Interpreting Services in the Courts (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who identified so many of the problems in the courts system that impact on the interpreting service. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for chairing our inquiry so effectively and for having explained clearly the conclusions we reached as a committee. I thank too those who gave evidence to us and the committee team who did the research and drafted our report so comprehensively.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who said to the Minister at the end of her speech that the Minister should not sign off the new contract as a job already done, on the grounds that it is not. I concur with that.

I thought when we started our work that we would learn of cases of miscarriage of justice, or potential miscarriages of justice, caused by poor interpretation. But it did not turn out like that, because the evidence is not collected through effective quality-assurance systems to tell us the answer. Those providing the service think it runs well and those delivering the service—the interpreters doing the work—generally speaking do not.

From the interpreters, we heard too many examples of poor treatment. Some travelled long distances to find trials cancelled without fair remuneration for their time and travel costs. There were many complaints of poor pay rates and inadequate increases for inflation over the period of the outsourced contract. It is no surprise that interpreting the courts is not seen as a desirable career path for many interpreters to develop.

When the Government outsourced the contract 10 years ago, it undoubtedly reduced costs but—I concluded, as we listened to the evidence—this was to the disbenefit of interpreters and led to poorer service delivery overall. For example, in the first nine months of 2024, there were over 600 trial postponements because of a lack of interpreter support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, explained, concerns were expressed to us by the Bar Council and the Law Society, which told us that the overall quality and number of interpreters were insufficient. This meant that there could be a risk to public trust in the justice system. The Bar Council also told us that there had been a decline in the quality of the service in recent years.

For that reason, those pressing for a mandatory qualification for interpreters at higher levels than presently apply must be right. It must also be right for pay rates for interpreters to increase in line with the level of qualification held. High-quality interpreters should not have to look for off-contract court interpretation jobs, which may offer twice as much as they might receive for a normal contract job. I do not think that GCSE level 3 is sufficient for a court interpreter and I think that the Government need to agree minimum pay rates for interpreters to ensure that what they receive is fair and reasonable.

Court interpreters should also be treated as professionals. We have heard quite a bit about that already from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. However, I too was concerned to hear that working in police stations was seen as more welcoming, with a room to wait in and a proper welcome. In the courts, they are being treated as a member of the general public. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who said that this was just not acceptable.

I cannot recall any witness to our inquiry saying that the system worked well. The recent increase to the two-hour minimum payment for an interpreter, however long or short the case, is welcome, but the Government have an obligation to address poor pay rates generally and to drive up quality. They need to deliver stronger quality assurance, better statistics and better pay rates to give us confidence in the courts’ interpreting services.

At the very end of her introductory speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked the Minister whether something might be said, either in reply or perhaps later, on the profit levels deriving from the contract and the role of dynamic pricing. When we took evidence, I got the impression, and still have the impression, that too much is hidden behind the scenes. It is not public information and I believe that the public have an entitlement to know it.