Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coussins]

13: Clause 2, page 2, line 23, after “services” insert “, including professionally qualified interpreters and translators”

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 13 is in my name. I remind the House about my various interests in relation to languages and linguists.

In Committee, I proposed four amendments in relation to language services, but I accepted the Minister’s argument, in relation to three of them anyway, that they concerned operational detail rather than matters of principle and were therefore more appropriate for guidance or regulations in the future than for putting in the Bill. However, the fourth of my amendments in Committee and the subject of the amendment I have tabled this evening is in a different category altogether. I feel very strongly that it is a matter of principle, which is why I have brought it back at this stage. It is the principle that, where interpreting and translation services are needed by victims, as they have a right to expect under the victims’ code, those interpreters and translators should be qualified and professional.

I am very grateful indeed to the Minister and his officials for meeting me twice and for giving careful, serious attention to the points I made in Committee about the importance of this issue. I understand that there is a reluctance on the part of the Government to add new points to the Bill. I had thought that by getting this issue into the Bill itself, it would be given more weight and less wriggle room. However, I also understand that the intention now is that the status of the code itself will be effectively upgraded and more binding than it is at present.

We have heard this evening about the very welcome government amendments about, for example, a statutory duty on relevant bodies to provide services in accordance with the revised code and a duty of compliance on relevant public bodies. Therefore, in the light of all that, I can see that my fears of non-compliance with anything short of what is actually in the Bill could fall away because of this elevated status.

I have been very encouraged by what has been suggested to me by the Minister as a positive alternative to my amendment. I assume that he will be sharing with the House what he has already been generous enough to share with me, which is a significant strengthening of the wording of the relevant parts of the victims’ code in relation to interpreting and translation services. I have consulted with the Chartered Institute of Linguists, the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, and the Bell Foundation, and all these organisations also regard the proposed draft revisions to the code as a very welcome step in the right direction.

I suppose I should not say any more about what is proposed myself, as I am sure that the Minister will want to do that. Suffice it to say that the two key words “professional” and “qualified” make a decisive appearance in the proposed revisions. If the Minister confirms this tonight, I will regard it as a positive outcome that delivers on my objective and shows that the Government have taken my point seriously, and I thank the Minister most sincerely for his engagement and his willingness to get this right.

I hope that these changes, if they come to fruition, will mean that we will no longer see services resorting to drafting in the court usher, the hospital porter who happens to speak Polish, the neighbour’s teenage son because he is doing Spanish at school or the man who runs the Chinese restaurant up the road. These are all real examples that have been brought to my attention. I hope that, if we are looking instead at what should be there, which is to do with professional, qualified interpreters and translators, all that will be a thing of the past.

In closing, I caution the Minister and his department to be aware that there will be very close monitoring of these aspects of the revised victims’ code to assess compliance. It is well worth reflecting that the use of professional, qualified interpreters and translators is not just right and proper for the victims, who need their services; it cuts both ways, also enabling those responsible for the administration of justice and the quality of justice to understand better what has happened and what needs to be done about it. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and, for the moment, I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her absolute and consistent determination that we should be reminded about the need for professionally qualified interpreters. We had a good debate in Committee on her previous amendments. I will not repeat what I said then. I have torn up what I was going to say because I will be very interested to know what the Minister is going to say. I hope that the noble Baroness gets some very good news.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, all I can do is once again thank the Minister and, indeed, all noble Lords who have supported my amendment throughout the process of this Bill and all who have spoken this evening in support. I thank the Bill team as well as the Minister, because they have all been extremely helpful in our discussions. I look forward to the public consultation on a revised, strengthened victims’ code, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

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.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill’s provision to bring the victims’ code into primary legislation and want to flag up a few points relating to the first principle listed in the code, which is the victim’s right to understand and be understood, with access where necessary to interpretation and translation services. I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, may remember that he was kind enough to meet me during the Brexit process, when I wanted to make sure that the Government retained the right to interpreting and translation for people suspected or accused of an offence, which was established by an EU directive in 2010 and subsequently transposed into domestic law. Happily, I was reassured. Since then, the MoJ has launched an independent review of the qualifications and experience required by court interpreters, which I hope will soon be published. The Bill provides another much-needed piece of the criminal justice jigsaw as far as language services go.

