https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2021-11-22a.651.1
Amendment 280
Police, Crime, Sentencing
and Courts Bill - Committee (10th Day) – in the House of Lords at 7:15
pm on 22nd November 2021.
Baroness Coussins Crossbench
My Lords, I am grateful to
the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of
Henley-on-Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Pannick for adding their names to my
amendment. I am sorry that my noble friend has had to leave for another
commitment, but he wanted me to confirm that he planned to speak in support of
this amendment. I declare my interests as a co-chair of the All-Party
Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages and the vice-president of the Chartered
Institute of Linguists.
The purpose of this
amendment is to establish in law
“minimum standards for
qualifications and experience” of those appointed to act as interpreters in Her
Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. For the avoidance of doubt, let me
clarify that, for the purposes of this amendment, I am referring only to spoken
word interpreters, not sign language interpreters.
I am grateful to the noble
Lord, Lord Wolfson, for meeting me earlier in the year to discuss this and
related issues. I very much hope that the Minister replying tonight will be
able to facilitate another meeting between me, other interested parties and the
noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, between now and Report to look at my proposals more
precisely. Obviously, my best-case scenario is the Government accepting my
amendment or coming back on Report with a better-worded version to achieve the
same, or a closely similar, end.
I will not repeat the
detailed case that I set out at Second Reading. I will simply summarise the way
in which the appointment of court interpreters as it is currently organised,
using the Ministry of Justice’s register and delivered via outsourced private
companies, is inadequate—often seriously so, leading at best to mistakes and,
at worst, to miscarriages of justice. It is an easy way for fake interpreters
to present themselves. Too often, hearings need to be abandoned and expensively
rescheduled, sometimes with defendants on remand for longer—all at public
expense.
My objective is to
strengthen the MoJ register for interpreters, thereby improving the quality and
administration of justice. I will explain each of the three elements of my
proposed minimum standards in a little more detail, starting with the second,
which relates to the qualifications that a court interpreter should have. I am
sure all noble Lords would agree that, if they were having heart surgery or
even having their tonsils out, they would expect the surgeon to have more than
a GCSE in biology. If they were passengers in an aeroplane, they would not
expect the pilot just to have a geography degree and know roughly which way was
south. They would not expect their car to be serviced by a mechanic whose only
proven competence was in the use of a tin opener. Yet you can get on to the
MoJ’s register of approved interpreters simply by having a GCSE pass or a
low-level two-week foundation course, or just by being bilingual, even if you
have never set foot in a court before.
I know it is sometimes
argued that many of the cases requiring the services of an interpreter are very
simple and straightforward, and so do not need an advanced level of linguistic
skill. Cases are indeed categorised according to three levels: namely,
standard, the lowest or simplest level; complex; or complex and written.
However, I would argue that even if a defendant were in court facing a charge
over an unpaid parking ticket, which I would assume would be classified as
standard, they would still want an interpreter who knew the difference between,
let us say, stationery with “ery” at the end and stationary with “ary” at the
end. The potential for confusion can be imagined.
Of course, the landmark
case which first drew significant attention to the problems with court
interpreters illustrated the far more serious and potentially life-changing
implications of using an unqualified or underqualified interpreter in the most
serious and complex cases. This was where a woman accused of murder found
herself in court with an interpreter who did not know the different between murder
and manslaughter. A qualified interpreter is doing professional, specialist and
highly skilled work just as much as the heart surgeon, airline pilot or car
mechanic.
As I said at Second Reading,
there is consensus among the specialist professional bodies that the diploma in
public service interpreting at level 6 should be the minimum standard for any
court interpreting work. This is supported by the National Register of PSIs,
the Chartered Institute of Linguists, the Association of Police and Court
Interpreters and the recently launched Police Approved Interpreters and
Translators scheme, known as PAIT. The DPSI level 6 is pitched absolutely
correctly for all types of court interpreting and is a qualification registered
with Ofqual. It enables accurate, procedurally and culturally informed, wholly
accurate interpreting, whatever the level of case complexity.
Noble Lords will notice,
however, that my amendment, at paragraph (b), includes the words
“or comply with NRPSI Rare
Language Status protocols”.
The reason for this is that
there are some languages that are not yet covered by the DPSI level 6 but are,
nevertheless, sometimes in demand in our courts. Examples include Basque,
Moldovan, Sinhalese and Yoruba. In these and similar circumstances, the
National Register of PSIs has a matrix of competences and experience which, if
met, would still guarantee the level of interpreting skill required for those
languages.
Qualifications are one
thing, but without relevant experience they could amount to misleading or false
assurance for the defendant, witness, victim, lawyer, judge or juror concerned,
who must of course depend on the interpreter’s competence. That is why my
proposed minimum standards consist not only of the level 6 diploma but also, in
paragraph (c), a number of hours of court interpreting experience
“commensurate with the
category of case complexity”,
which, as I have mentioned
before, could range from the contested parking ticket to charges of murder,
rape or terrorism. I have not specified the number of hours in the amendment,
because I think this is a professional matter to be negotiated and resolved by
detailed consultation between the MoJ and relevant professional bodies, some of
which I have already referred to. As an example, the Police Approved
Interpreters and Translators scheme, PAIT, requires 400 hours of experience
alongside the level 6 diploma.
The importance of
experience as a crucial component of a minimum standard, rather than a
qualification alone, has been starkly illustrated by the results of spot checks
conducted on behalf of the MoJ. Of 118 interpreters subject to a spot check by
the Language Shop, all allocated from the MoJ’s register, an alarming 50%
failed the check’s criteria, and 39 of those 59 failures were people with the
level 6 diploma, which demonstrates that what is needed is qualification plus
experience. No court, defendant, lawyer, witness or victim should be satisfied
with the poor standard of competence revealed by those spot checks.
The good news is that,
thanks to the helpful dialogue I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, I
am aware that there is already a stakeholders’ forum set up by the MoJ to
discuss all these issues with the professional bodies and interested parties.
This is just the right environment in which to thrash out an agreed position on
the various levels of experience needed for different case complexities.
The third and last element
of my proposed minimum standard, which appears in paragraph (a) is that
interpreters should only be appointed from the National Register of Public
Service Interpreters. This would not be a radical departure. Currently, the Metropolitan
Police only uses interpreters from the national register, as do the Crown
Prosecution Service, the National Crime Agency and the Northern Ireland courts.
Again, such a requirement would be welcomed by the professional bodies in the
field.
The national register
represents the highest standards of appropriate qualification plus experience,
as well as being an independent and not-for-profit body. It safeguards and
regulates the quality and professionalism of public service interpreters who
work across the criminal justice system as well as in the health service. There
is a code of professional conduct, which has also been adopted by PAIT, the
police interpreters scheme, and its disciplinary procedure is uninfluenced by
any political or commercial interest. In other words, it is a framework which
is far more reliable, professional and gaffe-proof than the MoJ register—what
is not to like?
The noble Lord, Lord
Wolfson, indicated to me in a previous discussion that one obstacle to this
part of my proposal is that to appoint court interpreters only from the
national register would breach public contract protocols. I hope the Minister
this evening will be kind enough to explain what is meant by this. So far, all
the people whom I have asked about it—lawyers and lay people alike—have
confessed to not knowing what it means. Perhaps I have consulted the wrong
people and the Minister will enlighten me. If the Metropolitan Police and the
CPS, to name but two organisations, are using the national register and have
not yet come a cropper over public contract protocols, is this really a
legitimate barrier or just a needless worry?
My amendment would be a
desirable and welcome step forward in improving the quality of the service for
all concerned. It would be a logical development and progression from the
existing MoJ system to a more tried and tested format.
