Select committee: Public Services Committee
Conclusion 7
2nd Report - Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts
Published 24 Mar 2025
Paragraph 56
Public Services Committee Interpreting and translation services in the courts All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (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.
From: Public Services Committee, 2nd Report - Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts, paragraph 56, 24 March 2025
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 3 June 2025 (deadline 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.