Conclusion 1
Concluded (the committee's words)While interpreting services may affect a small proportion of the cases seen in courts, it is essential that in those cases justice is administered effectively.
Select committee: Public Services Committee
Interpreting and translation services in the courts
Closed
Opened 22 May 2024
Closed 9 Sep 2025
16 recommendations
32 conclusions
Public Services Committee Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
Many public services use interpreting and translation services (ITS) for users of public services who would otherwise struggle to interact with them. The aim of this short inquiry will be to focus on procuring interpreting and translation services in the courts, policy recommendations for supporting services providers, and the potential role of technology in enabling interpreting and translation services.
Where it stands
The inquiry is closed, opened 22 May 2024.
The committee has published 1 report, most recently 2nd Report - Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts on 24 March 2025.
The government's response
Published 3 June 2025. The deadline was 24 May 2025.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Ministry of Justice welcomes the report and says it is "committed to providing an effective and high-quality interpreting service", accepting some recommendations while expressly disagreeing with others.
- On data, the MoJ "accepts" that its published interpreting data can be restructured, and will create a single publication for it "within a 6-month period". It says it is "not in the position" to publish assessment data by the next quarterly release and "cannot commit" to more data until further discussions have taken place.
- The MoJ "disagrees" with the Committee's conclusion that current provision is not acceptable and presents a significant risk to the administration of justice, citing a 96% success rate in Q4 2024.
- On pay, the MoJ "disagrees" with the recommendations on minimum pay rates, longer minimum booking times and travel pay, though it says the Consumer Price Index "will be applied to the new contracts in October 2026 and annually thereafter".
- The MoJ does not require all interpreters to hold level 6 qualifications, and "disagrees" with a single independent register. It says the Ann Carlisle review recommendations have been "fully accepted" and incorporated into the new contract specifications.
Recommendations and conclusions
- Conclusion 1Conclusion
- Recommendation 2Recommendation
- Conclusion 3Conclusion
Reports
- 2nd Report - Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts24 March 2025 · 48 items
Evidence
- 8 oral evidence sessionsLatest 18 December 2024
- 23 witnesses
Recent activity
- MOJ Update on Procurement Services to the Public Services Committee23 January 2026, Correspondence
- Government Response to Public Services Committee, 2nd report (session 2024-25): Interpreting and translation services in the Courts Service3 June 2025, Report published
- 2nd Report - Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts24 March 2025, Report published
Recommendations and conclusions 48 shown
Recommendation 2
Recommended (the committee's words)We believe that for the new tender to address the problems seen in interpreting services in the courts, the tender should be paused and reviewed, and we regret the Government’s decision not to do so. If the Government is continuing the tender without such a pause, they must ensure that the next stage of the tendering process addresses the problems set out in this report. The Government must take steps to drive forward a dynamic, flexible, forward-looking service which can adapt to the needs of the courts, support and promote technological innovation, and ensure justice is delivered and seen to be delivered.
Conclusion 3
Concluded (the committee's words)There is a clear disconnect between what the government hopes is happening, what the companies contracted to deliver the services believe is happening, and what frontline interpreters and legal professionals report is happening with interpreting services in the courts.
Conclusion 4
Concluded (the committee's words)We have low confidence in the data the MOJ reports regarding interpreting in the courts. The conflict between the reports of poor-quality interpreting in the courts, and the data published by the MOJ, suggest that significant issues with court interpreting may be being missed in the data the MOJ gathers, making it difficult for the MOJ or Parliament to assess the scale and impact of problems in this system and the impact of these problems on access to justice.
Conclusion 5
Concluded (the committee's words)As such, we are concerned that the current provision of interpreting services in the courts is not acceptable and presents a significant risk to the administration of justice.
Recommendation 6
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should take steps to improve the quality and consistency of the data gathered relating to interpreting in the courts, and should publish further data on the performance of interpreting services in the courts from the next quarterly data release onwards. This should include all data gathered by companies supplying the service, and data on the number and proportion of cases which are delayed due to problems in interpreting services.
