Interpreting Services in the Courts (Public Services Committee Report)

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this report and begin by declaring my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages, and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, both of which submitted evidence to the committee’s inquiry. I am very glad to say that many of our concerns were shared by the committee and are reflected in its recommendations.

My overriding concerns are twofold: first, to ensure equal access to justice for everyone caught up in the criminal justice system, be they defendant, witness or victim; and, secondly, to secure a step change in the way that public service interpreters—PSIs—are acknowledged, treated, respected and rewarded. As we have heard, they are highly skilled and qualified professionals, yet their work is currently valued on a par with unskilled jobs. Their pay starts at £20 an hour, rising to a magnificent £26 an hour for complex cases, yet they are working alongside solicitors, whose lowest hourly rate recommended by government guidelines is £196.

Progress on both my overriding concerns is achievable, if the Government agree not only to accept but to act on the committee’s recommendations and within the timeframe specified; I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance on that. Timing, indeed urgency, is of the essence, because the two issues—of equal access to justice and the status of PSIs—are of course inextricably linked. We are seeing disheartened, disillusioned, exhausted qualified interpreters reluctantly leaving the public sector every month, because they cannot afford to live within the terms and conditions on offer. This results in an ever-increasing risk of individuals in courts and tribunals having their access to justice delayed, denied or diminished.

The need for a clear commitment from government on the timeline for a plan, with timebound milestones for ensuring a pipeline of PSIs qualified at level 6, is critical, and the committee has requested progress updates every six months. Can the Minister undertake to provide these? Similarly, there is an immediate need for better and fuller data collection to ensure that we have a more complete picture of the effectiveness or otherwise of court interpreting services and the quality-assurance regime.

We have seen a lot of improvements since 1985, when Mrs Begum won her appeal against her murder conviction after it was revealed that, in her original trial, the so-called interpreter had not understood the difference between manslaughter and murder. Unless the pipeline of level 6 interpreters is increased, we may risk going backwards, not forwards.

Will the Minister also agree that the MoJ should insist on service providers increasing rates of pay, including for travel time and expenses, and that minimum pay should be reviewed at least annually, as recommended? Can she also spell out what other measures the MoJ intends to take to improve the supply chain by enhancing support for training, public respect for the professionalism of PSIs, and the provision of the appropriate technical and other equipment they need in court to do their job properly and safely? Will she commit to costing and including dedicated audio equipment, such as sound booths, in the court refurbishment programme?

Another committee recommendation is that remote interpreting should be introduced more widely for less complex cases. This is undoubtedly pragmatic and realistic as part of a long-term solution. I would caution only that in the evidence submitted by the APPG, we pointed out that during the Covid lockdowns there was a big shift towards remote court hearings and that a series of major reports, including one from the Magistrates’ Association, found significant concerns over the suitability of remote interpreting, with examples of misunderstandings, delays, poorly performing technology and missed verbal and non-verbal cues. We therefore recommended that research be carried out to show how such failings can be eliminated in future. Let us get this right, not rush it.

I caution also against the reliability and wholesale adoption of machine translation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, was quite right to say that it is not appropriate in all languages. The huge gaps currently in AI training data mean that machine translation works very well for standard Romance languages such as Spanish, Italian and French, and for German, but it is much less effective in languages with many dialects, such as Arabic, and has been shown to be virtually useless with tonal languages such as Mandarin and many other Asian and African languages. We need to look at what AI training data is being used before we commit entirely to machine translation.

Finally, it seems very strange to me, as it did to the committee, that different government departments and the police are all maintaining their own lists and registers of interpreters and translators when there is a national register in place which might simply need the Government and public services to get behind it. I hope the Minister might comment on this.

In conclusion, I offer my thanks and congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and her committee on such a rigorous and helpful inquiry and report, and I look forward to its speedy implementation, as well as to the reply from the Minister, who is of course most welcome in her new role.

Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Baroness Coussins Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, the failure to use professional qualified interpreters in our courts often results in cases being adjourned. This adds to the backlog, not to mention the costs.

I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages and as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists. I warmly welcome this week’s publication by the MoJ of the review of qualifications and experience required by public service interpreters. I thank the Government for accepting all its recommendations.

During the Covid lockdown there was a major shift towards remote court hearings, but a series of reports found serious concerns about remote interpreting, with misunderstandings, delays, poorly performing technology, and missed verbal and non-verbal cues. The University of Surrey’s Centre for Translation Studies has produced cutting-edge research on the use of technology in court interpreting. This research and best practice guidance have been provided to the MoJ. Can the Minister say whether these have been distributed to the courts? There will always be certain situations where remote interpreting is appropriate or unavoidable. Remote interpreting generally takes more time and slows things down, so if the primary driver is cost saving then the impact on court time and, therefore, backlog clearing must be factored in when weighing up the imagined savings versus true costs.

The other strategy which might well backfire and cause greater delays is the uncontrolled use of AI-enabled machine translation, rather than a qualified human being. Accuracy must be non-negotiable but, according to the CIOL, for interpreting—as opposed to translation —it is very unlikely in the near term that AI or machine translation will be usable as anything other than a support tool for human interpreters without major risks and the likelihood of appeals and legal challenges. It works pretty well for the standard European Romance languages and for German, but significantly less so for languages with many dialects, such as Arabic. It can be nearly useless for languages which are rarely included in AI training data, including many Asian and African languages.

Given this disparity, it would be almost impossible for the courts to maintain equality of treatment before the law. AI and machine translation commonly fail to detect sarcasm, irony or humour, not to mention slang and euphemisms—often used in crime to disguise meaning —which human interpreters readily understand but which leave AI befuddled and hallucinating. Is the MoJ fully engaged with DSIT in its work to develop policy on AI, including for machine translation, so that the courts can derive the benefits without the pitfalls? Can the Minister also reassure the House that the amendments to the victims’ code to ensure the use of only professional qualified translators and interpreters, which he supported so strongly in opposition, will be brought into practice without any further delay?