Anonymous 9 – Written evidence (ITS0014)

[Redacted for identification]

I am a Latvian interpreter, and I predominantly work in the Justice Sector (HMCTS and police). I have been working as an interpreter since 2012. I hold a Level 6 qualification – Diploma in Police Interpreting, and a BA in English Philology, and I am registered with National Register of Public Services Interpreters (NRPSI).

I am thankful that there is an inquiry into Interpreting and Translation Services in the Courts, and I would like to submit my evidence by answering some of the questions you have proposed.

I apologise that I have used some industry jargon in my evidence. The acronyms that I have used are

LSP – Language Services Provider (that is not an interpreter, that is the agency that holds the contract with a Government body/ department. For HMCTS the current contracted LSP is thebigword.

LES – Limited English Speaker (that is the person who needs an interpreter to help them communicate with the UK authorities).

I have highlighted in bold those questions that I was able to answer.

1) To what extent do the current interpreting and translation services provided in courts meet the needs of those involved in proceedings, including defendants, witnesses, prosecutors and legal professionals?

I work as a court interpreter through the current LSP contracted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Since June 2024, I have also provided my services to HMCTS off-contract.

From my experience as a court interpreter, the current settings are often detrimental to all the above participants. The agency that stands between an interpreter and HMCTS puts in very little effort to smooth out any potential errors that are often quite apparent long before the court hearing in question even takes place. For example, courts often book a wrong language interpreter. I am often sent by thebigword to interpret for Lithuanian and Russian speakers. I can see the error (from the LES’s name) and on many occasions I have told the agency that it’s the wrong language, but they never listen, they always say the same, “That’s what the client wants.” Under the agency’s T&C I am prohibited from communicating with courts directly, so I cannot do anything to help rectify the error before I am deployed. Only when I meet the LES, I can confirm that we do not speak the same language. By that time, it is a wasted court hearing. If I am approached by Witness Services or Courts directly and if I have reasons to believe that a different language interpreter is needed, I can ask the booker to double check to avoid a wasted meeting/ hearing.

I also provide written translation under the Ministry of Justice contract. Despite thebigword presenting itself as a technologically advanced business and boasting a leading role in the global languages industry, in my experience, there is very minimal understanding about different languages. I would say that more than 50% of translation work I got sent as Latvian, is in fact in a completely different language. So, I cannot see that thebigword is in fact using any of its language recognition software or that their staff has any interest or knowledge of different languages. They send me the work, I check it, it’s not in my working language, I inform them often the same day, but they don’t take any notice until the deadline date. It creates enormous delays for whoever requested the translation.

However, the predominant problem with the current set up is unfair terms and conditions and poor rates of pay that are imposed on court interpreters by the LSP. The T&C demand that interpreters make themselves available for the “booked duration” (most frequently the booked duration is 3 hours), but we are only guaranteed to receive a payment for one hour. Travel time and travel expenses are not paid. For example, if I agree to take a three hours’ long court booking in Central London, but it concludes in 30 minutes, I would earn less than £20 – I would have made myself available from 10:00 to 13:00, I would have travelled for 2 hours to and from the court, I would have paid TfL fares that amount to around £6.50. The agency would pay me £26 (or £20 if Standard Tier Booking) for one hour’s work and £0 to £2 towards my travel expenses. Even if I did manage to secure a second assignment for the afternoon, it would be subject to the same terms and conditions. From that amount I am somehow expected to pay tax, save some money in case I fall ill and cannot work, pay for security clearances, professional membership fees, professional indemnity insurance and other costs associated with work in Criminal Justice System. As an interpreter, I cannot make a living. I must rely on additional casual work in evenings to survive. Many of my colleagues in my language group claim Universal Credit or other benefits.

How have interpreting and translation services changed in recent years?

Since thebigword moved their operations to India, it has become impossible to communicate with them about anything. Emails don’t get answered and the call centre staff in India are not able to clarify any uncertainties or amend errors that are caused by the agency’s various digital platforms. On June 3, 2024, thebigword introduced a new mobile application/ booking system, and nothing works as it should since then. Bookings are wrongly calculated, they appear and disappear, payments are not processed, and interpreters have been left without pay.  There is no communication from thebigword. I have stopped taking work from thebigword.

II. Are the current requirements fit for purpose?

No, the current contract has three tiers of bookings – Standard, Complex and Complex Written. Standard bookings can be fulfilled by an individual who holds Level 1 foundation in public service interpreting (a two-to-four-week course). Bail hearings and legal arguments are classed as Standard Tier Bookings. Legal arguments, in fact, are so complex that one needs to have extensive legal expertise to follow them, let alone interpret them in another language in court environment. Court environment, including preliminary and bail hearings are very dynamic and the unexpected can almost be expected. The complexity tier system is an administrative creation that does not reflect in any way the dynamics and tension of a court room.

4) What quality assurance and complaints procedures are in place in relation to interpreting and translation services in the courts?

I believe this question is relating to complaints about interpreters. However, there was no effective complaints procedure against the LSP for several years within the contract. I think only around 2019 or 2020 a complaints procedure was provided by HMCTS, and I have used it several times to complain about the conduct of the current LSP. The first step is to raise the issue with the LSP. In my experience, the LSP has never addressed or even acknowledged my complaints. Only when I have escalated it to HMCTS, they replied.

I. How easy is it for people to report or submit a complaint?

None of my complaints have been answered unless I escalate to HMCTS.

5) How easy is it to recruit and retain skilled interpreters and translators to work in the courts?

I. What opportunities, barriers and pitfalls exist and how might these be addressed?

The current rates of pay are unsustainable. The terms and conditions are one-sided and detrimental to interpreters. The current LSP avoid any responsibility towards the wellbeing of interpreters by classing us as self-employed although we have few of the perks that come with self-employment (we cannot negotiate our fees, we are not allowed to issue out invoices, we have no say in disputes).

The terms and conditions and the rates of pay must improve to retain interpreters or to achieve the return of those who have now left the courtrooms due to the unfavourable attitudes and work conditions offered to court interpreters.

6) What is the potential role of new technology (such as artificial intelligence, machine translation and the digitisation of court proceedings) in the future of interpreting or translation services in the courts?

I. Would adoption of this technology in the courts be an appropriate use?

II. What tools already are already in use in ITS, what form do they take and in what situations are they used? III. Is the current and future ITS workforce being prepared to work with technology? If so, how?

I often ask courts to provide me with T-loop as the audibility in the dock is so poor that I cannot hear what is said in the courtroom.

Technologies that help with the audibility in the back of the courtroom would be very welcome.

7) What is the current capability and accuracy of market leading artificial intelligence and machine translation tools in relation to ITS?

I. How does this vary between languages (e.g. low resource languages or languages with relatively few written language samples), interpreting (speech to text) and translation (text to text)?

II. What capability do these tools have to deal with dialects, nuance and colloquial use of language?

Request for written evidence

November 2024