Lawyers slam Government’s new court interpreting system
16 February 2012 | By Ruth Green
Related Articles
MoJ ditches new court interpreting system in face of major backlash
23 February 2012
Lost in translation
20 February 2012
Interpreting error leads to £25,000 retrial costs
17 April 2012
Government's court interpreting agency hit with wasted costs orders
9 March 2012
House of Commons launches probe into MoJ interpreting contract
20 July 2012
As recent changes to the provision of interpreters for court hearings are set to save the Government £18m a year, many are concerned that the new system is leading to severe delays and costing more money.
On 30 January 2012, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) launched a new interpreter service, which has already been implemented in courts across England and Wales. The changes mean that court interpreters will now be sourced from one single agency, Applied Language Solutions (ALS).
Court interpreters were previously selected by the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI). Interpreters listed on the NRPSI are accredited to work in specialist areas of the public services, such as law, healthcare or local government-related services.
ALS has introduced a tier system of qualifications and payment that has brought interpreters’ pay down to a fee of £22, £20 and £16 per hour with no travel expenses. Only interpreters assigned on the top tier jobs are required to be fully qualified. Interpreters under the new system are now also only paid for the time actually spent in the courtroom.
ALS reportedly has 3,000 interpreters on its books, but there are widespread concerns over the quality of the interpreters they are now providing to courts. They will be selected under a new system devised by ALS in partnership with Middlesex University, which is reportedly undertaking independent assessments to gauge whether interpreters are qualified to interpret in court.
Currently some 60 per cent of the 2,300 interpreters from the NRPSI are refusing to work under the conditions of the new system. As a result, a large number of lawyers and judges have reported instances where interpreters were late, underprepared, under qualified or failed to turn up at all. In one instance, an interpreter was spotted texting on their mobile phone during a court hearing.
While a spokeswoman from ALS admitted that there have been some “teething problems” so far, many lawyers believe that the changes are jeopardising the justice system.
Jacqueline Ng, a duty solicitor at Hines Solicitor who deals with a large number of cases in Polish, has noticed considerable problems across the profession since the implementation of the new system.
“There’s been a lot of unnecessary delay and expense with many interpreters not turning up and trials having to be adjourned,” she said. “Many of the interpreters that have come are not registered and don’t understand legal jargon. The changes are having a big impact on how defendants are being treated and I don’t think it’s right to mess with people’s human rights and liberty in this way.”
Fadi Daoud, a partner at Lawrence & Co Solicitors, specialises in extradition hearings and highlights how vital it is to have qualified interpreters in the courtroom.
“I work in a very specialised area, so the interpreters I work with need particular knowledge of the subject matter and need to know specific vocabulary,” he said. “If interpreters don’t understand the context of a case, then there’s no way they will be able to translate it.”
Daoud believes that the Government’s decision to outsource and centralise the system for appointing interpreters has been ill-conceived.
“The Government seems to believe that centralising services automatically results in better outcomes. This is just not the case,” he explained. “There are no minimum standards now and there’s a centralised system that doesn’t help anyone at all.”
Daoud, who is a native Arabic speaker, was forced to interpret during a recent hearing as the assigned interpreter failed to show up. Many of his clients require interpreters who speak Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Romanian, Albanian, Arabic or Kurdish.
Dhaneshwar Sharma of Sharma Law Solicitors has experienced instances where court hearings have had to be adjourned as many as three times.
“The whole system is a mess, it’s unfair on detainees and the delays are no doubt adding to the public purse,” he said. “For a trial to be adjourned once, twice and maybe even three times, is just absurd. This should be cost-cutting for efficiency, but this shouldn’t mean deficiency.”
Sharma represents a number of Eastern European clients and has a good understanding of Romanian. In a recent case he noticed that the interpreter provided to interpret Romanian into English did not seem to be following the case correctly.
For many lawyers, their clients have been in the country for perhaps a matter of months and therefore do not have the linguistic skills to understand a trial nor the accusations against them without the assistance of an interpreter. Consequently, by failing to successfully provide an interpreter to represent such clients, ALS runs the risk of violating Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (28 April 1998 http://www.thelawyer.com/when-words-mean-everything/90650.article).
One lawyer reported that, after an interpreter failed to turn up three times for a case, the presiding judge suggested that the court should make a wasted costs order against ALS.
