https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2023-12-18b.2051.4
Victims and Prisoners
Bill - Second Reading
– in the House of Lords at 3:31 pm on 18 December 2023.
Baroness Coussins Crossbench
4:37, 18 December 2023
My Lords, I welcome the Bill’s provision to bring the victims’ code into
primary legislation and want to flag up a few points relating to the first
principle listed in the code, which is the victim’s right to understand and be
understood, with access where necessary to interpretation and translation
services. I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary
Group on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of
Linguists.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, may remember that he was kind
enough to meet me during the Brexit process, when I wanted to make sure that
the Government retained the right to interpreting and translation for people
suspected or accused of an offence, which was established by an EU directive in
2010 and subsequently transposed into domestic law. Happily, I was reassured.
Since then, the MoJ has launched an independent review of the qualifications
and experience required by court interpreters, which I hope will soon be
published. The Bill provides another much-needed piece of the criminal justice
jigsaw as far as language services go.
A victims’ code already exists, but as we know only too well from other
areas of public services, non-statutory codes or guidance do not always
guarantee the type or quality of service needed or intended—or even if they do,
we do not necessarily know whether they do. For example, I asked a Written
Question recently to try to find out who was responsible for monitoring
compliance with the NHS England guidance on interpreting and translation services
in primary healthcare. The answer was “No one—we do not monitor compliance”. It
is a very welcome step forward that, in this Bill, not only will the code be
statutory but there will be a duty on relevant bodies to promote awareness of
it and a compliance monitoring framework.
However, it is not enough just to declare a right of access to language
services if needed. As specified in the original EU directive, they must be of
an appropriate professional quality. In other words, public service
interpreters, or PSIs, must be qualified and experienced. They are specialist
professionals and not a casual nice-to-have. There is little point engaging
someone with a tip-top level 6 diploma in public service interpreting for a
complex court case if they have never set foot in a court before and are
unfamiliar with procedure or terminology. There is a well-known case from many
years ago, which I am sure the Minister will recognise, that provides a good
example of such danger. A woman was wrongly convicted of murder because it
emerged on appeal that the so-called interpreter, who was inexperienced, had
not known the difference between murder and manslaughter. It is also
self-evident that an interpreter with the right languages should be engaged—and
not someone turning up with fluent Latvian when Lithuanian is needed, or
Punjabi instead of Gujarati. I am not making these examples up—they have all
happened.
There will also be situations where the victim needs an interpreter
whose professionalism and qualifications are combined with empathy and
sensitivity. This might be provided only by someone of the same sex, given the
intimacy of what that victim needs to describe in cases of sexual violence or
exploitation. A requirement that interpreters should be on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters
is also worth considering as a guarantee of standards. There must be no more
situations in which a neighbour, friend, teenage child or court usher is asked
to play the interpreter in lieu of a properly qualified and suitable
professional.
I hope the Minister will say a little more about the compliance
monitoring framework. Flexibility for bodies to choose how they meet the duty
to promote awareness could easily result in unacceptable discrepancies from one
area to another. I would prefer to see minimum standards and expectations
clearly spelled out and specific reference to interpreting and translation
services in the Bill.
An excellent precedent for setting standards and consistency is the
police approved interpreters and translators scheme, or PAIT, launched in 2020.
Instead of a hotchpotch of different police forces operating different systems,
now most police regions in the UK mandate the same terms and conditions, and
external provider agencies are monitored and regulated. I was therefore
concerned to find out that the national manager for the PAIT scheme has not
been involved in or consulted on the development of this Bill. I strongly urge
the Minister to ensure that this happens. We must avoid a situation where
different parts of the criminal justice system deal with language services in
different ways and with different standards, criteria and guidance.
We will need better data collection, and swift updating and
strengthening of the code and all the accompanying detailed regulations. All
promotional materials, as well as the code, must be produced in a variety of
languages. This would be an excellent topic for the joint thematic inspections
envisaged under the Bill; I ask the Minister to consider that as soon as
possible. If the Bill and the current review of courts and tribunals are to
have the desired effect and lead to more consistent and effective language
services, the MoJ will need urgently to put energy and resources into a serious
campaign to improve the supply chain of public service interpreters, or this
victims’ right will be nothing more than an empty shell.
Thousands of PSIs have left the profession because of poor levels of pay
and conditions. Added to this, the post-Brexit Immigration Rules, especially
with the new salary threshold, act as a major barrier to the PSI pipeline, most
of whose practitioners are freelance. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues
in the Home Office about this specific group of professionals? I look forward
to his comments on all the issues I have raised.
