Examination of witnesses

Sarah Sackman KC MP, Nick Goodwin and Daniel Flury.

The Chair: Welcome to this session of the Public Services Committee looking into interpreting and translation services in the courts. I would like to welcome our witnesses today, the Minister and two officials, and ask them to introduce themselves.

Sarah Sackman: I am Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services.

Daniel Flury: I am the operations director in His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

Nick Goodwin: I am the chief executive in His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

Q112 The Chair: Thank you, and thank you for your reply yesterday to our letter suggesting that the tender process be paused. I want to start there.

One of the characteristics of our inquiry and the evidence we have heard is that we can honestly say that no one who has been using the translation services, whether they have been interpreters and translators, people who work in the courts, barristers or solicitors, thinks that it works well. No one. Not one person who sat in front of us thought that it worked well.

When we have interviewed the people who run the service, whether they be the people on contract, the Ministry of Justice or the Courts Service, they have all thought that it is quite good. That paints a problem. That cannot be right. There is something going wrong there. We have come to the belief that it is not a system that needs tinkering with. It is going badly wrong for those who work in the service, and if something does not happen, it is not likely to get better.

It is just a coincidence that we have done this inquiry at a time when you are retendering the contract. I understand that is a difficulty. Our worry is that, such is the requirement for change and improvement, if the contract is let without consideration of the recommendations we want to put to you, it will be set in stone until almost the end of this decade. That cannot be good for anybody in any way. That was the rationale behind our decision to ask you to pause the contract so that the contract could be let after consideration of the report.

Why are you so confident that the tender for which you have just advertised has the potential to solve all the problems that your department will have heard about during evidence sessions of our inquiry?

Sarah Sackman: It is important to start by saying that there are two lodestars for us as we approach the current tendering process. The first is the absolute foundation of what interpretation services are all about, which is access to justice. The second lodestar is value for money. You would not expect a Government Minister to say anything else.

It is important to put this into context. We welcome and look forward to reading the committee’s findings with interest. It is important to say that we have not been deaf to the feedback from different stakeholders. We have been taking that on board under the current contract and making improvements in real time. It is important to set the context, because pausing the current retender would be justified, and nor would it do anything to deliver the improvements to the contract that I think we all wish to see.

As a department, when we step back and look at the performance of the contract as a whole, we do believe that it strikes a good balance between value for money for the taxpayer and paying interpreters a fair rate. Critically, it delivers in terms of fulfilment. We are under a very important statutory duty to ensure that access to justice is achieved so that interpreters meet the demands of the case load. We know that we are meeting almost the entire demand, whether that is under our contract itself or, where bookings cannot be fulfilled, under the contract through off-contract bookings. That is very important. The fact remains that less than 1%—0.7%—of trials are ineffective due to a lack of interpreters. That is too high, and we want to drive that down, but that is pretty good in terms of fulfilment.

It is not just about fulfilment alone. We need to be driving better quality. Again, it is right that our complaints rates are low. Less than 1% of the total bookings result in complaints, and we have a quality assurance process for following that up. Our belief is that the current contract, although it is not perfect and could certainly benefit from further improvements—as I said, the findings of this committee will help us with that—there are always areas of improvement, but we consider that the current contract is not performing too badly.

Critically, in areas where we think improvement can and should be achieved—improving quality; improving quality assurance; reducing the number of off-contract bookings; repricing the market so that we can continue to pay interpreters a fair rate; developing technology and trainee schemes; improvements in the complaints process—we are getting an accurate picture and making the complaints process easier for non-English speakers—all the things that we want to do can be built into the tendering process and are being built into the current tendering process. We think that we can drive improvement through that process.

There are consequences to pausing the tendering process. I believe, and I think the department believes, that pausing it would be counterproductive. As you will know, the tendering process is governed by public procurement regulations. The consequence of pausing the tendering process at the current time will lead to such a delay that, in effect, the department will have to reproduce and update the business case, and recommence that tendering exercise, which means that any new service is unlikely to go live until 2028.

More importantly, apart from the inefficiency in that, so many of the improvements that we, and I think this committee, want to incorporate into the current tendering exercise will be delayed, because we will be stuck with the current status quo. If new bidders come forward who can take on this contract and build in the improvements we want to see, we will not be able to realise those improvements until 2028.

Taking into account the current performance of the contract—it is not perfect, but it is doing a solid job—and the improvements we want to see, we think that can be delivered through the procurement exercise. As I said, the consequence of pausing the tendering exercise at the moment would be deeply counterproductive.

Q113 The Chair: That gives us a huge problem, really, because, we believe, the data on which you are basing what you have said has no accuracy in it. Colleagues will look at those points later. Are you confident that there are sufficient organisations out there to make this an effective and successful bidding process?