A spokeswoman for ALS said that the changes have been designed to make the system more efficient.
“We’re closely monitoring the service, will investigate any complaints made about the system and make changes and improvements as necessary,” she added.
Commenting on the selection process for interpreters under the new system, the MoJ said: “All interpreters are required to undertake continuous professional development and abide by a comprehensive Code of Conduct, which further emphasises that they should only undertake assignments which they’re competent to undertake.”
However, this is not the first time that problems have been reported about the Government’s efforts to outsource interpreting services to ALS.
In March 2011, the Manchester Evening News reported that interpreter schemes between ALS and police in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria, collapsed after hundreds of interpreters refused to work for ALS and set up a group called the Professional Interpreters’ Alliance. The group applied for a judicial review of the ALS contracts with the various police forces.
However, the deals were scrapped before the review even took place when the Greater Manchester Police admitted breach of the Race Relations Act and signed a consent order at the end of February 2011.
Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police, Cambridgeshire Police and police in South Wales are all believed to have made considerable savings to their interpreter systems in recent years without the need to resort to outsourcing.
Klasiena Slaney, an interpreter and the director and company secretary of the Society of Official Metropolitan Interpreters, commented: “Qualified professional interpreters are experts in their field and are an essential resource which ensures that justice and human rights are upheld. The introduction of outsourcing and the tier system by the Ministry of Justice will compromise the quality of service provided, which is resulting in costly delays and may lead to miscarriages of justice. We wish to engage directly with the Ministry of Justice in order to find solutions to improve efficiency and cost, whilst still maintaining standards of service.”
A MoJ spokesperson said: “This is just one of a number of common sense changes we’re implementing across the justice system to make it more efficient and effective, including digitisation of the courts, greater transparency and expanding the use of virtual courts.”
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (21)
Anonymous | 16-Feb-2012 8:10 pm
And look what has happened now, the courts have been given the go ahead to hire interpreters in so-called "urgent cases" as ALS is doing such a shoddy job. Thank goodness. Let's hope that the government decides to drop the scheme altogether as it's obviously not working and is infringing people's human rights.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Larry Gouldish | 16-Feb-2012 8:52 pm
How the MoJ can associate common sense in the same context as this procurement decision is farcical. Where is the common sense in slashing interpreters pay by up to 50% to the point where it doesn't make economic sense for them to work? 30% of these new costs are going to Mr Wheeler Dealer-don and the other fat cats at Capita. Where's the cost of incurring many times the overall interpreter cost because of delays incurred by all the other parties involved in this common sense decision? A few compensation cases due to injustice served as a result of poor translation is quickly going to dissipate any perceived savings.
It's taken only 2 weeks and the MoJ are back-tracking despite a torrent of backlash when they made the decision and the fact that ALS had been sacked by the Greater Manchester Police just weeks before for the same issue. The sooner that they shelve this ill-conceived primitive concept of cost-saving the better for the sake of the whole judicial system of this country.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Feb-2012 11:42 pm
An idea:
Since the MoJ showed so much disregard, disloyalty and contempt for professional interpreters who have been working in justice system for so many years for measly rates, I think we should get united in our profession and renegotiate our fees, e.g. minimum payment of £150 p/hr for the first three hours +£25 p/hr for travel time, and then additional attendance time @ £50 p/hr + travel expenses i.e. £0.50 p/mile. I think we can achieve this if we get organised and not give in to exploitative agencies. For start, I would propose to set a date in not a distant future at which day all of us withdraw our sevices to the MoJ and see if they can cope with the likes of ALS. I'm pretty sure it would teach the MoJ a lesson not to treat us again in the future as they did by awarding this contract to ALS. Second step would be to have an enquiry about why did responsible people in the MoJ behave in the way they did in relation to this matter, because it smells of something rotten and I would not be surprised of financial links betwen those in MoJ and champion spiv Gavin Wheldon.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Griffiths | 17-Feb-2012 11:58 am
What amazes me is how they can suggest that the previous recognised academic qualifications needed to be on the National Register are now worthless when applying to work for them, and now suggest that their own internal assesment is sufficient to deem a person qualified for legal interpreting. When they are under such massive pressure to get interpretors is it possible they could have 'dumbed down' their assessments much?
Also i have heard that most of the assessment papers have not even been marked yet from the last batch and yet these interpretors are being allowed to practice legal interpreting in the field without yet knowing if they have passed the ALS assessments or not.
