2nd Report - Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts

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.

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. (Paragraph 23) The challenge

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Despite the Government’s efforts, frontline staff do not feel engaged with or represented in discussions with the Government regarding interpreting in the courts.

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.

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.

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. (Paragraph 71) Quality assurance

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Currently, the very people interpreting services are intended to support face a language barrier submitting complaints about interpreting services. This must urgently be addressed.

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. (Paragraph 106) Interpreter workforce

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. (Paragraph 175) Technology and interpreting

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. (Paragraph 221) < Back Next > © Parliamentary copyright 2025 A-Z index Glossary Contact us Freedom of Information Jobs Using this website Copyright Privacy notice Cookie policy Cookie Manager House of Lords - Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts - Public Services Committee Accessibility Email alerts RSS feeds Contact us Home Parliamentary business MPs, Lords & offices About Parliament Get involved Visiting Education House of Commons House of Lords What's on Bills & legislation Committees Publications & records Parliament TV News Topics Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts Contents