https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2025-11-03.87520.h
Prisons:
Translation Services
Ministry
of Justice written question – answered at on 11 November 2025.
Rupert
Lowe
Independent, Great Yarmouth
To
ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) translators and
(b) interpreters have worked in the prison estate since 2018; and
what the total cost to the public purse was for their services.
Jake
Richards
Assistant Whip, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Justice
HMPPS
uses translation services provided under contract. These services
provide translation by phone and do not require translators to
physically come onto the prison estate. There may be specific
occasions where in person translators are required but we do not hold
a central record for these and to collect the information would incur
disproportionate cost.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2025-11-11a.233.0
Amendment
79ZA (to Amendment 79)
Border
Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - Report
(4th Day) (Continued) –
in the House of Lords at 8:18 pm on 11 November 2025.
Baroness
Ludford Liberal Democrat
[…]
Although the merits of the issue speak for themselves, I was
specifically drawn to supporting the noble Baroness because I was
involved, in a previous life, in promoting access to interpretation
and translation services for defendants in the criminal justice
system—that was an EU directive. Therefore, I wanted to transfer my
support to the area of asylum law.
I
will say a few words on EU-derived law. The noble Baroness mentioned
the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007. I was interested to see a
reference to that in a letter, which was also kindly made available
to me, that the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Katz, sent to the noble
Baroness on 24 October. That followed the meeting we had had with him
and officials, in which it did not cross my mind to look at the
implementation of the EU asylum procedures directive. This stuff is
all getting quite old for me now; I was involved in the debates on
that directive in 2005—good heavens, that was 20 years ago. I was
interested, if a little surprised, to see the UK regulations which
implemented that directive mentioned, after our meeting, in the
letter of 24 October. In it, the Minister says:
“The
Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007 … implemented basic standards
for asylum system procedures including translation provision as part
of the UK’s transposition of Council Directive 2005/85/EC … on
minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and
withdrawing refugee status. Regulation 5 provides for a right to an
interpreter during asylum appeals and in proceedings in the higher
courts. This regulation remains in force”.
I
think that there is some confusion or confounding of translation and
interpretation in that paragraph.
The
second to last sentence there is right that:
“Regulation
5 provides for a right to an interpreter during asylum appeals”.
I
have checked the directive and, indeed, it refers only to
interpreting; it does not refer to the translation of documents.
However, this paragraph in the letter referred to “translation
provision”. It is absolutely true that those two terms sometimes
get conflated, but I think I have properly understood that the
Government are saying that this applies only to interpretation.
I
would like to get an explanation, if I could, from the Minister.
These regulations are still in force. Despite the reference to
translation, we understand that they apply only to interpreting and
the right to an interpreter, so can they be mentioned in the
Minister’s reply and reassurance? I am not entirely sure why they
have not been mentioned so far when they were in his letter, but I do
not think they are among what the Minister intends to assure us about
tonight. If he could integrate the famous Asylum (Procedures)
Regulations into the code, which I think he is going to talk about,
and if he could show how they work together, I would be very
grateful.
Overall—I
do not want to go on anymore—I support the noble Baroness, Lady
Coussins, and I congratulate her on her persistence in pursuing this
very important subject. It is important for the asylum applicant to
be able to be understood, and it is important for the taxpayer to
make sure that we have efficient processes that do not run on because
of defects due to lack of understanding. I thank the noble Baroness,
Lady Coussins, as much as I thank the Minister.
Lord
Katz Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
My
Lords, the asylum interview is an important part of the asylum
process for many asylum seekers, because it is one of the main
opportunities to provide relevant evidence about why they need
international protection. Similarly, for the asylum decision-maker,
and indeed for the whole of the Government’s processes, it helps
draw out and test the evidence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins,
said in moving the amendments, paragraph 339ND of the Immigration
Rules provides that:
“The
Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for
the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case, wherever
necessary. The Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can
ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the
representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview”.
Interpreters
are required to interpret to a high standard on a range of
protection-based and human rights topics, including, although not
limited to, religious conversion, female genital mutilation,
sexuality and gender-based claims, all types and forms of
persecution, physical and mental health, and political activity.
It
is really important that we are having this debate. I am again very
grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Ludford, for
bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also salute the
indefatigability of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising
this subject, being flexible and meeting myself and officials to get
clarification on this important subject area.
Amendments
79ZA and 79F seek to amend the provisions relating to interpreters in
the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007.
Amendment 79F seeks to include the provision that interpreters must
be professionally qualified. For an interpreter to join the Home
Office panel of freelance interpreters, they must be either a full
member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters or
hold one of the qualifications or assessments listed in the
Interpreters Code of Conduct, to which the noble Baroness, Lady
Coussins, referred. The code exists to ensure that expected standards
of conduct and behaviour are met and that any potential misconduct
issues are addressed at an early stage.
Throughout
this process, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has been tenacious
in stressing the importance of experience and professional standards.