Sarah Sackman: Forgive me for a second, but it is important to put this in context. The current contract is the second-generation contract from a pre-2012 insource model, which had deep problems: it was not satisfying in full our objectives on access to justice, it was inefficient, and it was simply not delivering for the Courts Service and the public. The current contract is an outsource model where market providers have the expertise to deliver these services and the efficient booking systems that are needed to match the demand.

It is a complex picture in terms of the languages that are required in different locations. We think that the market for interpretation and translation services is a dynamic and vibrant one in which we fully expect the bidding process to be competitive and allow us to demand the improvements that you would expect us to require as part of that tendering process.

Nick Goodwin: One of the key changes we have in the proposed contract is that it will go for a secondary supplier as well as a primary supplier. That in part allows us to have a lot of SMEs. Small and medium-sized enterprises are more likely to be able to bid. Part of the rationale of that is trying to encourage the market to change and be dynamic and get new entrants.

The Chair: I am sure we will want to follow that up.

Q114 Lord Porter of Spalding: When would the contract go live now if you do not pause it? You are panicking over a 2028 go-live date if we asked you to pause it for three months.

Nick Goodwin: We have just received some bids. They will be reviewed between now and March. Quite a lengthy clearance process is required across government. We will award the contract in early 2026 and they go live in October 2026. That is the current timetable.

The Chair: It is a five-year contract?

Nick Goodwin: It is a four-year contract.

Lord Porter of Spalding: A three-month delay would force an additional year in space, even though if you delayed it now you could use the new Procurement Act in February to procure a better contract anyway, because the Government have already delayed the Procurement Act; it should have come into force in October. In February, you will have a greater range of people to call on, because procurement becomes easier for us as a country.

Nick Goodwin: If we formally pause the contract, there is a danger that the competition would be treated as a failed competition and we would have to start again.

Sarah Sackman: There is a knock-on to that. If we have to pause the tendering process further, as well as the wasted cost there is a danger that that reduces the confidence in the market in the entirety of the process. It may dissuade some, particularly in the SME space. We have this structure in order to fulfil off-contract bookings where we have a secondary contract to meet those, and it may dissuade bidders. That, again, would be counterproductive.

Daniel Flury: This is a contract that has been extended a number of times already, principally due to the pandemic. The risk of a legal challenge if we further extended the contract is one that we cannot ignore. Nick is right to say that it is not just a pause and a tweak but is effectively a restart, taking us back to the beginning with a new governance process and a new invitation to tender published. That has consequences in terms of delay and the confidence of the market.

The Chair: Let us go on to the next question and into some of the detail of the issues we have been discussing.

Q115 Lord Laming: Minister, it is nice to see you and your officials. We hope very much that you will study the weight of evidence that has been given to us. I say that deliberately, because although I used to be responsible for the inspection of local government services and was used to a marked difference between the people at the top, who thought about what the service was, and the people who were delivering the service—there was a huge gap—I have never come across a situation like this where the volume of evidence from the users of the service and the providers of the services differed so much from the evidence of the people who came to tell us how the system worked.

We have so many quotes and we do not have time to go over them all. The Bar Council, for example—not an extravagant organisation in its use of language—said that it was astonished at the failure of interpreters: “huge portions of court proceedings go by without the interpreters conveying to the defendant what is happening”. Other people have told us that the standard expected of interpreters is very low, and other people have told us that we are the only country in Europe that organises interpreting services in the way we do here. When the Chair refers to thinking again and pausing what we are trying to achieve, I hope very much that you will take seriously the weight of evidence that is given to this committee.

Sarah Sackman: Of course. It goes without saying that we value, appreciate and welcome the work that the committee has done on this issue. It will not fall on deaf ears. We constantly look to improve contracts like these, and we will be taking on board the committee’s findings. We do not take lightly the Bar Council’s comments that you have just relayed. If the quality of interpreters in our courts is in any way impacting on access to justice, that is of great concern to me and my whole department.

On the specific issue of the quality of our interpreters and interpretation service, again it is important to recognise the opportunity that the new contract presents to drive improvements. For example, one of the features and points that have been made by others who have given evidence to this committee is that there is no requirement for a level 6 professional qualification for our interpreters.

One of the opportunities that the new contract presents is to identify the qualifications in the profession and the community standard that we want and expect interpreters to meet. For court work, for example, which is the work that the Bar Council will be encountering, under the new contracts the default will be a level 6 qualification. Again, we can drive improvement in quality assurance to ensure that minimum standards are met so that we can take on board precisely the feedback that you will give us. We can provide through that new contract the requirement for a trainee scheme to drive improvements and higher qualifications.