Conclusion 7
Concluded (the committee's words)We are asking the National Audit Office to re-explore this area, following up the recommendations of the NAO’s 2012 report. This should include but not be limited to an examination of how robustly the MOJ is gathering, analysing and communicating information regarding the quality of interpreting services in the courts and the arrangement of those services.
Conclusion 8
Concluded (the committee's words)Despite the Government’s efforts, frontline staff do not feel engaged with or represented in discussions with the Government regarding interpreting in the courts.
Recommendation 9
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should improve existing mechanisms for stakeholder engagement. Within six months, the MOJ should create a stakeholder forum which provides opportunities for regular and direct feedback from frontline legal professionals working with interpreters in the courts, and interpreters delivering interpreting services in the courts.
Conclusion 10
Concluded (the committee's words)Problems with interpreting in the courts can present potentially damaging risks. They can delay cases, present a significant yet unknown cost to the taxpayer, cause people to be detained beyond what courts view as necessary, and undermine trust in the justice system. Ultimately, poor interpreting risks miscarriages of justice.
Conclusion 11
Concluded (the committee's words)The nature of interpreting means it is extremely challenging for non-interpreters to identify poor quality interpreting. As such, a robust quality assurance system is of paramount importance for interpreting in the courts.
Conclusion 12
Concluded (the committee's words)The current assessment process cannot capture interpreting in key instances of court interpreting, such as closed courts and whispered interpreting. This means that assessment data may miss interpreter errors in certain court settings. It also means that assessment data used by the MOJ may provide a misleading picture of the performance of court interpreting, potentially leading to poor policy decisions.
Conclusion 13
Concluded (the committee's words)As part of the new quality assurance process contract, the MOJ should ensure that assessments regularly take place in ‘closed’ settings such as family courts. Assessment processes should be amended to enable assessors to effectively judge the quality of whispered interpreting to parties, including through the use of recorded cases.
Conclusion 14
Concluded (the committee's words)Even when a significant problem which could affect the course of a trial is identified and shared with the MOJ by the quality assurance provider, it is not clear whether the MOJ will share this information with relevant parties. This limits the ability to recognise potential appeals or miscarriages of justice.
Recommendation 15
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should clearly state the requirements for when and how the MOJ informs relevant parties when there have been problems with interpreting which may have implications for the outcome of the case, and should publish information setting out how this process works.
Recommendation 16
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should publish assessment data for court interpreting from the next quarterly data release onwards. This data should include the number of assessments undertaken, the number and proportion of assessments which identified problems, the severity of problems identified, and the number of cases where the MOJ took further action such as informing parties to a case that problems had been identified. It should be clear within the data publication what types of court hearings have had assessments.
Conclusion 17
Concluded (the committee's words)The Government’s data on complaints significantly underrepresents the number of problems seen in the courts, due to low awareness, poor communication of the system, and cultural barriers among legal professionals. As complaints can result in interpreters being re-assessed or barred from working in the courts, this represents a significant issue in the quality assurance system which must be urgently addressed.
Recommendation 18
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government must urgently take steps to improve awareness of complaints systems among legal professionals so that they are able to raise concerns through appropriate channels. This awareness raising should consider the wider issues facing legal professionals which prevent them from submitting complaints.
Recommendation 19
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should clarify where responsibility sits for submitting complaints regarding problems in interpreting in the courts, and should publish data on who submits complaints, for example whether they are a judicial office holder, HMCTS staff, a legal representative, or party to a case. This will enable the MOJ to identify if particular groups are not engaging with the complaints system. We request an update from the Government on progress within 6 months of this report’s publication.
Conclusion 20
Concluded (the committee's words)Currently, the very people interpreting services are intended to support face a language barrier submitting complaints about interpreting services. This must urgently be addressed.
Recommendation 21
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should make complaints processes more accessible for non-English speakers. This should include making complaints forms and their signposting available in the most common languages used by the courts, and proactively sharing information about the complaints process with people who use interpreting services, in their native language, when they access the service. The Committee requests an update on progress within six months.
Conclusion 22
Concluded (the committee's words)The current system creates perverse incentives for court interpreters to work outside the main contracted system, due to issues with pay and terms and conditions . While we welcome steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of off-contract bookings, this should be achieved through improving pay and terms and conditions in the contracted service, removing incentives for interpreters to work off-contract.
