Lawyers slam Government’s new court interpreting system

  • Print
  • Comments (21)

Readers' comments (21)

  • English judges do not bang gavels.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am sure that not the qualification makes u proffessional and expert. It's the experience that you have. Without going to courts and working in the area, you'll be just a person who holds a degree.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I thought you might like to read this article. MoJ is monitoring these issues and unless ALS gets better by 24th February, they will start using the old system. We were told that the courts can book us directly until that day under the National Agreement payment terms just to give ALS more time to correct itself! This means that our action is working well!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The fact here is Applied Language Solutions had months to prepare for this.
    It has not worked and never will. It is not teething, it is terminal and the sooner it is terminated the better.
    Even if the MOJ gave them another 2 years, they will not be able to deliver.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How did a tiny company in Oldham (ALS), with no financial probity or significant track-record win the £300 million MoJ contract?
    How come this company also won the contract of the Olympics and many Strategic Health Authorities?
    How come ALS was acquired by Capita less than 2 months after it was awarded the MoJ contract?
    Do acquisitions for LSE listed companies (ie Capita) not take longer than this to prepare?
    Are Capita not a major financial donor to the Conservative party?
    Is this simple cronyism or something more sinister?
    This all needs investigating....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MoJ of all people should understand that people's human rights are paramount. ALS is not fit for purpose, as it doesn't appear to appreciate the professional nature of interpreters' work, especially regarding legal matters. It's not enough for someone to be fluent in a language. The knowledge of specialist vocabulary is vital. These interpreters are highly skilled professionals and their work conditions and pay should reflect this.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear Gavin
    Did you think you can invent something? What is your invention? Is it using less qualified interpreters?
    So what happens when your interpreters become qualified? Do you continuously find less qualified people?
    Do you know what it means to get lost in translation? I think you do! Many like you tried to run agencies, the less this profession is regulated, the worst it gets to be in it!
    Let me tell you why it doesn't work for courts but works for everything else, it is because each listing costs 10 if not 20 times any booking at any hospital or local authority. Did you miss that?
    I bet you did!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's incredible that anyone would think 'teething problems' to be even remotely acceptable. If even one trial or case is jeopardised because of ALS, then they have failed. Citing 'teething problems' is an atrociously poor excuse for failing so badly to ensure justice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Answer to parliamentary question reveals the contract priorities, but whatever happened to compliance?

    http://www.parliament.uk/

    Written Answers to Questions
    Wednesday 7 December 2011

    JUSTICE
    Applied Language Solutions
    Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 14 November 2011, Official Report, columns 544-5W, on Applied Language Solutions, (1) whether the statement in that answer that the assessment of creditors of Applied Language Solutions (ALS) falling due within one year is nil is reconcilable with ALS' 2009-10 accounts which show creditors with debts falling due within one year as £1.926 million; [84296]
    (2) what the criteria were which his Department used in making its choice of provider; and for what reason Applied Language Solutions was chosen as the provider. [84427]
    Mr Blunt: The answer provided previously was in response to a question which the Department considered to relate specifically to mezzanine funding which is a hybrid of debt and equity funding.
    In more general terms, a financial assessment of Applied Language Solutions considered the company to be financially viable with a profitable position. At the time these issues were considered, it was known that the solution would be a one-stop shop facility that could be delivered by one or more companies. Small and Medium Enterprises, including Applied Language Solutions, with reasonable financial positions and scalable solutions were therefore considered suitable.

    7 Dec 2011 : Column 311W
    The criteria used to determine the choice of provider were: Service 30%, Innovation 10%, Quality 25%, Assurance of Supply 30% and Sustainability 5%. In financial terms, the Ministry of Justice had determined it would accept the lowest priced, affordable and compliant tender, i.e. there would be a minimum threshold of 80% for the non price criteria above which the lowest priced tender would be selected. Applied Language Solutions met the criteria and submitted the lowest priced tender.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What I can't understand is that ALS have publicly claimed to have 3,000 interpreters registered with the company.
    The National Register of Interpreters contains 2364 interpreters, 60% of whom have refused to work for ALS:
    http://goo.gl/q9WHM
    The remaining 40% make 946 interpreters. Where did ALS get 2054 experienced interpreters from?
    ALS is now part of Capita Group PLC, a publicly listed company. Any PLC has an obligation under LSE rules to disclose information fully and accurately.
    I think ALS may be guilty of misleading the market, and Capita shareholders in particular.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (21)