Interpreting Services in the Courts (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Mott Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Mott (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the new Minister and wish her well in her—I hope—long career. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, pointed out, our committee has had some success with newly-appointed Ministers lasting a little longer than some colleagues.

The use of translation services in the public sector is of ongoing interest. It has been a pleasure to serve on the Public Services Committee under the excellent leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and to be involved in the publication of this report. My focus today is going to be on the final set of recommendations on artificial intelligence, as already mentioned by one or two noble Lords.

Overall, a huge problem for the committee is the quality and availability of accurate data, not just in this report but in others we have made. Nevertheless, when it comes to our legal system, equal access to justice is a fundamental principle. That means providing high-quality interpretation and translation services to individuals when it is needed. The current level of services sometimes falls short and can present a risk to justice and potentially increase the burden on the court system.

As a result, the committee’s report Lost in Translation? is timely, especially as the Ministry of Justice is currently renegotiating a contract for language services. It has been a pleasure to work on the report with colleagues from across the House and the report contains many recommendations that I hope the Government will draw on. These include improving performance data, quality assurance and the workforce—all of which offer practical solutions that I hope the Government will look at seriously.

Today I want to focus on what I regard as potentially the most transformational issues that we considered: the role of new technology and, in particular, AI. There are numerous benefits that it can offer, from increasing the availability and quality of interpretation to reducing the cost to the taxpayer. Every part of the public sector is under pressure and will need to look for savings. AI could transform interpreting in our courts.

First, we have all adapted to remote working since the pandemic. It is clear that it is not suited to everyone or to every role, but there are many ways in which it can increase efficiency. It can hardly be described as cutting edge. The report notes that the use of remote interpreting can increase the amount of work that an interpreter can do and that it is particularly suited to procedural, administrative and technical hearings. Does the Minister agree? Will the Government consider how they can use any court refurbishment to ensure that more courts are suitable for remote interpreting, including having the appropriate audio-visual equipment, court layout changes and procedures? This would be a positive step and could draw on lessons from across government, in areas such as health.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, is the role that AI may play in the future of translation in public services. I was initially disappointed to note that the MoJ seemed to be rejecting the potential value of AI, citing not only concerns on accuracy but also legal, policy, cultural and ethical implications. I agree that in such high-stake situations as substantive court proceedings, the need for accuracy and associated risks mean that we may not be quite there for full rollout. However, the use of AI for translation is already widely adopted in the business world. New technology should not be held to a higher standard than the status quo. Even the most skilled human interpreter cannot guarantee 100% accuracy. After all, human error cannot be totally removed from any system.

Best-in-class AI models are already way ahead of ad hoc use of basic digital translation tools that we heard in evidence are sometimes used as a last resort in the courts at the moment. The developments in AI that we have seen in the last few years mean that it would be a mistake to underestimate where the technology may be in the next 12 months, let alone five years. We heard from only one witness who believed that AI would move at pace. His evidence was quite punchy but nevertheless serious. It is clear that he was correct. I am disappointed that the department will not commit to a road map within six months. I strongly believe that AI will play a substantial role in the future of translation services. Most likely, this will be alongside and with oversight by skilled translation professionals. The Government should be planning on this basis.

Will the Minister commit to implementing the committee’s recommendation to publish within six months a funded road map for the introduction of AI tools for interpreting in public services? Will the Government commit to continuing to engage with industry to ensure that they are able to make the most of AI in this area? We need to ensure that momentum is sustained, and I welcome the work that the Government have done with major industry players—from the memorandum of understanding between the UK and OpenAI on AI opportunities, signed in July, and ongoing work to boost automation and efficiency across numerous departments with partners such as Microsoft and UiPath.

Finally, while I was initially disappointed by the MoJ’s attitude to the use of AI in the court system, I was heartened to hear that it is piloting the use of AI translation technology in certain prison settings. It is encouraging to see this taking place in modern and Victorian-era prisons. I hope that these pave the way for a wider rollout, in line with the Government’s stated ambition to pilot and scale AI services. To do this, will the Minister also take forward our recommendation to develop exemplar courts that can pilot the better deployment of remote interpretation and AI to support the delivery of interpretation and translation services?

In conclusion, I believe that we have an excellent example here of how AI is on the cusp of being suitable for deployment in public services. It can improve the work of our courts and, I believe, improve the status and work of translators. I hope that Ministers choose to seize that opportunity.