Conclusion 23
Concluded (the committee's words)The lack of significant pay uplift under the current contract has led to more interpreters leaving the profession, or actively choosing to work off-contract. This has led to greater burden on the court system, and less assurance over the quality of interpreters.
Conclusion 24
Concluded (the committee's words)Both interpreters and language companies advocate for minimum pay rates. Without minimum pay rates, interpreters cannot guarantee their take-home pay for assignments, and companies are incentivised to reduce pay rates as a means of competing for fixed contracts.
Recommendation 25
Recommended (the committee's words)To ensure sustainability of the interpreter workforce in the short- and long- term, the Government should take steps to improve pay for interpreters, including the introduction of minimum pay rates for interpreters, drawing on examples such as the PAIT scheme. The Government should ensure that the new contract includes provision for reviewing and increasing minimum pay for interpreters on at least an annual basis. Such increases should come alongside increased funding for the providers of interpreting services.
Conclusion 26
Concluded (the committee's words)Interpreters and translators can lose significant amounts of money, with limited options to find alternative work, when cases are delayed or cancelled. Current provisions such as the two-hour guaranteed payment and cancellation payments are not adequate, especially when interpreters are booked for extended periods of time.
Conclusion 27
Concluded (the committee's words)In the new contract , the Ministry of Justice should increase rates for minimum booking time and cancellation rates, ensuring that language companies pass on an appropriate amount to interpreters. The two-hour guarantee should be revised to ensure that payment is proportionate to the length of the booking, and cancellation fees should be proportionate to the notice of cancellation and the length of the booking.
Conclusion 28
Concluded (the committee's words)While travel pay is left to language suppliers to set, their ability to incentivise bookings which include travel costs through dynamic pricing is not working. The lack of commensurate travel pay is causing interpreters to not take bookings and reducing their take-home pay.
Conclusion 29
Concluded (the committee's words)The Ministry of Justice should insist that language service providers increase pay for travel time and expenses. A travel compensation system should be designed where travel expenses paid to interpreters is commensurate to travel costs.
Conclusion 30
Concluded (the committee's words)While the irregularity of work in the courts for interpreters means that freelance may be the most suitable means of employment, the use of a single language supplier for the courts leads to a lack of control for interpreters about their choice of employer and pay rates, while also missing out on benefits associated with being employees.
Conclusion 31
Concluded (the committee's words)We found that in some cases interpreters are not treated as professionals working within the court and are not considered key members in the running of the court. Interpreters are treated like members of the public and not kept up to date on court logistics. Further, interpreters are not given appropriate information about potentially long, complex or technical court cases, which may require extra preparation and resources by the interpreter ahead of time.
Conclusion 32
Concluded (the committee's words)Interpreters feel that their wellbeing is often not considered, particularly when they are not warned about, or given the resources in a timely manner to prepare for, potentially distressing cases.
Recommendation 33
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should provide guidance for courts , focusing on the treatment of interpreters. Guidance should ensure that interpreters’ key role in court proceedings is recognised, and that HMCTS provides information about cases ahead of time, in order to improve interpreters’ wellbeing and ensure they can make necessary preparations.
Conclusion 34
Concluded (the committee's words)It is unacceptable that individuals with qualifications as low as level 1 have been permitted to interpret in the courts. While we welcome the Government’s ambition to ensure that all interpreters working in the courts hold an appropriate level 6 qualification, we note this is not reflected in the qualification requirements they expect to include in the new contract. We remain concerned that there are not currently enough interpreters with level 6 qualifications to meet existing demands.
Recommendation 35
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should set out a clear plan to ensure that all interpreters in the courts are qualified up to a level 6 standard wherever this qualification is available in a language, or an alternative appropriate qualification for rarer languages where there is not a formal qualification. The plan should include time-bound milestones and steps to develop qualifications in partnership with relevant stakeholders, while ensuring the workforce remains at a sustainable level. Alongside this, the Government should ensure the new contract can be adjusted to require level 6 qualifications for all work in the courts, and should introduce this requirement once an appropriate number of level 6 qualified interpreters are on the register. We request that the MOJ writes to the Committee providing progress updates every six months following the publication of the Government’s response to this report.
