Interpreting and language services in the courts: Public Services Committee report
Published Thursday, 14 August, 2025
The House of Lords Public Services Committee’s March 2025 report highlighted perceived issues affecting court interpreting services, including the remuneration and support for interpreters, court technological limitations, and the quality and transparency of data on the provision of interpreting services. The committee made a number of recommendations to address these issues. The government responded to the report in May 2025, setting out how it would seek to address some of these points.
On 9 September 2025 the House of Lords is due to debate the House of Lords Public Services Committee report ‘Lost in translation? Interpreting services in the courts’ (HL Paper 87). The debate is being held in Grand Committee and will be introduced by the committee’s chair, Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour).
1. Committee report on interpreting services in courts
1.1 Overview and introduction
The House of Lords Public Services Committee’s report on interpreting services in courts was published on 24 March 2025.[1]
The report begins by explaining the background and availability of interpreting services in courts, linking it to the fundamental legal principle of equal access to justice.[2] The report summarised the availability of interpreters in this context as follows:
Interpreters work with people in the courts to provide interpreting for those who are not fluent in English. Individuals have a legal right to a publicly funded interpreter in specific situations—for example, a defendant in a criminal case has “an automatic right” to an interpreter if they need it. Interpreters are provided in family courts if the case involves “children, domestic violence or forced marriage”. Individuals may get a publicly funded interpreter for other types of cases, but this is dependent on a variety of criteria, and on “the individual member of the judiciary to determine the most appropriate arrangement”.[3]
Chapter 1 of the committee’s report then summarised the process for interpreters being provided in the court process and explained that the actual provision is contracted out to an external contractor (since 2016 this has been the language services company thebigword (TBW)). The committee stated that outsourcing of these services began in 2012, and that the current contract with TBW expires in 2026. As such, it noted that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) was currently going through a re-procurement process. This included consideration of whether to move towards more ‘insourcing’ of interpreting services.
Stressing the importance of ensuring interpreting services work well, the committee stated:
While interpreting is used in a very small proportion of total cases each year, it is crucial that the service is of a high standard, ensuring that individuals are not disadvantaged in the legal process due to language barriers. If interpreting in the courts is not working well, this not only affects justice in individual cases, but creates further demands on an already stretched court system. The MOJ, through contracted private language providers, deals with 17,000 bookings for interpreters per month in over 150 possible languages.[4]
1.2 Issues highlighted by the committee and recommendations
The committee’s analysis of language and interpreting services in the court process detailed a number of perceived issues. These included:[5]
Differing perspectives on the quality of the services among government, service providers and frontline staff. The committee believed this could lead to significant problems being missed and difficulties for the MOJ or Parliament assessing the true nature of the issues with these services.
The current system for complaints and data gathering on interpreting services may lead to a “significant under reporting of problems”. The committee expressed concern that the assessment process for interpreters lacked transparency, and “may be absent altogether in closed court settings”.
Issues with the recruitment, retention and treatment of the interpreting services workforce. For example, the committee highlighted “low and opaque pay, a lack of control and remuneration for cancelled or delayed bookings, and a lack of respect”.
Insufficient use of modern technology to support interpreting services in the courts.
Overall, the committee summarised the issues as follows:
Official statistics indicate only 1% of the small number of cases involving an interpreter receive complaints. However, the evidence gathered during this inquiry from interpreters and legal professionals indicates much wider issues, and leads us to conclude that the current state of interpreting services in the courts is not working efficiently and effectively, and presents a significant risk to the administration of justice in these cases. The MOJ’s published data masks problems in the service due to both data omissions and a complaints process which causes under-reporting of problems. This is exacerbated by difficulties in recruitment and retention of the interpreter workforce. Wider technology issues in the courts limits the effective use of innovations such as remote interpreting or interpreting booths, and leaves the justice system unprepared for innovations in newer technologies.[6]
The committee made a number of recommendations intended to address these issues. A full list of recommendations and issues raised by the committee can be found on pp 52–7 of the committee’s report.
These included recommendations for the government to:
Work on improving the quality, transparency and consistency of the data gathered relating to interpreting in the courts. The committee also called for the National Audit Office to conduct an updated review of how well interpreting services were being provided.
Improve stakeholder engagement, including forums for feedback from interpreters and legal professionals that work with them.
Make improvements to the assessment and complaints process for interpreting services. For example, the committee said data on assessments should be regularly published and the complaints process should be better promoted, made more accessible, and there should be data and guidance on who should submit complaints.
Ensure pay conditions for interpreters are improved, including minimum pay rates, better financial coverage for cancellations, and increased pay for travel and expenses. In addition, the committee said guidance should be provided to courts on the treatment of interpreters and how to better recognise their importance.
