Interpreting Services in the Courts (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, at the end of a debate of very high quality, I join with others in commending this report, and the work of the committee, so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. I thank her for her opening: I hope I will not repeat any of it, but I was heartened to hear that, frankly, she did not mince her words. It is also my great pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, with her wealth of experience, to her place on the Front Bench for her first debate. We look forward to many further discussions in the future.

I would not want to let this occasion pass without praising the work, over many years, of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, both in opposition and recently in government. He is not a lawyer by profession but he is bolstered by extensive practical experience of the justice system as a magistrate in criminal and family cases. His contributions to justice debates in the House have always been measured, courteous, knowledgeable and helpful.

The committee’s report was thorough and made a number of carefully considered and well-evidenced criticisms of court interpretation services, drawn from the wealth of experience of the witnesses it heard from: experienced court service users, as the noble Baroness, Lady Yardley said, the Bar Council, barristers, judges, the Law Society and others.

This debate has, frankly, reinforced an impression that many speakers have clearly had, that the Government’s published response has smacked of complacency. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, used the word “smug” and I believe he may have been justified. It is to be hoped that the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, will depart from that complacency, will be more thorough and will give better credence to some of the criticisms made by the committee.

In particular, the Government rejected a central conclusion of the committee, outlined in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the report. Paragraph 54 states that the current provision of interpreting services in the courts is

“not acceptable and presents a significant risk to the administration of justice”.

The committee also recommended the collection of much more detailed and consistent data-gathering. It is plain that the failures of the services, and the distinction between the committee’s findings and the Government’s response, have largely stemmed from the failure of detailed data-gathering.

The Government’s response was:

“The MoJ is confident in the quality of its published data, which has been externally reviewed recently … and found to be of good quality”.


In response to paragraph 54, they state that

“the MoJ disagrees with the Committee’s conclusion that the provision of interpreting services in the courts is not acceptable and presents a significant risk to the administration of justice”.

Importantly, they add:

“The quality metrics for the service are good (96% success rate in Q4 2024) and the number of trials that are delayed due to lack of interpreters is very low (0.7% of ineffective trials in 2024)”.


However, the reality—as shown by the evidence taken by the committee and from speakers today—is that the system’s weaknesses, in practice, simply do not show up either in the quality metrics or in the number of trials that were ineffective for lack of interpreters. Frankly, I wonder how far the Government have taken into account the difficulties of gathering data and making complaints when the primary sources are the primary users, whose difficulty with using the English language is the very factor that gives rise to their need of the service in the first place.

Striking points were made by witnesses to the committee about interpreters turning up to hearings without the time to attend pre-hearing conferences with counsel, because they were not paid to appear before the start time of the hearing. Then there were the dialect difficulties. One witness gave striking evidence of a GMC hearing, where the complainant witness spoke a particular Afghani dialect of Pashto, rather than a Pakistani dialect familiar to the booked interpreters, and so the witness could not communicate with the arranged interpreters. The committee reported on a clear conflict between the MoJ’s data and the lived experience of witnesses, a point powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere; however, the MoJ’s response relied on the same data, despite its flaws.

On training, the committee was very clear that the standard of the qualifications of court interpreters has been insufficiently high and that a level 6 qualification ought to be required. One can see that this may, in some cases, present difficulties with rare languages or dialects. However, on a careful reading of the Government’s response, it appears that there has not been an insistence on a level 6 qualification and one is not proposed at present. The Government’s current stated position is that a level 6 qualification should be the default level for full trials—which they call professional-level assignments—but that there is to be no insistence on that. Similarly, there is to be no insistence on a level 3 qualification as the minimum for lower-level bookings—non-evidential hearings and telephone interpreting. It is unclear from Government’s response how far they will insist on contractual minimum standards for the new contracts when they are let, a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, also explored.

I will make a further point on qualifications. Skill in interpreting is not limited to the ability to translate faithfully the questions put to a witness and the evidence given in the witness’s answers. That is a vital part of it and should be the aim of every interpreter. However, it is also important to stress the need for interpreters to avoid the weakness, which we frequently experience in the courts, when a less qualified interpreter gets into a discussion with a witness about both the questions put and the answers to be given. When that happens, it obscures the evidence the witness gives, reduces its credibility and, in bad cases, can seriously mislead the court.

On interpreters’ conditions, pay, hours, travel expenses and the like, considerable criticisms were made by the committee and speakers today. The committee called for minimum pay rates, subject to regular review, improved cancellation arrangements and payment for travel time and expenses, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Yardley, my noble friend Lord Shipley and a number of other speakers made similar points.

In addition, the committee commented on the widespread feeling that interpreters were inadequately recognised and valued within the existing court system, and the example of the lack of passes was given and had great deal of weight. They are treated with much less respect than their status as court professionals merits. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, made these points on conditions and on valuing, on which she has campaigned for years. The MoJ in its response disagreed with the committee’s recommendations on conditions, maintaining broadly that the rate paid to interpreters is competitive. The MoJ also disagreed with the recommendation for an independent register, without any convincing argument for that disagreement. However, there is evidence that the present system encourages interpreters to seek off-contract bookings, rather than bookings through the MoJ’s contracted suppliers. Of course, the ministry has an obligation to secure the best value for money for the taxpayer, but it is unclear that the present structure is achieving that—a point made by my noble friend Lord Willis.

I turn to whether the tender process designed to replace the present contract with TBW, which expires next year, ought to be paused and reviewed. The difficulty is that we are approaching the end of the TBW contract. However, the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, was that the new contract has not been signed and needs to be thoroughly reconsidered. That seems a thoroughly defensible position.

Finally, the committee was of the view, though not expressed in great detail, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, said, that the court should go much further down the road towards incorporating more translation technology into the interpretation services, with more remote interpreting and greater use of AI, as new technology advances. The Government’s response went into painfully little detail in this area while paying lip service to improving technology. I should be grateful, as would the Committee, if, when she responds to this debate, the Minister could respond to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Coles and Lord Mott, my noble friend Lord Willis and a number of others, subject, of course, to the caveats expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins on the present limitations of AI translation for some languages. But the Minister should give us greater detail on how the Government propose that interpretation services could benefit from a fast-improving technology and a massively increasing use of AI—all that without compromising the service provided to litigants who need it in this vital area.