because we intended to try to make substantial savings for the taxpayer on a system that we believed was slipshod and expensive in its running. When the new system gets bedded down, we hope that it will give high quality. The monitoring is done by the department concerned, the MoJ, and we intend to carry out our responsibilities to make sure that the taxpayer gets value for money.