This is not a case of those at the top being deaf to the user experience or the negative feedback for those who operate in the courts every day. We take it incredibly seriously, because ultimately it bears on access to justice. We have to recognise the positives in the contract in terms of fulfilment and the number of complaints raised. However, complaints are not the only way in which feedback can be given. We take seriously the feedback has been given to this committee, but we also have to recognise that the new contracts present a real opportunity for improvement, and, if they are delayed, those improvements too will be delayed.

Lord Laming: We were surprised to discover that the process for making a complaint is only in English or Welsh.

Sarah Sackman: For non-English speakers it has to be made easier. Again, that is something that needs to change. We accept that feedback and we will change it.

Q116 Lord Laming: We met some interpreters yesterday and it was very informative. They were moderate in their views. There was no rabble-rousing or anything of that kind. However, I came away being concerned about the number of mentions of interpreters thinking of giving up the service because of the pay, the uncertainty about the way the system works, the lack of respect that is shown for their work, and so on. I will not go through it all.

I certainly felt, in the weight of the evidence we have had over the weeks and months, and confirmed yesterday, that the service is in real danger. I say that in the hope that you and your colleagues will take seriously the points that have been raised. It is certainly my view, and I think it is shared by my colleagues, that the gap between the aspiration, the smooth words, the reassurance, and day-to-day action is far too great.

Nick Goodwin: On your first point about the evidence that you have heard as a committee—as the Minister said, we take that incredibly seriously—we have looked at that alongside all the objective data all the way through. There is an important point to emphasise. We have heard a lot of those issues over the last few years, because we have been actively engaging with interpreters and users since 2021-22, all the way through. Where we have heard concerns about quality and so forth, we have tried to flag those in improving the contract. I do not think we have missed any of the big issues that you may have heard of when we have been reconstructing the contract.

I understand the interpreters’ views. There are two important points to make. One is that the process of re-contracting itself gives providers an opportunity to say what the market rate should now be. Getting on with that is the quickest way to address some of those concerns.

The question of respect and so forth is an important one, and quite distressing to hear, because it is quite clear that interpreters are critical for the courts to work properly. In the new contract, we have tried to respond to that by making sure that the code of conduct and ethics is there and updated, and by asking our providers to make sure that they have better welfare provisions in place to support interpreters. Again, when we have heard those concerns we have tried to reflect that in the contract.

The Chair: We had better get on to this thing about data, because it is a very important discussion. You are relying on the data, and we do not think that it is accurate, so we will be along parallel lines. Let us focus a little on the data collection and quality assurance.

Q117 Lord Mott: Good morning, Minister. Thanks for being here today. We have heard a lot about data. We have heard a lot about quality. I think it would also be fair to say, and I probably disagree a little with one or two colleagues on this, that quite a lot of what we have heard has been anecdotal. When we pushed a bit harder, it has been, “We’ve not complained, but there’s a problem”. We have also heard evidence from one or two suppliers who said that they provide your department with a lot of data that is not published. I wonder whether perhaps one way through this would be if more data was regularly published to make the position clear to everyone.

In relation to the contract, which you alluded to at the beginning, is the tender process and then the contract constructed in a way that, if there are concerns or problems, we find that it can be amended and changed in real time once it has been awarded?

Daniel Flury: On the contract and whether that could be amended, we can make what I will call minor changes to the contract post tender. For example, if we chose to accept your recommendation, which we are likely to do, about publishing more data and being more transparent, especially about our mystery shopper process and the results of that, we would be able to do that in the future contract. If we wanted a major reconfiguration of the contract, again that would take us back to the beginning. Because of public procurement rules in legislation, we would effectively have to start again. There is some scope to respond to the committee’s findings but not infinite scope, if I can put it that way.

Lord Mott: Is there a clearer definition of “minor changes”? You have given us one example, but is there a set structure of what a minor change to a contract means? That would be helpful, certainly in my thinking.

Daniel Flury: I think asking the suppliers to routinely publish data or present us with data and so on would fall within the future contract. However, if we wanted to introduce a whole new pricing structure, for example, that would be a significant change.

Lord Mott: What about the complaints process and procedure? Is there a way of making that more accessible?

Daniel Flury: I think we accept the committee’s initial observations. It could be more transparent. You will have seen that we publish criminal court statistics quarterly, and that has a fair bit of detail about interpreter bookings and complaints against interpreters. We could do better on publishing data on the mystery shopper process, as I said: how many mystery shops there have been; how many interpreters have been removed from the register thereafter. We could do a little better there, and that is something I would expect to do as part of the new contract.