Set out plans ensuring interpreters are qualified to certain standards. Alongside this, the committee recommended better promotion of the trainee scheme, improved funding opportunities for professional development, and an independent single register of interpreters to establish specified vetting and entry criteria for interpreters to work across the criminal justice system.
Improve the technology in courts for interpreters as part of the government’s court refurbishment project. In particular, the committee called for dedicated audiovisual equipment for interpreters, including equipment to better facilitate remote interpreting. The committee said increased opportunities for remote interpreting would improve conditions for interpreters and also allow them to take on more work. It also said the government should introduce plans and pilots focused on the use of AI tools to support interpreting services.
Referring to the re-procurement process for interpreting services, the committee called on the government to pause and review the process and regretted that the government had not committed to do so. It continued:
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.[7]
The committee believed it was a moment of risk or opportunity for court interpreting services. It urged the MOJ to seize the opportunity, and argued that a failure to do so risked “significant jeopardy to justice for the foreseeable future”.[8]
2. Government response to committee’s report
The government published its response to the committee’s report on 27 May 2025.[9]
First, the paper contained a letter from the minister of state for courts and legal services, Sarah Sackman, outlining the government’s commitment to high quality interpreting services and commenting on the procurement process. She said the MOJ’s procurement of a new contract for interpreting services would reflect feedback the department had received and would make several improvements to services. She explained:
The procurement exercise currently underway is scheduled to deliver new contracts for these services, commencing operation in October 2026. We have listened to the feedback from the contributors to your inquiry, and carefully reviewed your report and its recommendations. We are familiar with many of the issues raised and have been working to ensure that our procurement includes improvements to the service that will address and resolve many of these challenges, delivering an improved service for court users, interpreters and other stakeholders.
These improvements will include:
Implementing the new qualifications framework, the result of an independent review into the qualifications requirements of the MOJ that ensures that we are matching the competencies required for court work to the capabilities of our interpreters.
Strengthening the quality assurance process, to improve confidence in the quality of interpreting delivered, as well as implementing assurance of the complaints process itself.
A secondary spoken word supplier to satisfy short notice bookings, reducing frictions around short notice changes and reducing off-contract bookings.
Requiring our suppliers to provide new welfare support to interpreters.[10]
The government’s formal response then addressed the committee’s recommendations in turn, providing detailed responses to each. Full details can be found in pp 2–24 of the response section of the document.[11]
For example, the government stated:
It would improve the data it published on interpreting services. However, it did not accept that the data it already published on the provision of interpreting services was of an unsatisfactory standard, stressing that it had been externally reviewed recently.
It did not agree with the committee’s conclusion that the provision of interpreting services in the courts is “not acceptable and presents a significant risk to the administration of justice”.
It was already receiving stakeholder feedback from representatives of interpreters and legal professionals. However, the government also said it was stepping up this engagement and was confident further improvements could be made over the next six months.
It said it would be strengthening the quality assurance arrangements for interpreting services and would investigate what more could be done to raise awareness of the complaints systems. However, it did highlight a number of ways the complaints system was already being promoted and the recent engagement levels (for example, it said 33,088 complaints were received by HM Courts and Tribunals Service service in 2024, with 20% from legal professionals). The government also said it would require more time to consider the committee’s proposal to regularly publish assessment data due to the “complexities involved”.
It had taken steps to improve interpreter remuneration by increasing the minimum face-to-face booking duration to two hours, and said it was making further improvements to booking terms in the new procurement contract. The government disagreed with the committee’s recommendation for the introduction of minimum pay rates and increased cancellation rates. However, it did say that the new procurement contract will adjust cancellation terms so that more fall within the category of ‘short notice cancellation’ and attract a fee.
Regarding the treatment of interpreters, it said the new contracts would include better welfare provisions for interpreters. The government also said it would be strengthening the guidance on interpreters and their roles, and would be recirculating this to all court staff.
It disagreed with the committee’s recommendation for all interpreters to be qualified to level six standard for all assignments. It claimed that the current situation sufficed to meet the needs of the justice system and its users. The government also disagreed there should be an independent register of interpreters, arguing that the MOJ register meets the system’s needs (for example, it explained it provides for vetting, entry requirements, and removal of interpreters where they fail to maintain standards). It said a new register would increase complexity and cost. However, it said it was making improvements to the accessibility and cost of the trainee scheme for interpreters.
It recognised the benefits of remote interpreting and this would continue to be supported where possible. It also detailed improvements it was making to technology across the courts service, including audiovisual equipment. However, it cautioned that this remained a “significant exercise” and highlighted the funding pressures. On AI, the government said it acknowledged its growing role and set out the work it was pursuing in this area (for example, working groups and pilots on use of the technology). However, it also stressed the difficulties and sensitivities linked to using and testing AI in these settings; for example, legal and ethical concerns, commercial risks, and ensuring buy-in from court staff and the public.