A victims’ code already exists, but as we know only too well from other areas of public services, non-statutory codes or guidance do not always guarantee the type or quality of service needed or intended—or even if they do, we do not necessarily know whether they do. For example, I asked a Written Question recently to try to find out who was responsible for monitoring compliance with the NHS England guidance on interpreting and translation services in primary healthcare. The answer was “No one—we do not monitor compliance”. It is a very welcome step forward that, in this Bill, not only will the code be statutory but there will be a duty on relevant bodies to promote awareness of it and a compliance monitoring framework.

However, it is not enough just to declare a right of access to language services if needed. As specified in the original EU directive, they must be of an appropriate professional quality. In other words, public service interpreters, or PSIs, must be qualified and experienced. They are specialist professionals and not a casual nice-to-have. There is little point engaging someone with a tip-top level 6 diploma in public service interpreting for a complex court case if they have never set foot in a court before and are unfamiliar with procedure or terminology. There is a well-known case from many years ago, which I am sure the Minister will recognise, that provides a good example of such danger. A woman was wrongly convicted of murder because it emerged on appeal that the so-called interpreter, who was inexperienced, had not known the difference between murder and manslaughter. It is also self-evident that an interpreter with the right languages should be engaged—and not someone turning up with fluent Latvian when Lithuanian is needed, or Punjabi instead of Gujarati. I am not making these examples up—they have all happened.

There will also be situations where the victim needs an interpreter whose professionalism and qualifications are combined with empathy and sensitivity. This might be provided only by someone of the same sex, given the intimacy of what that victim needs to describe in cases of sexual violence or exploitation. A requirement that interpreters should be on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters is also worth considering as a guarantee of standards. There must be no more situations in which a neighbour, friend, teenage child or court usher is asked to play the interpreter in lieu of a properly qualified and suitable professional.

I hope the Minister will say a little more about the compliance monitoring framework. Flexibility for bodies to choose how they meet the duty to promote awareness could easily result in unacceptable discrepancies from one area to another. I would prefer to see minimum standards and expectations clearly spelled out and specific reference to interpreting and translation services in the Bill.

An excellent precedent for setting standards and consistency is the police approved interpreters and translators scheme, or PAIT, launched in 2020. Instead of a hotchpotch of different police forces operating different systems, now most police regions in the UK mandate the same terms and conditions, and external provider agencies are monitored and regulated. I was therefore concerned to find out that the national manager for the PAIT scheme has not been involved in or consulted on the development of this Bill. I strongly urge the Minister to ensure that this happens. We must avoid a situation where different parts of the criminal justice system deal with language services in different ways and with different standards, criteria and guidance.

We will need better data collection, and swift updating and strengthening of the code and all the accompanying detailed regulations. All promotional materials, as well as the code, must be produced in a variety of languages. This would be an excellent topic for the joint thematic inspections envisaged under the Bill; I ask the Minister to consider that as soon as possible. If the Bill and the current review of courts and tribunals are to have the desired effect and lead to more consistent and effective language services, the MoJ will need urgently to put energy and resources into a serious campaign to improve the supply chain of public service interpreters, or this victims’ right will be nothing more than an empty shell.

Thousands of PSIs have left the profession because of poor levels of pay and conditions. Added to this, the post-Brexit Immigration Rules, especially with the new salary threshold, act as a major barrier to the PSI pipeline, most of whose practitioners are freelance. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Home Office about this specific group of professionals? I look forward to his comments on all the issues I have raised.

Criminal Justice System: Translation and Interpreting Services

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Coussins]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the right for people engaged with the criminal justice system to access translation and interpreting services will be affected by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill; and if so, in what ways.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so declare an interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, the right to a fair trial is fundamental to our criminal justice system. Translation and interpreting services play an important part in ensuring the fairness of proceedings for all parties, so their provision is a priority for the Government. As we consider the retained EU law for which the Ministry of Justice is responsible, we will make sure that there is no adverse impact on translation and interpreting services.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, that is an encouraging reply but I would be grateful for further clarification. Although the Minister said that there is no intention to remove this right, a briefing I have had from the Library suggests that it is more complicated than it looks because the right to these services was transposed into domestic law via no fewer than 18 different measures, some of which are thought to fall within the scope of the Bill and some not, and apparently it is debatable whether others do or do not. Can the Minister please reassure the House that there is a process for review and scrutiny, across all relevant departments, to ensure that we do not end up with the unintended consequence of the right to translators remaining, for example, in police stations but not in courts, or in tribunals but not in prisons?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. Allow me to explain that the right to translation and interpretation services is a right at common law and integral to the right of a fair trial. It is enshrined in Article 5 of the ECHR, which deals with the police station, and Article 6, which deals with the fair trial point. Neither of those are affected by the present retained EU law Bill so the substance of the domestic provisions will continue.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, both today and yesterday, many noble Lords have spoken about how Queen Elizabeth embodied the values and identity of our country. However, she also embodied an international mindset and global understanding, which focused, of course, on the Commonwealth to which she was so devoted but went much further still than that.