Q118 The Chair: We find it difficult to get our heads around the number of complaints, so we would welcome greater clarification. The number of cases that are cancelled because of the lack of an interpreter and the number of complaints just do not match up. If you look only at your own data, you might be under a bit of an illusion as to what is happening. It seems as though there are a lot of things going wrong with cases, and they are cancelled because of a lack of interpreter, that are not reflected in the complaints process. That is a real problem. We cannot work out why that should be the case.

Daniel Flury: There are two routes for expressing dissatisfaction, if I can put it that way. First, there is the formal complaint, which I think is the data you have, and you have queried the number of complaints that we, HMCTS, or thebigword receive about the service provided. There is another route through our contract management route. For example, if a clerk in a court thinks that an interpreter is not to the right standard, they will not—how can I put it?—come out of the system and lodge a formal complaint; they will submit a report to our contract management division, which will compile a report each month and discuss with thebigword, the supplier. There are two sources of complaints or expressions of dissatisfaction here.

You are right to say that the existing complaint figures do not express the totality of it all, but I can assure you that there is a route to rectify this and to report and understand this.

The Chair: I do not know why you have two different avenues for complaints. Why would you do that? One is published and one is not published. The public then have no idea what is happening. Certainly, the barrister and solicitor representatives we spoke to said that they do not know anyone who has used that system. It is not their job. If a case of theirs is cancelled, they have to make sure that they survive the day and try to get justice delivered. They do not go to the court or make a complaint. That complaint system is not a good system.

Daniel Flury: If the complaint is subsequently accepted through the contract management route, we will add it to what is called our optics system, where we register all complaints and so on. There are a number of areas where it is little more than investigation through the contract management route, and it does not subsequently result in a complaint.

Sarah Sackman: The other thing to add, as Nick pointed out, is that we do not sit back and say, “Okay, in 2024 there have been 751 complaints. That is 0.5% in relation to the booking volume. That is less than our 1%, which we would say is acceptable, so job done”. There are other mechanisms. Yes, some of that might be anecdotal, but we have had the stakeholder forum since 2021, where interpreters themselves can raise issues. They will not complain about themselves, but they may complain about the context in which they are operating. There is regular engagement with important stakeholders like the Bar Council and the MoJ. There are other forums where observations, criticisms and concerns about how the system is operating can be raised.

Data is important, of course, and we have to be confident that it is robust. However, when one looks at the number of complaints and ineffective trials, there is a proportionality there. We cannot compel people to use the complaints mechanism, but in terms of how we take feedback on board, we do not stop at the number or even the content of those formal complaints. We take it on board in other ways as well.

The Chair: Do you feed back to the courts when you have done something about the complaints? I have to say that it is the first I have heard of the body you have just described that represents interpreters. That has not been mentioned once to us by anybody in written evidence or evidence before the committee.

Sarah Sackman: The stakeholder forum was established in 2021 with representatives from the interpretation services. We have also proactively undertaken surveys of interpreters—those in our language services and those who provide services to those with hearing impairments—to ask them for their feedback. We are not just waiting to receive the bad news. We have proactively gone out to those who help us to deliver these services to ask them for their feedback. It is right that we do so, and we should continue to do that and to learn from that.

The Chair: Is this council made up of the language services and not the interpreters, because that is a different concept?

Daniel Flury: It is a body like the Chartered Institute of Linguists.

The Chair: What is your means of communicating with the freelance translators and interpreters?

Daniel Flury: We have a number of opportunities for them to express their views through court user groups. They will meet with our contracted services division. The teams working in courts have quite close relationships with some of the interpreters, who they book regularly. There are opportunities to feed back, opportunities to understand their needs, opportunities to respond to what they want.

Sarah Sackman: As I understand it, the survey I referred to was extended to interpreters who are on the MoJ register, not just exclusively those who belong to the Chartered Institute of Linguists. NRPSI, the stakeholder forum to which I referred, was included in that. Again, there is more that we can do, and it is right and proper that we hear the voices of those who serve in the system and of the interpreters themselves, but there are forums outside of simply the complaints system for obtaining that feedback and then, of course, acting upon it.

Lord Mott: That is very helpful. Would it be possible to see a copy of the survey and the results from it?

Sarah Sackman: I am sure that can be provided.

Daniel Flury: Do you mind, committee, if I just give an illustration of a complaint and how we will respond to the findings? A classic—if I can call it that—complaint against an interpreter is that the interpreter is late or there is poor conduct at court. When that happens, the booking team will report back to the contracted services division in HMCTS.

We operate a “three strikes and you’re out” policy. If that interpreter has three complaints made against them, we will meet the suppliers—we do so every month—and say, “This interpreter is not suitable to be included on the register”. The point I accept from the committee is that we could be far more transparent in publishing the numbers of interpreters who have been removed from the register. Again, that is something that we would expect or hope to do in the new contract.

The Chair: A note on how you carry out these consultations would be very helpful, because it has not come across as being a big part of people’s lives. To be clear, there are the complaints about the interpreters, but there are the interpreters’ complaints about the system. We were not talking only about the first.

Q119 Lord Carter of Coles: I am a bit confused about when a complaint is a complaint. There seems to be a two-tier complaint system. Could the committee take it that you are absolutely confident that we could get a definition of a complaint? It seems that there is a system designed to head things off, if I may say so, in order for a complaint not to be made.

Daniel Flury: I am sure we could provide the committee with a clear definition of when something would cross the complaint threshold. An interpreter failing to turn up, for example, we would pick up under the fulfilment element of contract management. I am certainly happy to provide the committee with a bit more detail about the threshold.

Lord Carter of Coles: I do not want to dwell too much on it, but turning up late and untidy is one thing. That is pretty easy, is it not? It is like ticking a register. We are much more interested in the quality of the interpretation. Perhaps you can give us something about how you assess that and the whole process for complaint. That would be very helpful.

Daniel Flury: Yes.

Sarah Sackman: We can certainly provide further detail on that. As I understand it, the largest proportion of the complaints against interpreters, rather than the complaints raised by the interpreters themselves, pertain to issues of unprofessional conduct, turning up late, last-minute cancellations, that sort of thing. A minority of the cases relate to the actual quality of the interpreter and whether questions are raised about their qualification.

When we talk about complaints in the data, the thing we can measure are formal complaints that are raised through the suppliers’ online portal. The observation that was made is right. If that signposting can be done only in English and Welsh, that is not entirely adequate. We need to make that signposting clearer and make it available in other languages. If a complaint comes directly to HMCTS, HMCTS can refer that to the relevant supplier and it becomes the job of, in this case, The Language Shop, which is the quality assurance body, to undertake its work to interrogate those complaints, analyse the data and present a picture to us in the MoJ of what those complaints are telling us.

I think the general point that is being raised here is right. We accept that the number of formal complaints is a useful figure but does not tell the whole story. We understand that. If we were saying to you, “That does tell the whole story”, you would rightly be critical of that. However, that is not how we are approaching the current tendering process.

Q120 The Chair: Do you keep a careful check on the number of interpreters who do not have the qualification that you stipulate is required? We have the figure that half of those who are operating in cases that should require a level 6 qualification do not have it. Do you keep a week-by-week or month-by-month record of that?

Daniel Flury: We do, and we are happy to provide the figures to the committee. In the first three-quarters of this year, 2024, 84% of bookings have been undertaken by level 6 interpreters, with the remainder by level 3 interpreters. We are happy to provide both current and historical data on that.

The Chair: Does that include off-contract bookings?

Daniel Flury: Yes, it does. When we book off contract we will ask for evidence of their qualification and they will send us a certificate. The 84% of bookings is through thebigword, but we can also provide statistics on the qualifications assigned through off-contract bookings.

Nick Goodwin: The new contract envisages the second bundle. When bookings are late, when they often now go to off contract, we will cover that through the secondary supplier. That allows us to have the quality assurance process in place for the secondary supplier. That is added protection versus what we have now with the slightly ad hoc process that Daniel speaks about when it is off contract.

The new contract is also much clearer about the standards of qualification expected following the independent review. It is pretty clear that more or less the default for most in-court interpretation will be level 6, with a bit of flexibility, when that is merited, if it is a very rare language or if it is a slightly less forthright proceeding. We have upped the bar there quite a lot in the new contract provision.

Q121 Lord Prentis of Leeds: I would like to explore with you, Minister, the pay and conditions of the interpreters. I do not expect to negotiate in public.

Sarah Sackman: I would not wish to start negotiating with you, Lord Prentis, of all people.

Lord Prentis of Leeds: These are the issues that have been put to us, not just by interpreters but by other organisations that have been involved. Before I go on to that, is there a national register of interpreters that you go to when seeking an interpreter?

Daniel Flury: For an off-contract booking or for—

Lord Prentis of Leeds: In general. You talk about level 6 and doing this and doing that. Is there a national register?

Daniel Flury: There is obviously the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, the NRPSI register, which is a separate entity. Thebigword will keep its own register. Our current supplier keeps its own register of interpreters who can undertake court interpretation and the associated qualification. For our off-contract booking, we use a combination of the national register, thebigword register and our own local intelligence. In summary, yes, there are lists of registered interpreters and their qualifications.

