MoJ ditches new court interpreting system in face of major backlash
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has decided to allow courts to revert to the old system of selecting interpreters from the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) in order to avoid further hearings being adjourned as a result of interpreters from a new agency failing to turn up to court.
The MoJ headquarters
The MoJ launched a new interpreter service on 30 January that required all court interpreters to be sourced from Applied Language Solutions (ALS).
However, since launch there have been reports of long delays and instances where interpreters were late, underprepared, underqualified or failed to turn up at all. This has resulted in a number of hearings being adjourned (16 February 2012).
A spokesman for the MoJ commented: “There have been some problems with short notice appointments in the first few weeks of the new system and so the courts have been told that they can use their own arrangements in the meantime to mitigate the number of hearings that are failing as a result of the contractor’s difficulties with sourcing interpreters at short notice.”
While the spokesman said this should be regarded as an interim measure, he confirmed that there has been no date or deadline set for when the courts will be required to rely solely on the new system.
An email sent from ALS chairman Gavin Wheeldon to the Professional Interpreters Alliance and seen by The Lawyer highlights that the agency is reacting to the mounting pressure from interpreters to improve the terms and conditions of the new system. “I’d like to use this opportunity to clear up any confusion and also announce some changes that we’ve made to our payment rates following feedback from you and your colleagues,” the email states.
The email mentions that, contrary to previous reports, ALS does pay interpreters for court waiting time. It also mentions several amendments, saying: “We’ve doubled the mileage allowance from 20p per mile to 40p for any travel over 10 miles (each way). I’d also like to confirm that we do pay linguists £10 an hour travel time after the first hour of travel (again each way) which again makes a big difference for shorter interpreting jobs outside of your immediate area.”
The email also notes that an interpreter will now receive a supplement for any job booked through the Linguist Lounge self-serve system. “This assigning method is very efficient so we’re now paying a £5 supplement for every booking accepted through any of the automation methods. This effectively increases the rate of the first hour for linguists,” says Wheeldon.
According to the Linguist Lounge website, this £5 supplement was introduced on Monday 20 February.
This is not the first time that problems have been reported about the Government’s efforts to outsource interpreting services to ALS. In 2011, the Professional Interpreters’ Alliance brought a judicial review against the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) which had contracted ALS to coordinate their interpreter system. The review was upheld over a breach of the Race Relations Act and the GMP was forced to sign a consent order at the end of February 2011.
The problems inherent in the new system have unleashed a large backlash from the interpreting community (20 February 2012).
A spokesman from digital transcription and translation company Transcription Global told The Lawyer that the company has been inundated with letters, calls and emails from anxious interpreters.
“We’ve heard stories of interpreters being used in court that haven’t even been assessed or vetted, and interpreters turning up late to tribunal hearings or not even turning up at all,” he said.
“Echoing the comments of Labour justice spokesman Andy Slaughter last week, we are baffled that the contract was even awarded after the displays of vehement opposition from the interpreting community towards pilot schemes that took place last year. Without the backing of the Professional Interpreters Alliance (PIA) and its members, ALS did not stand a chance of meeting the contract requirements as the selection of qualified, experienced interpreters to choose from has been severely depleted.”
“In the current economic climate, nobody can argue that savings of £60m over five years isn’t an inherently good thing. However, questions must be asked immediately of both the MoJ and ALS before the contract turns into an expensive mess that the taxpayer will be forced to clean up after. Transcription Global feel the only option on the table is for both sides to enter into serious dialogue and essentially dissolve the current framework, looking to design a solution that balances quality against cost. By using a single supplier service, you eradicate competition for payment to qualified interpreters. Capitalism between suppliers can reduce expenditure yet maintain high standards of pay for qualified personnel.”
Commenting on efforts to improve the situation, an MoJ spokesman said: “The Ministry of Justice is working with Applied Language Solutions to closely monitor the operation of the new contract.”
