By Fardous Bahbouh, PhD researcher specialising in equality and political economy

Dear Baroness Morris,

I am truly grateful to you and the members of the Public Services Committee for your recent report on interpreting services in the courts. Your inquiry came at a critical time for justice—for interpreters and court users alike. The report’s conclusion—that interpreting services are not functioning effectively and pose a serious risk to the administration of justice—is a necessary and honest recognition of a long-standing problem. I particularly welcome your critique of the Ministry of Justice’s flawed data collection, and your emphasis on the need for professional respect, fair pay and cancellation policies, improved working conditions, and better funding for interpreter training. These measures could offer the structural support required for a fairer distribution of risks, responsibilities, and rewards.

At the same time, I’d like to share a few reflections on aspects of the report that left me concerned. I believe the inquiry could have more robustly questioned the Ministry of Justice’s ongoing commitment to outsourcing. The report mentions that the MoJ considered whether to outsource or insource but ultimately chose to proceed with outsourcing, without offering a detailed rationale. Notably, the Ministry declined to provide an estimate of the costs associated with court delays or adjournments due to the unavailability of interpreters. How can a critical decision of outsourcing be justified without transparent, reliable data—especially when the data that does exist is already acknowledged to be flawed?

We must ask: at what cost is the MoJ choosing to retender? I was grateful for Lord Carter’s observation that the current outsourcing arrangement effectively creates a monopoly controlled by a single large company. I am seriously concerned that outsourcing off-contract bookings will only strengthen that monopoly, removing interpreters’ ability to set their own rates and work directly with courts. This may push skilled professionals out of the field or compel them to accept unsustainably low rates and precarious working conditions. In the long term, this could reduce the pool of qualified interpreters and compromise access to justice.

Your report rightly highlights systemic issues such as poor transparency and challenging working conditions. In my written submission to the Committee (ITS009), I referenced the work of economists Mariana Mazzucato and Rosie Collington, who argue that outsourcing leads to a decline in service quality, lower wages for workers, and even dependence on state benefits, as workers are unable to meet basic needs due to reduced compensation from public contracts (2023).

Now that the Committee has heard directly from interpreters struggling to earn a sustainable income, we must ask: what is the real cost of outsourcing? It should not be calculated solely in terms of payments to language service providers. It must account for broader societal consequences—such as miscarriages of justice, exploitation of interpreters, increased inequality, and potentially the deepening of child poverty. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that in-work poverty is not only unjust and ethically indefensible, but also harms children by condemning them to cycles of deprivation through no fault of their own (2024). Stiglitz has further shown how government policies such as outsourcing and weakened labour protections exacerbate inequality (2012; 2024).

I am disappointed by the report’s limited engagement with the implications of the MoJ’s plan to not only continue outsourcing but extend it to off-contract bookings. This suggests a prioritisation of private corporate interests—some of which offshore jobs—over the welfare of interpreters.

I must also raise concern about the report’s use of the phrase “perverse incentives for interpreters” in relation to off-contract bookings. In truth, freelance professionals—who endure irregular workloads and lack job security—have a legitimate right to set their own rates and working terms. They also have a right to earn a decent income, as affirmed by Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which upholds the right to “just and favourable remuneration” sufficient for a dignified standard of living. Unfortunately, this right is not yet fully embedded in UK law. By reducing opportunities for interpreters to earn a sustainable income through additional outsourcing, the MoJ risks deepening inequality rather than addressing it.

The report calls for more incentives to retain interpreters—yet if off-contract bookings are outsourced, the consequences could be severe. Many interpreters may be forced to leave the profession altogether, further destabilising a justice system that depends on their expertise.

I had hoped the Committee would advise the Ministry of Justice to seek guidance from economic experts. I was troubled by the remarks made by the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman, during her oral evidence to the Committee. She stated that the MoJ is committed to paying interpreters “fair rates” as determined by the market. This view reflects a misunderstanding of how markets function—particularly in sectors characterised by monopolistic control, outsourcing, and limited worker protections. Under current arrangements, interpreters often lack bargaining power and have no means of collective negotiation. In such contexts, the idea that the market alone can determine fair pay is deeply flawed. It risks legitimising exploitative practices under the guise of economic objectivity.

Given these conditions, it is difficult to have confidence that taxpayer funds and public interests are being protected through the current procurement approach.

Although the report focuses on court interpreting, it is important to recognise the deep interconnections across all sectors of public service interpreting. I am grateful to Lord Porter for affirming that healthcare interpreting is just as important—if not more so—than court interpreting, although I respectfully disagree with the specific context in which his comment was made.

I would invite the Committee to examine why there is currently no oversight or quality control in outsourced healthcare interpreting. For example, women who do not speak English are 25 times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth, and their babies face significantly higher risks of complications—often due to language barriers. NHS interpreters are frequently paid as little as 19 to 20 pence per minute. With assignments sometimes lasting only 15 minutes, this results in earnings of just £3 to £4 per session, with no guarantee of additional work. Interpreters routinely report struggling to make ends meet.

The problem lies not only in the availability of resources, but in how they are allocated. I have been corresponding with the Health Minister, Wes Streeting, for over nine months. Unfortunately, I received the same response twice stating that:

“Non-NHS organisations contracted to deliver NHS services are independent and not bound to national terms and conditions like Agenda for Change. They determine pay and terms based on what is affordable within their financial models.”

This statement confirms that the NHS does not currently acknowledge or address potential exploitation in its supply chain. The statement also makes clear that the issue is not limited to interpreters—it affects everyone working under NHS outsourcing arrangements. How can we continue to tolerate such hardship among essential workers who clean our hospitals, care for the elderly and sick, and interpret for patients with limited English proficiency? Many of these workers come from disadvantaged backgrounds and face limited opportunities to escape exploitative conditions.

Finally, while I appreciate the Committee’s thoughtful work and sincerely hope this report sparks meaningful change, I was surprised by its title Lost in Translation. The issue at hand is not a failure of translation, but a systemic failure rooted in outsourcing and inequality.

Thank you once again for your important work. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide further insight or evidence in support of the Committee’s efforts.

Yours sincerely,
Fardous

Bibliography
Mazzucato, M. and Collington, R. (2023). The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens our Businesses, Infantilizes our Governments and Warps our Economies. UK: Allen Lane.

Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W. W. Norton.

Stiglitz, J. (2024). The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society. Penguin Books Limited.