Q122 Lord Prentis of Leeds: Okay. The people who we spoke to did not seem to know about it. Let us move on. I do not think in this area we just talk about pay. Pay—the pay rates are between £18 and £24 an hour—has been put to us as an issue by a large number of people. Probably a little bit more surprising, however, is that individual interpreters feel that they have to negotiate their own rates. Somebody can come to them and say, “It is £24”. They say, “I won’t do it unless I get more money”. It is put to them, “We’ll give you another £4”, and they say, “No, make it £20”. We are told that this is going on throughout the court system. It is not a good way to run industrial relations.

Putting pay to one side—it is a very deep problem, and you, Minister, referred to deep problems—it is also the overall way in which interpreters believe that they have been treated. They believe that there is a lack of status, which has already been mentioned. They feel undervalued. They talk about the poor communication. They hear things at the last minute. They do not get the true story of a particular case. It is very difficult for them to understand, and very difficult to interpret, some of the reasoning behind it. They talked about late payments, which is not good in any organisation, and contracts let at 2019 rates, which we have already spoken about.

I get the impression, and I am sure you can respond to this, that when it comes to interpreting the MoJ has to deal with so many problems and so many big issues have to be addressed in the MoJ that this just ticks over. The issues that you are aware of, that people make you aware of, will be dealt with at some point, but while this is going on you have a service that is dysfunctional, and nobody wants that.

Going back to complaints, you talked about complaints against interpreters, but I would be complaining about the courts system. Hundreds of cases are stopped because there is no interpreter. It is denying justice for people. Many in the service believe that major changes have to be made, but at the same time other things are being dealt with and this issue goes to the back of the queue.

Sarah Sackman: Let me start by saying that as the Minister, albeit of two weeks vintage, we massively appreciate the contribution that interpreters and translators make in our system. I started my remarks to this committee by saying how our lodestar in the way we approach all this is access to justice. There is no doubt that, in the fulfilment of this department’s legal duties, interpreters and translators play a vital role.

You are right to say that they do difficult work. The nature of the work is difficult, and they operate in a challenging context. You are also right to say that all this needs to be considered in the context of a very challenging situation, particularly in the criminal courts and in the Crown Courts, which we have inherited as a Government. This committee will not need reminding of the extent of the Crown Court backlog of cases, which impacts on the working conditions of our translators. If trials are collapsing because of victim attrition and other factors, that bears on the work and the insecurity of the interpreters and translators we are concerned with today. I am in no doubt about the difficult nature of the work and the difficult conditions.

You are right to say that it is not just a question of pay; it is also the terms and conditions under which interpreters operate. I would also say that there has been an uplift in the floor hourly rate of £2 an hour for face-to-face translation services since we have come in. Since October, we have introduced the two-hour minimum booking so that you have that guarantee. If there is a late cancellation, there is that two-hour minimum booking.

We benchmarked our pay scales against those of other government departments that engage translation services, and we know that it is competitive. There are fees for late cancellations and for curtailments, where trials go short. There are fees baked into the system. This retendering process will allow us to reprice that and to ensure that any contract is competitive within the wider market for translation services.

All of that is to say that we recognise the contribution. It is right that that is reflected in the remuneration and in the conditions under which interpreters work. It is why we are building into the new contract training opportunities and requests for better well-being support for translators, who are often translating in some of the most challenging contexts. Whether it is a rape trial or a murder trial, this is difficult work. We think, without any complacency, that this retendering process is an opportunity to get the right remuneration, enable the flexibility that dynamic pricing allows in the market, and improve conditions for those interpreters and translators.

Lord Prentis of Leeds: It may seem a trite question, but why are interpreters still leaving the service if you are doing all this?

Sarah Sackman: There is a range of factors, which are not just pay related. Brexit had a big impact, if we are being honest. It is an ageing workforce, so there is that attrition. I will bring in others in a moment, but the outsourcing model and the scale we have allow us to require those providers to have an eye to recruitment and retention, because we know that it is challenging. The work is difficult, and, like a number of areas, it is hard to do that, but we can do that in a way that we would not be able to do in another contractual model.

Q123 Lord Shipley: I would like to clarify some issues around pay. Minister, you said at the very start that the MoJ pays interpreters a fair rate. I recall Nick Goodwin at a different point saying that the MoJ pays a market rate, although I have not understood how the market is defined, given the structure of the outsourcing. Could I ask you then about the new contract?

As I understand it, pay rates are currently not set in the MoJ contract, which allows companies to bid for the tender and to reduce their costs by building in low interpreter rates. Have you solved that problem, or are you proposing to, in the new contract? Will the annual CPI inflation rate be used to increase the amount that is being paid to interpreters up to the end of the contract in 2030? In other words, I am seeking some clarity about broad-brush statements about fair remuneration and market rate as to what it actually means for the new contract.

Sarah Sackman: The evaluation model for the procurement will be done through a price per quality point methodology. To explain that I will turn to Daniel on the specific questions that Lord Shipley has asked.

Daniel Flury: The principal check and balance against a race to the bottom is the fulfilment rate, the quality rate, and a number of other measures which the new contract will deliver to improve quality, support for interpreters and so on. Why do we look to the market? The cost of a Baluchi interpreter in Cornwall will be somewhat different from an Albanian in London. That is why we have this negotiation and the market establishing what we hope will be a fair price.

The Minister has already mentioned the recent uplifts in the rates and the doubling of the minimum booking time. We have not stipulated a rate card in the new contract, but again we will consider it very carefully when we get the bids in. Ultimately, the fulfilment is key here. If the rates are priced too low and we do not subsequently achieve the fulfilment, we will take action with the supplier, whoever that may be, to ensure that they meet their performance indicators. If that involves additional pay for interpreters, then so be it. Essentially, that is what has happened in the current contract with uplifting the rates.

On the specific point about CPI, yes, the new contract will be uprated to reflect the CPI.

Nick Goodwin: If we do not get the fulfilment and we get an ineffective trial, there are clearly costs to the justice system, not just to the MoJ but to others. Fulfilment is critical to securing value for money as a whole. The contracts will be assessed on quality per price point, not just on pure price. That is very important.

As the Minister said, the rate of ineffective trials at the moment is far too high in the Crown Court. That is why we have, I accept, too many cancellations. Interpreters are not the main reason for cancellations at the moment, but we do not want them to be coming up the league table. They are one of the lowest reasons at the moment and we want that to stay there. In fact, we want that to go down. We are motivated by getting a good justice system, and that is where we get value for money and access to justice. That is why. It is not just purely price.

The Chair: Could you ask your officials to write us a note on one or two of these things? I do not want to go into it again because I do not want to miss the last question, but on the increase of the levels of pay, we were asking for year by year during the contract, and I am a bit worried that, from what you have just said, you meant that it will be uprated at the start of the contract, with no pledge for the next five years.

You have also said a number of times that you are doing more training, which is great. Could you give us a note on the money that you are putting into that training programme? At the moment, in our understanding, there is no money available, and interpreters pay for the training themselves.

Q124 Lord Willis of Knaresborough: Many interpreters, particularly in the Crown Courts, say that they are being treated basically as by-products and are not being given the information they need to make a contribution to their skills in court. A response to that would be useful. Why are they not being brought in to fully explore the issues they will have to interpret during a very difficult Crown case? I will leave that as it is.

I have listened very carefully. I have not even asked to ask a question this morning, which is quite unusual. All we have done all morning is say how we protect the current system. What we are not doing is recognising that the world is changing. The one thing that will make a fundamental difference is the use of a wide range of technologies, particularly AI, in the whole of our court and legal systems.

In terms of the current system, it has been sad for us to listen to witnesses who said, “We could use the internet if the court actually had it”. Very basic qualities need to be installed, and that is a job for government. It is not a job for the MoJ or anybody else. It is for government to make sure that we have that. I would be grateful if you could tell me what you will do to make sure that the courts can take on technologies.

Secondly, and I am very keen on this, if public services do not adopt AI at the speed at which it is being adopted around the world, we will be left out of it. We have listened to Professor Susskind, who made the most interesting statement. He said that in five years’ time a great deal of what is currently done by court interpreters will be done through AI. What will you do as a Government, as a ministry, to ensure that AI and other technologies are given prime attention rather than simply being left until the end of this contract to start again?

Sarah Sackman: I will respond to that initially and then bring in Nick and Daniel. It is a great question, if I might say so. We recognise the potential for AI and machine learning in the courts and in private sector providers who support the services that we have been talking about today. Of course, we have to recognise the sensitivities and the risks of using such innovation within court and tribunal settings. We have established a set of responsible AI principles. It is right that we do so.

I keep coming back to the lodestar of access to justice. The technology is fast developing, but it is not there yet. We are not in a position where we can somehow introduce AI and machine learning wholesale into our courts and be confident that it will guarantee access to justice. The MoJ is doing a couple of things. It is piloting the use of AI translation technology in certain prison settings, proof of concept pilots, which will be important. It is right that we start there rather than in live trials.

On the second point, which you started on, about the technological infrastructure in our courts, again this committee does not need to be reminded about the state of our court estate and the physical state and age of the equipment in our courtrooms. It needs upgrading. We have a programme—it was established in 2021—which is upgrading digital and audio-visual equipment. Some of the current equipment in our courtrooms is too old and we have this rolling programme whereby we are looking at around 80 courtrooms a year being replaced and updated to enable the adoption of the AI machine learning when it is ready, but only when it is ready and safe to do so.

We have provision in the new contract to begin to adopt, where appropriate and safe to do so, some of that technological innovation. In parallel, we have the testing and the technological upgrade. I do not think we are there yet.

Lord Willis of Knaresborough: They will not do it unless you as a Government say to them, “This is a necessity”. Unless the contract that you bring forward forms a fundamental part of it, it will be no different, quite frankly, from the one before. It has just got a bit better.

Sarah Sackman: Both at a policy level and starting in this contract, we are setting the direction of travel, establishing those proofs of concept pilots and all the rest of it. So the direction of travel is clear, but we also have to be realistic about where we are to date and the point at which this tendering process is taking place.

Lord Willis of Knaresborough: We have heard that one of our government departments, the Secret Service, is using AI quite effectively. Why have they done that? It is because they have done the experiments. Would it not be a good idea in a number of parts of the country, like they have in Wales with their cabins, to at least have an example of being able to put a court together that is completely dominated by technology and AI, which you can then use as a basis for distributing elsewhere? Without that, we cannot go forward.

Sarah Sackman: I will bring in Nick in a second.

Lord Willis of Knaresborough: He is very good, is Nick.

Sarah Sackman: He is very good. I welcome that suggestion and will take it away. Technology is a fine thing, and it is something that we at the MoJ are ready to embrace at a departmental level in our court services as well. However, it is not the panacea for all the problems afflicting our court and the mess that we have inherited. The thing I will keep coming back to, and I make no apologies for coming back to it, is that access to justice and the requirement of a fair trial is vital. Unless and until as Courts Minister I know that the technology will help us to deliver that, we will not start introducing it before we know it is safe and robust.

Nick Goodwin: We had a brief conversation beforehand. There are things that we are already doing with AI in the courts. They are not particularly eye-catching, because we are being incredibly sensible and responsible. We are, for example, using AI so that our court staff can access the right guidance when doing procedures that they are not used to doing, which is a powerful thing.

We have big ambitions on digital and AI into the future, which will need some funding. This is very important: we have to put some parameters around AI generally in public services, but particularly in the courts because of the risks that the Minister has raised. We have a good framework of principles for AI in the Ministry of Justice and the courts.

Just to rattle through that, it has to be appropriate, which means lawful, proportionate and fair. It has to be safe, which means reliable, secure and explainable. It has to be controlled, which means transparent, accountable and contestable. If we reach those boundaries, the potential for AI is exceptionally good. Professor Susskind said that in five years the world might be different, but he did not say that it is different today, and that is where we find ourselves at the moment.

We are doing the experimentation that you are talking about. That does not necessarily mean a court going wild, because you have real live cases in that court. You have to let experiments fail, and you cannot let it fail in providing justice to an individual. The experimentation is in a number of places. It is in HMCTS. It is in the prisons, as the Minister has pointed out. It is in other government departments. It is in other countries. We are trying to make sure that we are plugged into all that so that when it meets our criteria we can press on with it. That is reason why the innovation clause in the new contract is important.

Again, we have to recognise that we will not be the masters of this. Incentivising our suppliers to help us and to collaborate with us is the way to finding reliable AI in the future. No one, frankly, will be better incentivised to make sure that they are on top of interpreting AI than an interpreting company. That is the way we see it working over the next period. There is no switch that we can flick on right now, but we are incredibly interested in it.

This is also a conversation that we have in the Ministry of Justice and in Whitehall. In those conversations, my team here who manage this contract are involved in that. It is also a conversation that we have with the judiciary, and the judicial appetite is there, but within those parameters. We have to be responsible.

The Chair: We quite like this idea of an exemplar court, because we think that it exists in other public services. You have to pilot things, and you cannot wait until you have perfection before it happens, otherwise we would never make any progress. I was very pleased with your reasonably favourable reaction to that, Minister, and I am pretty sure that it will be one of our recommendations.

Thank you for that. I think that last conversation summed it up. I suppose our parting message would be that the choice is not between a future that is not certain yet, so we do not want to leave the present; it is a present that is not working properly. There are people suffering and justice not being delivered because of the faults in the present system. The present system can become quite comfortable if we are not careful. I think the message from our report will be that it is not just about fiddling at the edges. It is going badly wrong in some parts and it needs radical change.

We are very grateful for your time and that of your officials, and for the support and help that you have given us throughout the inquiry. We look forward to presenting our report to you and to receiving your response in due time. Thank you very much for your time today.

Sarah Sackman: Thank you. When I say I look forward to reading it, I mean it. Thank you all very much for the time and interest that you have shown in this important issue.