One example of this was Her Majesty’s understanding of the importance and significance of being able to communicate in languages other than English, which often reflected so positively on the reputation of Her Majesty and the admiration in which she was held, as well as on the reputation and role of the United Kingdom. In 2014, she addressed a French state banquet in French, a language in which she was fluent.

Perhaps the most unexpected yet hugely significant example came in 2011, when Her Majesty was the first British monarch to visit Ireland in 100 years. At the state dinner in Dublin Castle, she began her speech to her hosts in Irish Gaelic, astonishing the assembled audience, from President Mary McAleese down, into spontaneous applause. At the time, commentators and politicians remarked on the incredibly astute judgment and sensitivity shown by the Queen in this gesture; it was said to contribute enormously to the future of relationships all round.

Other noble Lords have referred to Her Majesty’s consummate skill in diplomacy and soft power. Her ability to use foreign languages so judiciously was a classic example of this, for which we should all be grateful and endeavour to emulate.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, it is a truism of politics generally—and, no doubt, of your Lordships’ House—that it is easier to make a long speech than a short one. In respect of Her late Majesty, all of us could speak at length with enthusiasm, passion and not a little sadness about our experiences of her, both closely and at a distance. I will restrict myself to two comments about not the personal relationship with her but what she achieved and represented. One is about international relations, which are an important matter for me. The other is about the Irish peace process, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, just referred.

When Her Majesty came to the Throne, after two World Wars, there was a huge focus on creating an international rules-based order. There was a particular focus on the United Nations. For a long time, that was and continued to be an inspiring hope—perhaps until relatively recent times—because the United Nations Security Council is and was to be the pinnacle of international law. Now we find that two of its permanent members are, by any account, guilty of crimes against humanity. Were that to be the case of any of the members of our Supreme Court, we would lose faith in that jurisdiction.

Others of Her Majesty’s Ministers focused a great deal on getting us into the European project or, more latterly, getting us out of it. But she had a different focus during all those years. She was supportive of what her Governments were doing, of course, but it was the Commonwealth that was her particular passion, as the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, rightly said. It is my conviction that, had it not been for her passionate commitment and that of the rest of the Royal Family, we probably would not have a Commonwealth today. Instead, we have an important network of relationships that some countries that were not even members of the British Empire have applied to join.

Yesterday, I got off a plane to hear of Her Majesty’s death after a visit to Singapore at the invitation of the Singaporean Government. I have often found myself being critical of them. It seemed to me that they were not living up to some of the principles I felt were important. I came back, however, with a different set of feelings. They understand China in a way that we do not. They have a fellow feeling with India that we cannot have. They understand Asia and the West. If we are not to fall into a terrible war with China and others in the East, we desperately need that depth of understanding. It is an understanding that Her late Majesty the Queen had very deeply.

I speak of the Irish peace process. In her Golden Jubilee year, 2002, Her Majesty visited not just the Parliament here but the Senedd in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland. I was advised by the Northern Ireland Office, however, that she would not be visiting the Northern Ireland Assembly of which I was Speaker because the Northern Ireland Office felt that it would cause difficulties. I said, “I see. You’re wanting to create a constitutional crisis.” “Oh no,” they said, “We’re trying to avoid trouble.” I said, “Well, how do you think unionists will respond if Her Majesty can go to every other Parliament but not to Stormont?” They said, “But it won’t go well.” I replied, “Just back off for a little while and give me a chance to talk to those involved.”

I talked to Dr Paisley, who was very wroth because he was convinced that it would not be possible. I talked to others. Eventually, I talked to Alex Maskey, the then Chief Whip of Sinn Féin. I said, “Alex, you know, I want to be able to invite the Irish President here but I cannot invite her if Her Majesty cannot come.” “Ah,” he said, “We’ll have a chat about it.” So the ard chomhairle of Sinn Féin got together. You can imagine them speaking in Dublin about Her Majesty’s visit to Belfast. They came back to me, and the answer was clear: “We will deal with it with a dignified detachment. We won’t be able to be there but we won’t create trouble.”

