By Fardous Bahbouh, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion researcher, specialised in the UK outsourced public service interpreting.

The Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman, spoke at the House of Lords on Wednesday. Instead of acknowledging the inquiry’s published evidence, the minister shamelessly reiterated false statements based on clearly flawed data. She even had the audacity to downplay the devastation inflicted on interpreters, casually stating that the system is “not perfect” while repeating misleading statistics about high fulfilment rates and low complaint rates. Despite calls from the House of Lords Public Services Committee to pause the tendering process, the minister insisted on its continuation.

It is appalling that the Labour government, which won the election on promises to end exploitative “zero-hours contracts,” is now determined to uphold an even worse system. Interpreters are often treated as “vendors” or independent contractors rather than employees or workers with the protections afforded by zero-hours contracts.

As I wrote in my previous article, simply appointing a minister who is a woman of colour is not enough to address the systemic and institutional racism at the core of exploitative outsourcing arrangements within the courts—especially when she merely repeats the same platitudes about fulfilment and “fair rates” supposedly determined by the market. The minister seemed unaware of the contradictions in her statements and completely oblivious to the reality that “racial and ethnic minorities are overrepresented in criminal justice enforcement and underrepresented within the institutions that adjudicate crime and punishment” (United Nations, 2019). Poverty, which continues to disproportionately affect women and ethnic minorities in the UK, persists even among those who are employed but remain unable to make ends meet (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2024).

Even 17th- and 18th-century philosophers and economists understood that governments have a duty to protect the public, as unregulated market mechanisms often lead to monopolies, exploitation, and the neglect of public services. In the UK, we have laws and norms that mandate supply chain ethics and corporate social responsibility. Outsourcing services to the lowest bidder while enabling them to exploit interpreters flagrantly violates these principles.

I personally have been fuming since the session. Only today have I managed to defuse my anger to a manageable level that allows me to write intelligibly and share my frustration and melancholy. On the other hand, I am deeply impressed by the Lords’ committee, particularly its chair, Baroness Morris of Yardley. The committee has taken the time to listen to evidence and ask critical questions. I am especially grateful for their interrogation of the minister about the lack of grievance channels for interpreters and the structural and systemic problems inherent in the outsourcing arrangements.

But where do we go from here? This inquiry has been an invaluable platform for interpreters to have their voices heard and to begin carving out a seat at the table. Moving forward, our focus must be on understanding market mechanisms and power structures. Interpreters need to organise and support one another. Collective action, such as refusing to accept the shockingly low rates offered, is key to achieving meaningful change and fairer treatment in the profession, or finding alternative careers.