Conclusion 36
Concluded (the committee's words)We welcome efforts to improve training and funding to those seeking level 6 qualifications through the Trainee Scheme managed by The Language Shop. However, there remains significant issues in the training and development opportunities for interpreters working in the courts.
Recommendation 37
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should take steps to expand and improve awareness of the Trainee Scheme. Alongside this, the Government should consider how to subsidise or fund further professional development opportunities for interpreters in public services.
Conclusion 38
Concluded (the committee's words)A number of registers exist which allow interpreters to access work in the courts depending on whether it is an MOJ booking or off-contract booking. In order for interpreters to access work across the criminal justice system, they will require membership to several of these registers, all of which have different qualification and vetting requirements, and varying fees.
Recommendation 39
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should ensure that a new independent single register of interpreters is established which ensures a high standard of vetting and entry criteria, so that highly skilled interpreters have access to work across the criminal justice system.
Conclusion 40
Concluded (the committee's words)Remote interpreting in courts is hampered by a lack of infrastructure such as insufficient audio-visual equipment and the integration of remote links into court proceedings. Many of these issues could be addressed with thoughtful refurbishment of the court estate.
Conclusion 41
Concluded (the committee's words)The use of remote interpreting, if done correctly, can increase opportunities for interpreters to undertake more work, retain more of their take-home pay, and help stabilise the number of interpreters leaving the profession.
Recommendation 42
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should use their court refurbishment project to ensure that the court estate infrastructure is suitable for remote interpreting, including appropriate audio -visual equipment, court layout and procedures. It should also ensure that the necessary infrastructure, training and culture change are implemented to maximise the benefits of remote interpreting where appropriate.
Recommendation 43
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should seek to introduce remote interpreting more widely in cases with lower stakes such as procedural, administrative, and technical hearings in order to incentivise interpreters to take shorter bookings, while retaining in-person interpreters for higher stake hearings such as full trials, plea hearings and sentencing.
Conclusion 44
Concluded (the committee's words)The introduction of sound booths would allow interpreters to undertake an improved level of simultaneous interpreting through audio equipment without interruption of court proceedings. This would also remove whispered interpreting in the dock, allowing for better independent assessment.
Recommendation 45
Recommended (the committee's words)The Government should introduce dedicated audio equipment, including sound booths, for interpreters as part of court refurbishments, and provide appropriate portable equipment for un-refurbished courts.
Conclusion 46
Concluded (the committee's words)Risks associated with AI translation and interpreting means that, for the most part, they cannot currently be deployed in the courts, especially without human interpreter oversight. However, the use of AI tools in translation in the private sector, and the rapid development of AI, suggests that there are significant future opportunities for use in the courts. It is essential that the Government uses upcoming spending reviews to plan for these opportunities, which have the potential to transform public services including interpreting in the courts. We welcome the aspirations in the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan to develop and scale AI products in the public sector.
Conclusion 47
Concluded (the committee's words)Using the principles and milestones outlined in the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan, the MOJ should develop and publish a funded roadmap for the introduction of AI tools for interpreting in public services within six months. This roadmap should include proposals to make court technology capable of implementing AI tools for interpreting. Engagement with AI companies, language companies and interpreters should also inform the roadmap.
Conclusion 48
Concluded (the committee's words)In line with the Government’s ambition to rapidly pilot and scale AI services, the MOJ should, as soon as possible, develop ‘exemplar courts’ which pilot the introduction of different audio-visual technologies and the use of AI to support interpreters and translators , in order to test and develop standards for AI use in courts.
Reports
2nd Report - Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts
- HC No.
- Not recorded
- Published
- 24 Mar 2025
- Items
- 48
- Government response
- Government response published 3 June 2025 (deadline 24 May 2025). Read the government's response ↗
Oral evidence sessions
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Date | Session and witnesses | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 18 Dec 2024 |
Oral evidence session
Daniel Flury · HM Courts and Tribunals Service,
Nick Goodwin · HM Courts and Tribunals Service,
Sarah Sackman MP · Ministry of Justice
|
View ↗ |
| 4 Dec 2024 |
Oral evidence session
Jaimin Patel · thelanguageshop,
Sam Lingard · thelanguageshop
|
View ↗ |
| 27 Nov 2024 |
Oral evidence session
Daniela Ford · Centre for Translation Studies, University College London,
Professor Richard Susskind OBE · Society for Computers and Law,
Professor Sabine Braun · University of Surrey
|
View ↗ |
| 20 Nov 2024 |
Oral evidence session
Bernadette Byrne · Association of Translation Companies,
Mark Rice · thebigword,
Mrs Raisa McNab · Association of Translation Companies
|
View ↗ |
| 13 Nov 2024 |
secondary
Frankie Williams · DeepL,
Larysa Booth · LingvoHouse Translation Services,
Reggie Mitchell · Speechmatics
|
View ↗ |
| 6 Nov 2024 |
Oral evidence session
John Worne · Chartered Institute of Linguists,
Mr Mike Orlov · National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI),
Sara Robertson · Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI)
|
View ↗ |
| 30 Oct 2024 |
Oral evidence session
Julie Howkins · Ministry of Justice,
Kris Hamson · Ministry of Justice,
Mark Stewart · Ministry of Justice
|
View ↗ |
| 23 Oct 2024 |
Oral evidence session
Philip Stott · Bar Council,
Richard Millar · Climate Change Committee,
Susan Grocott KC · Bar Council
|
View ↗ |
Who gave evidence
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Witness | Organisation | Sessions |
|---|---|---|
| Bernadette Byrne · Council Member | Association of Translation Companies | 1 |
| Daniel Flury · Operations Director | HM Courts and Tribunals Service | 1 |
| Daniela Ford · MSc Translation & Technology Director | Centre for Translation Studies, University College London | 1 |
| Frankie Williams · Chief Legal Officer | DeepL | 1 |
| Jaimin Patel · Managing Director | thelanguageshop | 1 |
| John Worne · Chief Executive | Chartered Institute of Linguists | 1 |
| Julie Howkins · Deputy Director, Commercial for HM Courts and Tribunal Service | Ministry of Justice | 1 |
| Kris Hamson · Deputy Director, Intelligent Client Capability & Contract Services Division | Ministry of Justice | 1 |
| Larysa Booth · Head of Sales | LingvoHouse Translation Services | 1 |
| Mark Rice · Global Managing Director | thebigword | 1 |
| Mark Stewart · Courts and Tribunals Director | Ministry of Justice | 1 |
| Mr Mike Orlov · Director | National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) | 1 |
| Mrs Raisa McNab · Chief Executive Officer | Association of Translation Companies | 1 |
| Nick Goodwin · Chief Executive | HM Courts and Tribunals Service | 1 |
| Philip Stott · Co- Chair, Legal Services Committee | Bar Council | 1 |
| Professor Richard Susskind OBE · President | Society for Computers and Law | 1 |
| Professor Sabine Braun · Professor of Translation Studies and Director of the Centre for Translation Studies | University of Surrey | 1 |
| Reggie Mitchell · Strategic Partnerships | Speechmatics | 1 |
| Richard Millar · Head of Adaptation | Climate Change Committee | 1 |
| Sam Lingard · Director | thelanguageshop | 1 |
| Sara Robertson · CEO | Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI) | 1 |
| Sarah Sackman MP · Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services | Ministry of Justice | 1 |
| Susan Grocott KC · Co-Chair, Legal Services Committee | Bar Council | 1 |
Correspondence
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
Meetings & visits
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Date | Type | Detail | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26 Feb 2025 | Formal meeting (private meeting) | Formal Meeting (Private Meeting) · Room 4A, Palace of Westminster | |
| 12 Feb 2025 | Formal meeting (private meeting) | Private Meeting · Room 4A, Palace of Westminster | |
| 17 Dec 2024 | Formal meeting (private meeting) | Not recorded · Virtual | |
| 16 Oct 2024 | Formal meeting (private meeting) | Not recorded · Room 3A, Palace of Westminster | |
| 9 Oct 2024 | Formal meeting (private meeting) | Not recorded · Room 2, Palace of Westminster |