On the morning of Her Majesty’s visit, Gerry Kelly was interviewed on the BBC. My first response was a sinking heart. What would Gerry say? He was asked whether he would meet her. He said, “Well, if she’s going to hand the place over, I’d be very happy to meet with her, but I don’t expect that’s what she’s coming for. So we will deal with it with a dignified detachment.” Of course, that is what happened; they dealt with it appropriately.

We went on to have the remarkable visit to Dublin and the meeting with Mary McAleese. Then, in 2012, we had the visit to Belfast where Her Majesty shook hands with Martin McGuinness. In 2002, it was dignified detachment. In 2012, it was dignified engagement. None of that would have happened had she not, by her whole life, person and example, demonstrated dignity in relations and respect for and mutual recognition of those with whom she and her country disagreed. She was a remarkable person. She has given those of us in my part of the United Kingdom a remarkable legacy, but we are fortunate because King Charles III is also part of her legacy. God save the King.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coussins]

104FD: After Clause 172, insert the following new Clause—
“Spoken word interpreters: minimum standards
Within six months of commencement of this section, spoken word interpreters appointed to a court or tribunal must—(a) be registered on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (“NRPSI”),(b) possess a Level 6 Diploma in Public Service Interpreting, or comply with NRPSI Rare Language Status protocols, and(c) have completed the requisite number of hours’ experience of court interpreting commensurate with the category of case complexity, as agreed by the Secretary of State in conjunction with relevant professional bodies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would establish minimum standards for qualifications and experience for interpreters in courts and tribunals, along the lines of the Police Approved Interpreters Scheme.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages.

I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for the interest he has taken in the issue of court interpreters and my concerns about the weaknesses of the present system, as well as for his willingness to meet several times and discuss candidly the detail of my amendment. This dialogue has been very constructive and leads me to be hopeful that we can reach a positive outcome.

My amendment seeks to establish minimum standards for court interpreters based on their qualifications, experience and registration with the National Register of Public Service Interpreters—NRPSI. Obviously, I am not going to repeat the detail of the case I set out in Committee, but perhaps I could just comment on the response I had at that stage from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton.

There seemed to be three main reasons for rejecting my amendment. The first was that the MoJ system is already fit for purpose. For example, the noble and learned Lord said:

“All interpreters are required to complete a justice system-specific training course before they are permitted to join the register.”—[Official Report, 22/11/21; col. 659.]


This refers to the MoJ’s register. My understanding, however, is that that course takes four hours to complete, which does not strike me as remotely adequate for such potentially demanding and specialist work. It remains the case that the current MoJ register will admit people who would not be considered sufficiently qualified or experienced to be on the NRPSI—nor, indeed, on the Police Approved Interpreters and Translators scheme. The DPSI at level 6 is considered by all the specialist professional bodies in the field to be the correct minimum qualification for any court interpreting work.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, also claimed that the MoJ system is fit for purpose because the complaint rate is less than 1%. I had claimed that the failure rate following spot checks was 50% but, in our subsequent meetings and correspondence, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has clarified that the 50% figure I quoted in Committee applied only to referrals of quality-based complaints, and that the overall failure rate is actually 5% of all assessments. I still think that a failure rate of 50% after a referral from a court or mystery shop is unacceptably high. I would also contend that even an overall rate of 5% out of hundreds of thousands of assignments each year could potentially lead to a significant drain on the public purse through the costs of rescheduling adjourned hearings or keeping defendants in custody for longer—not to mention the avoidable stress and confusion for victims, defendants and witnesses.

Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, thought that my amendment fell short because it would not be right to take a one-size-fits-all approach, given that there are various levels of case complexity. But I agree with that: the point is explicitly acknowledged in my amendment, which specifies that the number of hours’ experience required should reflect case complexity and, crucially, should be agreed between the department and “relevant professional bodies”. In discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, over the past few weeks, it has been repeatedly pointed out to those of us supporting this amendment that there are no fewer than 1,000 different types of assignment. The mind boggles—well, mine does anyway. I would certainly love to see a list spelling out exactly what those 1,000 different categories are.

Thirdly, the obstacle of the rules on public procurement was raised as a reason why my amendment’s provision for the NRPSI registration was unacceptable. I still find this a bit odd and confusing as an argument, as the NRPSI is not a membership organisation, nor a supplier. It is worth remembering that it was established at the request of the judiciary in the first place after the interpreting calamity of the Begum case. It is surely just akin to the professional registers in many other fields, such as teaching, medicine or law, from which we would always expect and require practitioners to be drawn. There appears to be at least one significant precedent in that the Metropolitan Police Service mandates that all its listed interpreters must have continuous NRPSI registration. Of its annual 25,000 face-to-face assigned interpreters, only 2.5% are not NRPSI registered, and then for a very good reason—for example, to do with the need for a rare language speaker or the need for a super-speedy appointment in highly urgent or dangerous situations.

I accept, of course, that this whole system is complex and that there are inherent challenges to any solution that I have not touched on today, such as the supply chain of interpreters. I also acknowledge that the wording of my amendment may not be perfect, although I have tweaked it since Committee to try to build in a transition period, as suggested in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. But I have been encouraged by the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in our discussions in that he acknowledges that if there are improvements that could or should be made, it would be sensible for them to be made before the current contract is due to be retendered in 2023. The challenge, of course, is to get to the bottom of precisely what those improvements are, and I am extremely concerned that there should be no more delay in establishing and achieving them than absolutely necessary. The current contract expires in October 2023, so presumably a revised tender will need to be issued some months before that in order to achieve a seamless transition.

With this in mind, we raised with the Minister the possible option of conducting a detailed and independent inquiry into exactly what the standards of qualifications and experience and other matters should be. I am hopeful that the Minister might be able to say something about that proposal when he comes to reply today. Such an inquiry would need to be conducted on a genuinely independent basis and cover all aspects of the MoJ’s responsibility for interpreting services, with a commitment to apply its findings to the next contract. I believe that such an independent inquiry would also have the credibility to help attract back into public service the many hundreds of professional interpreters who have left because of low pay, bad conditions or a lack of acknowledgement of their professional status. This exercise would have the potential to make a long-term strategic impact on the service, as well as knocking into shape the terms of the next contract. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for pursuing this important matter, and to the Minister for his engagement on a number of occasions with those of us who support the noble Baroness and are concerned about this. During those discussions, I expressed the view that it is striking that there is such a radical difference of view between the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, with her enormous expertise in this area, and civil servants as to how the system is working in practice. I therefore suggested to the Minister that one way forward in this important area would be for him to agree that there should be an independent assessment—an independent inquiry—of an outfacing nature that can rely on the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and others in order to inform the department as to the way forward. That seems to be a constructive way forward, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to say that the department is prepared to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, having begun my response to the previous group with an apology for getting a date wrong, I then went on to get another date wrong. The case of Antia is, for those noble Lords keen to read it, 2020 and not 2000. The rest of the legal analysis, I hope, remains unchanged. I will seek to avoid any reference to dates in what I am about to say.

This amendment would restrict the Ministry of Justice to appointing in our courts and tribunals only interpreters who are registered on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters and who possess a level 6 diploma in public service interpreting or comply with the national register’s rare language status protocols. I place on record at the outset my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Hogan-Howe, and others for their time engaging with me.

This is a very important issue. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, noted that it goes to compassion, which is correct. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, it also goes to the heart of the justice process. Anyone who has done a case with interpreters knows how important their role is. Indeed, I remember one case where, when the witness answered a question of mine, it was interpreted through a language I knew, and I knew that it had been interpreted wrongly. The judge also picked up that the interpretation was wrong and the witness himself criticised the interpretation, thus illustrating that the presence of the interpreter was unnecessary, and they were dispensed with.

We currently commission the service of interpreters for our courts and tribunals through our contracted service providers, thebigword and Clarion interpreting. The contract has a clearly defined list of qualifications, skills, experience and vetting requirements interpreters must meet, which have been designed to meet the particular needs of the justice system. The highest complexity level has qualification criteria comparable to those set by the NRPSI. They are sourced from the MoJ register, which is audited by an independent language service provider, The Language Shop. All interpreters must have 100 hours of experience and complete a justice system-specific training course before they can join the register.

As the noble Baroness said, the overall failure rate of all quality assurance assessments remains low, at 5%. We believe that illustrates the effectiveness of the auditing measures. Complaints about quality are also carefully monitored and independently assessed by The Language Shop. The complaint rate remains low, at less than 1%.

I am confident that there are no systemic quality issues with the current arrangements. None the less, I discussed this in some detail with the noble Baroness and others and we want to improve the quality of the service we provide, if that is possible, right across the justice system. That is why I am commissioning a full independent review of our existing qualifications and standards and the requirements for each type of assignment our contract covers. There are over 1,000 of these—I do not have a list to hand. This will also consider experience levels and rare language requirements. The review will be completed in time to inform the retendering of our contracts in 2023. It will establish a detailed framework of the standards and qualifications required for all assignments covered by the contracts, with clear explanations and justifications for each. The aim is to ensure that our contracts continue to meet the demands of all our court users.

We will continue to consult external stakeholders, including the NRPSI—its input is highly valued. We will learn from other schemes, including the police-approved interpreter and translation scheme, which adopts a level 6 diploma in public service interpreting as a minimum qualification standard, but with safeguards to allow for exceptions as needed to ensure timeliness in progressing a case.

We understand that there are issues about the availability of NRPSI-registered interpreters in some parts of the country—40% of them are based in London. Under our current arrangements, we can control and direct recruitment for our register based on geographical and language needs. This is tied in to the supplier’s obligation to fulfil bookings and ensures that we can dictate recruitment trends to meet our requirements.

I cannot say at this stage whether the police-approved interpreter and translation scheme would be suitable for the Ministry of Justice. We are concerned not to have a one-size-fits-all approach; even within a court setting, interpreting in a criminal court is quite different from interpreting, for example, in the family jurisdiction. It is not only court settings; there is telephone interpreting for court custody officers, and service centres require interpreting assistance to support court users paying fines or responding to general inquiries. However, we will look at the outcome of the review. All the options we consider will need to be fully costed in accordance with government policy for large government procurements to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

The review will be undertaken. We have already started some work; we want to establish the most appropriate and cost-effective solution, one which meets the current and future needs of the justice system and promotes the continued development and progression of new entrants into the interpreting profession. With renewed thanks to the noble Baroness for her time and the discussions we have had, including on the option of a full independent review, which I hope I have set out clearly, I respectfully urge her to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I especially offer my thanks to the Minister and warmly welcome his decision to commission a full independent inquiry into the qualifications, experience and overall standards of all the different types of interpreters for court work. I look forward to seeing the terms of reference, the timetable and other details of this inquiry. I feel optimistic that professional bodies in the field will also feel encouraged by this development and welcome the decision. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 104FD withdrawn.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, in declaring my interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, I highlight an opportunity to improve the criminal justice system for the benefit of victims and their families, witnesses, defendants, court officials and jurors that would enhance the quality of justice and save public money. I hope that impressive list of benefits has grabbed the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson.

The issue is the provision of interpreters in our courts and tribunals. The opportunity is to insert a simple amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. In a nutshell, the problem is that the chaotic system used by the MoJ and the Courts & Tribunals Service allows far too many cases of unqualified or underqualified, inexperienced pseudo-interpreters to do such a bad job that, quite apart from damaging the reputation of properly qualified linguists, it can cause mayhem in the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice, adjourned hearings, defendants remaining in custody and an undermining of trust in an important public service.

The notorious case of Iqbal Begum led to the establishment of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters in the early 1990s. The Court of Appeal had quashed a conviction for murder against a woman when it was realised that the interpreter at her original trial had not known the difference between murder and manslaughter and, though fluent in English and Gujarati, could not speak Punjabi, the language of the accused. In another case the defendant was accused of perverting the course of justice, which the so-called interpreter managed to translate as, “You are accused of being a pervert”. In another, the interpreter’s English was so poor that he could not distinguish between a marital partner and a business partner, which led to the judge assuming the defendant was being evasive.

The national register is an independent, non-profit organisation whose purpose is to safeguard and regulate the quality and professionalism of interpreters. Registration depends on stringent criteria for training, qualifications and experience. There is a code of professional conduct and a disciplinary procedure uninfluenced by any political or commercial interest.

In 2011, however, the MoJ outsourced interpreting to reduce costs. Reduced pay and conditions for interpreters resulted in an exodus of the properly qualified ones and an influx of the unqualified. The MoJ list is not a patch on the national register. You can get on to this list just by having a GCSE pass or a low-level two-week foundation course, or just by being bilingual, even if you have never set foot in a court before. The list is outsourced to a private company and, despite the MoJ’s claim that compliance with targets has been high, the increase in aborted hearings and general dissatisfaction among lawyers and clients alike tell a different story.

The courts are out of sync with other parts of the justice system. The CPS continues to use the national register, and the new flagship Police Approved Interpreter and Translator scheme has blazed a trail for high standards. It respects all parties and, combined with the register, could be a really effective model for the courts too.

We could get all this right very easily. Part 12 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill provides for British Sign Language interpreters to assist jurors. I suggest just adding a new, simple clause to provide for spoken-word interpreters to be appointed only from the national register in order to raise standards, improve justice and save public money. It is ironic that one clause in the Bill creates a new offence for a BSL interpreter intentionally or otherwise to influence the jury. I contend that to continue to allow incompetent, unqualified spoken-word interpreters in our courts is itself, by default, a serious way of influencing the outcome of proceedings in the most negative way possible. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, even though he will not reply to this debate, will indicate that he is willing to meet me to discuss my proposal.

Courts: Resourcing and Staffing

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation as the only non-lawyer to speak in this debate. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf for providing the opportunity for me to draw attention to one particular specialist aspect of the resources available to our courts. I refer to the right to interpreting services and the way in which these services are provided. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists and put on record my sincere thanks to my fellow vice-president, Professor Tim Connell, for his invaluable help with background research on this topic. I am also grateful to the National Register of Public Service Interpreters for its briefing.

The right to interpretation is currently enshrined in EU law under Article 2 of the directive of the European Parliament dated 20 October 2010. This is several clauses long, so I shall quote just the first and last to summarise the key points. Article 2 reads:

“Member states shall ensure that suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings concerned are provided, without delay, with interpretation during criminal proceedings before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, all court hearings and any necessary interim hearings”.

The article concludes:

“Interpretation provided under this Article shall be of a quality sufficient to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, in particular by ensuring that suspected or accused persons have knowledge of the case against them and are able to exercise their right of defence”.

I know that Her Majesty’s Government regard themselves as in compliance with this directive, although in practice the service has been less than satisfactory. In 2012, the MoJ awarded the contract for court interpreting services to ALS, later Capita TI. This met with fierce controversy, with 66% of qualified interpreters refusing to work under the new system because of reduced pay rates and lack of professional recognition. The MoJ’s objective was to make savings of £18 million a year and to rationalise provision, but as an article in the Law Society Gazette pointed out, this was a false economy because of the costs of rescheduling court hearings after inadequate interpreters had led to magistrates and judges deciding they could not continue. Problems included unqualified or underqualified interpreters and people with no experience of courts or the judicial system and its language. In one case, the so-called interpreter did not know the difference between murder and manslaughter. People with the wrong language turned up: in one case, a Lithuanian interpreter arrived for a Slovakian prisoner; fortunately, they both spoke Polish so they muddled through. Often no one turned up at all because of a flawed booking system.

An investigation into the service by the National Audit Office revealed serious and systematic problems, many of which were then addressed by the Government. In fairness, this did lead to improved performance by Capita, although many, particularly the organisations representing professional interpreters, have pointed out that the performance measures used mask significant variations in quality. I am not convinced that the savings we are told have been made as a result of modifications towards the end of the Capita contract take into account the true cost of court delays, case adjournments, repeated remands in custody for offenders, and other related expenses of underperformance.

A debate in the other place in June 2013 queried the £15 million savings that had been claimed and revealed that the courts themselves had made nearly 6,500 complaints about poor interpreting standards, and that in 2012 alone 608 magistrates’ court cases and 34 Crown Court cases were recorded as ineffective because interpreters were not available. Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, criticised Capita TI for its “lamentable” failure to provide interpreters seven times in the course of a single adoption case between 2012 and 2014, as a result of which Capita TI was ordered to pay £16,000 in costs. In another example, district judge David Taylor in Bristol had to delay a hearing twice because Capita TI was unable to supply a Polish interpreter, even though there are more than 300 of them on the national register.

The MoJ’s own statistics reported that in 2015 there were 2,100 complaints about Capita’s service, the most common of which was “no interpreter available”. I was surprised to learn from a Written Answer in April this year that the costs for rescheduling cases are not recorded, so how the MoJ is actually monitoring any target savings is beyond me.

There are other important supply and resource issues to which I would like to draw the Minister’s attention. One concerns residency, an issue that was debated in more detail earlier today in this Chamber. This is a very good case in point: 27% of interpreters on the national register are non-UK nationals. If their residency status is not preserved as part of Brexit negotiations, this could have a dramatic negative impact on the availability of court interpreters for European languages.

Another issue is security clearance, where the MoJ and the Home Office appear to be at odds. In October 2012, the MoJ stated that all interpreters used by Capita TI were security vetted up to enhanced DBS level as a minimum. But the DBS, which comes under the Home Office, has told the National Register of Public Service Interpreters that it can see “no circumstances” under which an interpreter would qualify for enhanced clearance. As freelancers, interpreters have to face the additional hurdle of not having an employer to sign off the application, so some simply give up trying to square the various security circles on clearance and leave the profession. A solution to this impasse, recommended by the national register, would be to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 by adding “interpreting in the public services” to the excepted professions in Schedule 1. Will the Minister commit to looking seriously at this proposal, or urge his successor to do so?

The recent announcement that the MoJ has awarded new contracts from this autumn to a different company, thebigword, is welcome, certainly in principle, as is the fact that a separate contract is to be awarded for monitoring quality. However, I would like the Minister’s assurance that a range of factors concerned with performance, quality and standards have been fully taken on board, in particular: the exclusive use of suitably qualified interpreters; sustainable terms and conditions of employment; independent auditing of quality and performance; and statutory protection of title. I would also like an assurance from the Minister that the Brexit negotiations will ensure there is no departure from, or diminution in, the right of anybody to interpretation in the criminal justice system, as currently guaranteed under the October 2010 directive.

Court Proceedings: Written Transcripts

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to my noble friend. She is quite right: she drew the ministry’s attention to her difficulties. There are a number of contracts in existence, and some of them have been extended at various times. The ministry is currently progressing a re-procurement of all court and tribunal transcription services, and new contracts are anticipated by the end of 2016. The cost of transcripts depends on the length of the hearing. There is a difference between sentencing remarks, by which we mean the remarks accompanying the judge actually passing sentence, and the sentencing hearing, which can be very much longer and cost something like £800 or £900 per day in the Crown Court and rather more in the High Court. If you can refine your search, it tends to be very much cheaper.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister guarantee that in cases where interpreters are required in courts, the courts will continue to rely on human beings, not the idiosyncrasies of Google Translate, which has been relied on in some cases?

Legal Aid

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Deech for securing this debate. I want to raise the issue of civil legal aid in relation to debt, welfare and repossession. I declare an interest not as a lawyer but as president of the Money Advice Trust, a national charity which advises individuals and small businesses via National Debtline and Business Debtline with the aim of helping people across the UK to tackle their debts and manage their money wisely.

Problem debt is a severe issue for an increasing number of people and is currently affecting one in five households, according to research recently updated by Dr Gathergood at Nottingham University. If reports in this morning’s news are accurate, it is set to rise even further with what has been described as,

“a major surge in families with dangerous debt levels—especially among worse-off households”.

Yet only 1.7 million people currently seek advice, while problem debt casts a shadow of wider problems affecting individuals, families and society, including mental health, the exacerbation of poverty and the repossession of homes.

Apart from the continued availability of legal aid for people at the point of repossession, civil legal aid was cut under LASPO for debt advice. The advice and justice systems will inevitably feel the impact of this cutback. First, the free advice and pro bono legal advice sectors will not be able to cope with the rise in demand. I know that the Money Advice Trust is very concerned that services which do not provide legal advice, such as the National Debtline, will see this upsurge but no longer have anybody to whom they can successfully refer clients at the point at which the advice needed is legal advice and beyond the expertise of general debt advisers. What assessment have the Government made of the likely increase in demand for debt advice leading to legal advice, and what do they consider will be the impact on individuals in debt, often through no fault of their own?

Secondly, it is thought that there will be a significant increase in the number of people forced to represent themselves in court. This carries the substantial risk of creating delays in proceedings and greater inefficiency. There is also a high risk that many litigants in person will find themselves left with exorbitant court costs, as they are not only unable to represent their cases effectively due to their lack of legal expertise— regardless of the merits or otherwise of their case—but are unable to afford the services of costs draftsmen who would be able to negotiate costs on their behalf. This in turn is likely to lead to the perverse outcome of further debt. Indeed, court fines have already risen significantly as a category of debt problem on which the National Debtline is called to advise. It is now in the 10 most common types of problem debt and is more common even than mortgages.

I am also concerned about the implications of the additional cuts currently being consulted on, which aim to reduce the legal aid budget by at least another £220 million a year. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the protection for legal aid for those at the point of repossession is safe and will not be slipped into the range of new cuts?

Finally, will the Minister comment in as much detail as he is able on the proposal to recover legal aid from universal credit? This proposal is of very serious concern to the free debt advice sector, and it is likely to exacerbate problem debt among vulnerable groups. As far as I know, no details have yet been given on how this mechanism will work, and I would be grateful for any light the Minister is able to shed on this aspect of the latest round of prospective cuts.