Interpreting Services in the Courts (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Carter of Coles Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Carter of Coles (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords can remember their first time in the Chamber or in the other place. My own memory is that it was architecturally imposing, with unfamiliar rituals; it left me with a sense of awe and, frankly, a bit of anxiety on that first day.

This led me to think of an accused person or a defendant going into a courtroom for the first time and experiencing some of the same feelings, with impressive buildings and people in strange costumes—and, of course, anxiety. For them, however, it is different. For us, a slip might have been slightly embarrassing, but they do not know what is going on because they cannot speak English. Therefore, to make that work, we must ensure that the evidence is translated properly.

I think it was Mr Jaggers, Dickens’ favourite lawyer, who said it was not about how it looks but about the evidence. How we get that evidence there is clear—the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, gave us the numbers and statistics—but the point I want to make is that we should give some recognition to the fact that it is complicated. They do a good job. I do not think that we should diss these people. There is a problem of culture—which I will come to—but, under the skilful chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and with the support of both our clerk, Dan, and our researcher, Tom, the committee undertook to try to understand what was going on, not so much to mark the homework of the Courts Service but to take a forward-looking view: what things could we draw attention to that would actually change things, rather than going back over old ground?

In some ways, you could say that it was partly encouraging. People are making it work, to some degree. It is not as good as it could be but, from a legal point of view, it is a fact that the Court of Appeal has not overturned a judgment in the past 20 years because of mistranslation. So, despite the fact that the data may not be good or accurate, and the complaints system is there, at the moment, we have not had a major collapse on that issue. So we found some encouraging things, and we recognised how difficult it was.

Then we turned to the problems. I suppose you could describe the major problem as cultural. There is a major disconnect between what we heard from various parties and what the Courts Service told us. I would not say that it was smug, but it did not seem to recognise the need for change. Perhaps that is a contractual question: this famous contract and whether they are locked into it. The processes and the technology seem, on the whole, to be stuck in stasis somewhere.

The big issues on which we really focused were quality and data. How can you improve something if you do not have measurement? How do you relate that to quality? How does it work—and, from that, complaints, et cetera? The two big issues that really stuck out were the pay and conditions of interpreters and the question of what we are going to do about technology. The Minister comes to this anew—she will soon be very familiar with the contract—but, on pay and conditions, I must say that I was reminded of 19th-century mill owners in their approach to this. It was, “Get is as cheap as you can. Pay piecework, then lay them off if there’s nothing to do”. I am not sure that is a sustainable basis for building this incredibly important workforce. We were told by many witnesses that there was going to be a shortage.

Looking forward, pay and conditions need reforming now, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we keep getting pushed back. We do not know what those terms and conditions will be. They are wrapped up in the secrecy of the contract and confidentiality. However, really and truly, there are two things here. First, we described pay as being “low and opaque”. Then there is the fact that the conditions, including cancellation of trials and non-payment for that, are unsustainable. There is competition out there, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. There is the police service and there are other people who employ them. So, if we are to have this service on a sustained basis, what we have to do is make sure that the terms and conditions are there.

Because the contract is being negotiated, all we can ask the Minister to do is to look at the contract to make sure that it is fair and modern and has some dynamic aspects. Looking at the existing contract, we were struck that it was sclerotic and juddery and that it did not have a mechanism for reform. All these contracts need something for continuous improvement.

Those factors—pay and conditions—have to be got right, but equally important is technology. The Lord, Lord Blencathra, discussed audio-visual technology. It seemed amazing to us that the court service really has no idea of exactly what is going on out there. It talked about the need for technology and about who was responsible. Clearly, there should be an inventory and a plan. Can the Minister look at this and tell us, at some point, what assessment has been made of the existing state of technology in the courts? Is there a road map to correct it, and can that be put in place? Is it the usual story that the Treasury will not agree to it, or is there some other managerial shortcoming? It would be nice to know.

More important is the question of AI. I admit that, in this case, I often feel a bit like the famous dog watching television: I can see it but I do not get it—and I do not know how the department will get it. We had a lot of evidence discussing the speed with which AI would come. Realistically, we have to know what is possible. I hope that, at some point, the Minister will be able to tell us, perhaps in writing, whether there is a road map for this in the department, particularly for the court service. How will it assess the right moment to do it? Will it buy technology from abroad and, if so, what assessment has been made of that? Frankly, we will have a crossover with a declining labour force in this area if we continue with cheap pay, so will technology arise as an answer to some of that? We should think very carefully about that.

The question for me is the issue of continuous improvement in the contract. Let us hope that it is in the contract, and that we do not have something frozen in time. To get that right, the department must take ownership. This made me think of Mr Jaggers; he had some good clients with Magwitch and Miss Havisham, but he obviously built a pretty good practice by getting on and delivering it. I hope that the Ministry of Justice can get its act together with this contract, drawing on and taking forward what we say, so that we get a much better and, above all, sustainable service in a changing market.