We feel that that is very much the spirit of the code of conduct and
its practice. Interpreters must conduct themselves in a professional
and impartial manner and respect confidentiality at all times,
irrespective of whether they are attending an interview in person,
remotely via video conference or by audio only. Prompt and decisive
action is taken when the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged
inappropriate conduct by an interpreter.
The
Home Office requires interpreters who wish to join its panel to
already be a full member of the National Register of Public Service
Interpreters—NRPSI—or hold a specified qualification or
assessment. There may be instances, where a language is particularly
rare, when the Home Office will accept documented proof of hours
worked as an interpreter in that language for a reputable business or
charity, but these are assessed on a case-by-case basis and must be
approved by a senior manager. We wish to preserve the spirit of
flexibility that the current system has for these exceptional cases,
and specification in the Bill might prohibit that sort of approach to
a particularly rare language or dialect where interpretation is
required.
The
minimum standards are long-standing and demonstrate that interpreters
already need to prove that they are proficient before being accepted
on to the Home Office interpreters panel. They also allow for a level
of flexibility which ensures that even those who speak rarer
languages can be serviced by the Home Office, protecting the
proficiency and standards of Home Office interpreters. The
qualifications needed by interpreters are freely available to all,
published on GOV.UK.
It
is considered that amending the Immigration Rules in the way
envisaged by the amendment would have little impact. The code of
conduct sets out clear expectations around impartiality and the
standards of conduct and behaviour that interpreters are required to
meet. Interpreters must hold recognised qualifications. They undergo
rigorous background security checks and are required to sign a
declaration of confidentiality.
The
noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about enforcement of the code.
Feedback is collected on interpreter performance, and any incidents
of alleged behaviour falling short of the code of conduct will be
fully investigated. Feedback is primarily compiled by interviewing
officers completing an interpreter monitoring form, but this form may
also be completed by other Home Office officials. Prompt and decisive
action will be taken as soon as the Home Office becomes aware of any
alleged inappropriate conduct, and this is obviously in the best
interests of the department, the interpreter, the wider public and,
of course, the claimant. The way in which the code of conduct is
managed and enforced minimises any risk of bias, including for
sensitive, asylum and immigration cases.
Interpreters
must comply with any requests from the Interpreter & Language
Services Unit for information within the time specified. If there is
evidence of behaviour falling short of the code of conduct,
interpreter monitoring may be considered, to determine any further
action.
The
amendment also seeks to include “translator” within the
provisions relating to interpreters in paragraph 339ND of the
Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations. This
relates to providing at public expense a translator to allow an
applicant to submit their case and appeal their claim, as well as a
translator to ensure appropriate communication at interview. The
noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in her contribution, raised a number of
questions around the role of translation in the Home Office rules and
code of conduct; I will come to what she was referring to in a short
time.
The
asylum interview guidance makes clear that where a claimant wishes to
submit documents relevant to their claim, where those documents are
in a foreign language, the asylum decision-maker must ask what it is
and what relevance it has. If the document is or could be useful,
they must give the claimant an agreed period to submit a translation,
noting this on the interview record.
Specifically
on translation services, to be clear, the code applies to anyone
conducting any assignments on behalf of the Home Office. The Home
Office contract for written translation is held by thebigword, whose
stringent quality control processes in place should ensure that
translations meet the high standards required.
Although
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for the amendments and
indeed the wider debate we have had on this issue both tonight and in
Committee, the Government see no reason why the existing framework
should be changed in the way suggested by the amendment, and for that
reason I invite her to withdraw the amendments.
As
I said, it is important that we are able to retain some flexibility
in the way that we provide interpreter services particularly,
specifically because of very rare languages. Too much specificity in
the Bill could constrict the effective service that we want to
provide to asylum seekers and might also have a negative impact on
our ability to provide a fair, effective and efficient system.
However,
I am pleased to say that, following our extensive discussions with
officials, I am happy to commit from the Dispatch Box that the Home
Office will work with stakeholders to review the Interpreters Code of
Conduct and provision of translation services—to address the point
made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—including a section in the
code that outlines the criteria for becoming a Home Office
interpreter, reflecting the need for qualification or professional
experience, including reference to NRPSI standards, as I have set
out. Given that additional commitment tonight and the conversations
that we have had over the past days and weeks, I very much hope that
that will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and that she
will see fit to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness
Coussins Crossbench
My
Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, very much for his response,
and I especially thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her
support. I am encouraged that my concerns have been well understood
and I appreciate the commitment to review the Interpreters Code of
Conduct, including the involvement of stakeholders and the commitment
to look at the role of translators as well as interpreters. At this
stage, I ask only that the Government resist kicking this issue into
touch and forgetting it, as happened with the victims’ code, but go
very quickly to agree a timetable as soon as possible for the review,
which I warmly welcome. On that hopeful note, I thank the Minister
once again and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