Yet another example of ALS putting underqualified interpreters to work in a desperate attempt to fulfill their contractual obligations at the expense of a fair and professional legal system for those requiring interpreters.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Feb-2012 6:17 pm
Someone at the MoJ did not do any homework on ALS at all and should be brought to account. Not just the past history quoted above, but I know of at least one more case of a health authority being so appalled by the levels of service offered by ALS that they pulled out of the contract at the earliest opportunity.
They've also tried bully tactics on NRPSI members who haven't signed up for them - pestering them with emails telling them their work is about to dry up if they don't sign up immediately.
And then there's the tale (maybe apocryphal) of ad's for interpreter recruitment appearing in Jobcentres in Essex.
It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Feb-2012 8:44 am
I run an agency and have to say that we were appalled when ALS contacted us asking us to help source interpreters for a fee of £12 per hour. Clearly an agency fee would need to be deducted so the suggestion that we would even consider destroying our reputation by asking professionals to work for a pittance was disgusting. It is a highly professional role and the premium pay is to account for the fact that interpreters are not constantly engaged between assignments. You guys should stand your ground as the majority think you are worth every penny and do a fantastic job. In the same way that teaching is now being done by teaching assistants and traditional nursing procedures by auxiliaries, there are no levels that the government wouldn't sink to if there's an opportunity to get something for cheaper. Talk about qualifications and upskilling is all lip service.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
PC | 18-Feb-2012 5:30 pm
I agree with the idea of saying no to the MoJ when they go back to the old framework, which they will eventualy. It came from them the idea that was not good enough, therefore, WE WANT BIGGER AND BETTER NOW. The other thing is what about CRB checks? This people that the ALS is sending to courts, they are supposed to have them. It took me ages to get mine. How are they getting them, supermaket vouchers? They are not being tested to degree level, we all know that. Mr. whatever your name is, the one that sold ALS, if we think being a legal interpreter is easy show us how good you are and try sitting the DPSI Law? By the way, how many languages do you speak? This decision of outsourcing was a test to our intelligence. Most interpreters are foreigners, like me, but that is not to say we are grateful to be treated as 2nd classe citizens. We pay taxes and contribute to this country's economy and development. Please respect us.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nils Fort | 20-Feb-2012 8:55 am
The jobcentre plus ads aren't apocryphal, but appeared all over the country. Note the minimum wage equivalent claim - what a driver of quality. CVs at the ready!
INTERPRETER / TRANSLATOR
Vacancy from jobcentreplus
Job No:
BRC/59414
SOC Code:
3412
Wage
£8 PER HOUR + TRAVEL TIME + EXPENSES
Hours
1-30 PER WEEK, MONDAY-FRIDAY, BETWEEN 8AM AND 6PM
Location
BRAINTREE, ESSEX CM7
Duration
Permanent
Date posted
01 November 2011
Pension details
No details held
Description
This is a self employed vacancy. Professional interpreters/translators required. Employer can accommodate applicants who are fluent in a second language DPSI or similar qualification an advantage but training can be aided for those who wish to attain the qualification. Jobs are available in any local area. The company has given an assurance that this vacancy enables workers to achieve a wage equivalent to the National Minimum Wage rate. Self-employed people are responsible for paying their own National Insurance contributions and Tax. For information on how benefits are affected and whether entitlement may be lost, speak to a Jobcentre Plus Adviser. Please click the link Come Work for Us.
How to apply
You can apply for this job by visiting www.alsukltd.com
Employer
ALS UK Ltd
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Applied Language Solutions | 20-Feb-2012 8:05 pm
Please note that the comment above relates to ALS UK Ltd which is a Midlands based company that is in no way linked to Applied Language Solutions.
You may however be interested in an update on our website relating to payment rates for MoJ assignments booked with Applied Language Solutions. This update can be found at Linguist Lounge. http://www.linguistlounge.com/increases-to-payments/
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Feb-2012 7:16 pm
If you don't like this situation write to the minister of State for Justice Lord McNally, click "I want to write to this Lord":
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=justice&pid=13129&wtt=2
When writing to Lord McNally, refer to the rather dubious answers he made in the House of Lords:
http://www.iol.org.uk/news/news_article.asp?r=PB63KS11093
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment