Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coussins]

18: Clause 2, page 2, line 27, at end insert—
“(3A) Where interpreting and translation services are needed, the victims’ code must specify that specialist, qualified and experienced professionals must be engaged.”

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in the second group in my name, which are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. These amendments concern the issue of interpreting and translation in relation to the victims’ code. I gave an outline of my case at Second Reading, so I shall not of course repeat that today.

Since then, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, has been kind enough to meet me to discuss my amendments. I am very grateful to him for taking the time to hear me out. I should first declare my interests as co-chair of the all-party group on modern languages, and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists. I am indebted to the chartered institute, to the National Register of Public Service Interpreters and to the Bell Foundation for their helpful background briefings, constructive proposals and hard evidence of why these amendments are needed.

Amendment 18 adds an extra specification to the face of the Bill about what the victims’ code must do, in addition to what is already listed in Clause 2(3). The current interim code states that victims have the right of

“access to interpretation and translation services”

if needed.

As a technical aside, the word currently used in the code is “interpretation” rather than “interpreting”. However, I have used the word “interpreting” as it is the more accurate word and the word already used in other MoJ contexts. I have discussed with the Minister why this word should be brought into the text of the code itself. In case other noble Lords are beginning to nod off and think that I am splitting hairs unbearably, I will explain. The word “interpretation” implies analysis and paraphrasing, whereas the word “interpreting” explicitly means repeating in another language exactly, accurately and only what the speaker has said, without any commentary, advice or suggestions—all of which would be totally unprofessional and anathema to any properly trained and qualified interpreter.

With the technical detail over, I go back to Amendment 18. It is vital that this overarching requirement be enshrined in the Bill and not left to the code, guidance or regulations. As I said at Second Reading, it is completely unacceptable that unqualified, underqualified or inexperienced individuals should be used as interpreters, especially in situations which are dangerous, sensitive, emotional or otherwise challenging for victims.

We know from thoroughly documented experience in the criminal justice system, and other areas of the public sector such as the health service, that a general or vague commitment to interpreting and translation services does not always deliver what is needed or required in practice. If it is left to guidance only, we also know from the NHS experience that there is no monitoring of whether the guidance is observed. Public service interpreters are specialist, qualified and trained professionals. A member of the family does not count. A teenage child certainly does not count. A neighbour does not count. A court official who happens to speak the same language at home does not count. Google Translate certainly does not count.

Put simply, fair access to justice for non-English speakers should be a legal right, not a guideline, recommendation or piece of good practice advice. If the need for a professionally qualified interpreter is stated only in a code or piece of guidance, it is in practice effectively optional. If it is on the face of the Bill, it becomes mandatory and enables us to put a stop to bogus or unqualified people pretending to be interpreters. In the world of public service delivery, that makes all the difference.

We know from various surveys, including one commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, that awareness that the code even exists is at very low levels. How much lower must the awareness levels be for people with poor or no English?

At the same time, different scenarios might legitimately demand different levels of qualification or experience. This is why the MoJ, in the light of discussions that I held with the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, over the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, embarked on a thorough independent review of the qualifications and experience required of court and tribunal interpreters. I believe that it is close to publication, in time for the issuing of the next invitation to tender for contracted-out language services.

--- Later in debate ---

In answer to the reassurances that have been sought about how that guidance is constructed and what its content is, I am very happy to consider, with quite an open mind, what should be in that guidance and how we should go about making sure that criminal justice bodies are fully apprised of the need to reach victims whose first language is not English; that is the Government’s position on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendments in this group. I also thank the Minister for his reply. He drew a distinction between principles, which he said should be in the Bill, and operational guidance. I would argue that surely it must be a non-negotiable, bottom-line principle that interpreting and translation services should be provided by qualified trained professionals; that to me sounds like a principle. An example of an operational guideline would be specifying a level of diploma qualification for a particular category of case, situation or scenario. So I urge the Minister to be emboldened by the unanimous support around the Chamber for this set of amendments and to negotiate for a bit more room for manoeuvre, particularly on Amendment 18.

To answer his question about Amendment 25 and why we should have consultations in translation, the surveys conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, showed that awareness of the code was very low. If we want to know what all victims, not just native English speakers, think about it, we need to consult properly, not partially.

I will beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage, but I fully expect to come back at a later stage to press further. I hope that, in the meantime, the Minister might agree to meet me again to see whether we can find any of that room for manoeuvre.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.