ALS declined to provide further comment.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (15)
David Salter | 27-Feb-2012 9:27 am
This is quite typical of my experience of the UK translation market. Having set up over here after starting our business in Australia, there is a huge gulf between the two countries with regard to the level of respect for the profession, the appreciation for the talent of those who are appropriately qualified to carry out difficult translation (or interpreting) work and the rates that these highly qualified people should command. A constant drive to reduce rates means that the old adage "buy cheap buy twice" adage keeps cropping up in our business. Prospective clients are constantly approaching us with requests to correct work which has been conducted by a cheaper provider but are then surprised when we refuse to work at the rates on offer. If you want a tertiary-educated linguist with either practical experience working as a lawyer or vast experience as a legal translator to undertake your translation or interpreting work, you need to pay for it. And, unfortunately for some of the pile-it-high-sell-it-cheap providers, no amount of sophisticated technology is going to replace the all-important element of human skill.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jean Pateras | 27-Feb-2012 1:35 pm
The only way forward is to revert to the National Agreement for interpreters, as before, and in the mean time have full blown discussions with interpreters, as to how costs may be cut without damaging the public's right to proper interpretation in court. Most of us will NOT work for an agency who profits from us and the public purse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
marcin | 2-Mar-2012 2:00 pm
For me it seems that a very closed group, so called ‘registered interpreters’ are extremely unhappy about their pay cuts.
On the one hand it is quiet understandable. I wouldn’t be happy if instead of a pay rise I would have to accept a pay-cut.
However the way the registered interpreters handle this situation is appalling. They go to court, meet officially booked interpreters (Applied Language Solutions), intimidate them, make threats or unpleasant comment such as: ‘it is my court, back off’ ect.
Are they really professional?
From the tax payer’s view this change was inevitable. It is not a normal situation where interpreters are being paid more than solicitors. We live in hard times and the time to save money has come.
One word of advice to registered interpreters-get over it. The time when you have been wasting tax payers money is over.
WELL DONE GAVIN!! You have my full support!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Matei | 5-Mar-2012 9:14 pm
One can only speculate whether 'marcin' is an employee of ALS' PR department. I think the 'go Gavin go go go' gives it away slightly.
As to the points raised, I very much doubt ALS interpreters are being 'intimidated'. If they are, then ALS should document and post these events on the internet, in the same way that professional interpreters are recording instances of ALS failure and inadequacy and publishing them. Perhaps, being of the private sector, ALS are somewhat unfamiliar with the concept of public courts, and so when professional interpreters, as they are entitled to do as members of the public, go to court to observe ALS interpters in action, and maybe ask them what qualifications they have to do the job, ALS and their stooges interpret this as 'intimidation'.
As for comparing interpreters and solicitors pay in a simplistic way, let me explain. solicitors usually get paid a salary, interpreters are self employed. Solicitors make a per-hour loss at the bread and butter magistrates hearings and stay in business doing trials and more complex cases, where larger fees are earned by more senior associates which keeps the whole firm afloat. Interpreters earn more than a solicitor in the magistrates and (just about) in the police station, but an advocate at trial or a more legally complex earns a lot more for his firm than the interpreter at that hearing. Then factor in that interpreters don't have the infrastructure of a law firm and do all their taxes and admin themselves, don't have a salary guaranteed at the end of the month, and that interpreters rates haven't changed for 10 years, whereas in 10 years a solicitor may have progressed from associate to partner and got a raise, and you start to realise how nonsensical is the argument put by 'marcin'.
As for tax payers money being wasted. Perhaps, 'marcin' can enlighten us, as a fan, if not even an insider, of ALS, who will meet the cost of adjournments, additional custody time and wasted costs orders against ALS by solicitors firms, if not the Taxpayer. I understand the damage caused by ALS already in the first month make the trumpeted "£18m savings" look like a fairytale.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
luckily not working for als | 14-Mar-2012 10:30 pm
marcin you do realise you are just confirming that some eastern european people accepts extremely low pay
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment