London roadshow agenda - 21st September 2009
Monday, 21 September 2009
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Ireland: Interpreters in court pay row
March 29, 2009
Interpreters in court pay row
Courts Service outlines plans for an 8% fees slash, prompting fears there will be a dearth of cover in the future
Irish court interpreters have been told their hourly rate is to be cut by 28%.
Lionbridge, the company contracted by the Courts Service to translate for defendants and witnesses who don’t speak English, informed interpreters last week that the fee was being cut from €25 to €18 in April.
The company is among the service providers who received a letter from the Courts Service seeking an 8% reduction in fees in line with a government decision to reduce the amount paid for all professional services.
About 1,200 interpreters are employed to cover 175 languages. Interpreters have described Lionbridge’s 28% cut as an “opportunistic” way to increase its take from each employee. “It is unfair that we take this cut while their budget will only go down 8%,” said one.
Lionbridge did not return calls asking for comment.
The interpreters’ fate is in stark contrast with that of judges, who are the only public servants not subject to the 7.5% public-service pension levy. The Courts Service confirmed it had sought an 8% reduction in fees from all its service providers. The amount of money paid to Lionbridge is demand driven and comes to about €2m annually — up from €100,000 in 2000.
According to Mary Phelan, a lecturer in Dublin City University, Lionbridge is paid €46 per hour by the Courts Service for providing interpreters. This gives it €21 per hour while the interpreter takes home €25.
Under the new rates, Lionbridge’s take will increase to €24 per hour despite the 8% cut from the Courts Service. Phelan said this rate will be one of the lowest paid to court interpreters in Europe.
“The Courts Service has to be concerned about the quality of the translations,” said Phelan. “We will not get able interpreters to work for €18 an hour where they may only get one hour’s work in a day.”
British court interpreters are paid for half or full days while their Irish counterparts may travel to courts in Kerry and Donegal for just one hour’s pay.
The quality of some Lionbridge interpreters has been criticised by judges.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Parliament Debate - 11th March 2009
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-03-11b.131.0
11 Mar 2009: Column 131WH
Police Interpreters
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I am delighted to have secured a debate this afternoon on the use of interpreters by police forces in England after several weeks of trying. I am particularly pleased because earlier this week I had the opportunity to submit a petition to the House on behalf of 282 interpreters who are concerned about the prospect of police forces in the north-west outsourcing interpreting services to an agency and about the impact that would have on the quality of interpretation services.
The issue was brought to my attention by a constituent, Marc Starr, who is a registered public service interpreter of Spanish and Portuguese. He contacted me because he and his colleagues were concerned that Greater Manchester police and other forces in the north-west were considering outsourcing interpreting services to an agency. There was clear evidence that when that happened in other parts of the country, there was a massive increase in the use of non-registered interpreters, in contravention of clear guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers. The recommended best practice is that qualified interpreters with a diploma in public service interpreting or equivalent should be used. The ACPO guidance is drawn largely from the "National Agreement on Arrangements for the Use of Interpreters, Translators and Language Service Professionals in Investigations and Proceedings Within the Criminal Justice System" as revised in 2007.
The agreement was issued by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform. It was produced in consultation with the interpreters working group, which includes representatives from ACPO, the Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty's Courts Service, the probation service, the Home Office, the Magistrates' Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society, and representatives of interpreter bodies, and replaces the national agreement issued by the Trials Issue Group in 2002 and a Home Office circular of 2006.
Paragraph 3.3.1 of the agreement states:
"It is essential that interpreters used in criminal proceedings should be competent to meet the ECHR obligations. To that end, the standard requirement is that every interpreter/LSP working in courts and police stations should be registered with one of the recommended registers, ie the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI)".
Importantly, paragraph 10.1 states:
"Police forces and other CJS agencies that are contemplating outsourcing the provision of interpreters must ensure that this does not compromise compliance with the standards set out in this Agreement. In particular, where the fees payable to interpreters—as distinct from those paid to the intermediary agency—are lower than those contained in the recommended Terms and Conditions for Interpreters in the CJS...they are likely to be unattractive to fully qualified interpreters who are on the NRPSI and CACDP Registers, with the result that the contractor resorts to unqualified interpreters who may not be competent. This is not acceptable."
Finally, annexe B states:
"Any interpreter used within the CJS should be able to prove a measurable level of competence and quality assurance. NRPSI registration provides this, which is why NRPSI registered interpreters are recommended."
For several sectors of the public services, the National Register of Public Service Interpreters acts as a database of interpreters whose competence is not in doubt. The move towards contracting out interpreting services by some police forces is a departure from recommended best practice, and information gathered through freedom of information requests has provided irrefutable evidence of a link between outsourcing and low levels of use of interpreters who are registered with the NRPSI and who hold the DPSI qualification.
The majority of police areas that have not outsourced have an almost exemplary record, and even in the South Wales police force, which uses the lowest number of qualified interpreters, as many as 61 per cent. of interpreters have a qualification. There are reasons why the South Wales police find it particularly difficult to find qualified interpreters.
We can compare that with figures for forces that have outsourced the work and have contracts with other organisations. The number of unregistered interpreters used by police forces that have contracts with Cintra, for instance, ranges from 51 per cent. up to 71 per cent.—the latter figure is for Lincolnshire. An average of 61.8 per cent. of unregistered interpreters are used in such areas. The range of registered interpreters in areas where other agencies have been used is from as few as 12 per cent. up to 49 per cent.—those are the figures for Northumbria and Sussex respectively. The most recent information available is for Cheshire and shows that 29 per cent. of interpreters used in 2007 had the qualification, and 38 per cent. in 2008.
Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming evidence that outsourcing results in non-compliance with the guidance, GMP has not been dissuaded from considering it. Superintendent Wilkinson wrote to me on 5 February. He stated:
"The North West Police Forces, led by GMP, have collaborated to explore the possibility of outsourcing the provision of interpreting services. We are aware of the standards required and will take steps to ensure that outsourcing the service does not compromise compliance with the standards set out in the National Agreement, before any contract is awarded. To date no company has been awarded any contract in respect of interpreter services for GMP...Managing companies will be expected to provide interpreters that are qualified and fully vetted for police work and use NRPSI as first tier. Only in exceptional circumstances would they be allowed to deviate from this specification."
Superintendent Wilkinson also explained that one reason why the force is considering contracting out is that sourcing interpreters is time-consuming and costly. He went on to say:
"Front line policing is supported by many other agencies and third party providers who are experts in their own fields. In respect of interpreting, a lot of police resource is deployed in accessing, engaging, checking, administering and paying large pools of self employed interpreters."
Engaging an agency is clearly about saving time and money, yet there is no evidence to back up the assertion that non-registered interpreters will be used only in exceptional circumstances. Evidence from all the other police forces points to the contrary. Unfortunately, GMP is ignoring that evidence for the sake of saving time and money. That will result in ACPO guidance not being followed. I am due to meet the assistant chief constable at the end of the month to raise my concerns about GMP's plans, and I hope that GMP will take notice. However, what is required is for the Government to intervene and strengthen the guidance or, if necessary, to legislate to ensure that police forces comply.
In fairness to the Government, in their response to me on 2 October last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Maria Eagle acknowledged that there was room for improvement and assured me that her officials were looking into the matter. That was five months ago, however, and I have heard nothing further. In her reply, will the Minister let the House know what progress has been made?
The Under-Secretary also acknowledged in her reply that the guidance was clear and that
"all police forces in England and Wales were recently reminded of the current guidance by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is unambiguous, especially in terms of quality, and states that 'Forces that do or are considering outsourcing the provision of services to a commercial agency who act as an intermediary for booking and hiring interpreters, are reminded of the need to ensure this outsourcing process does not compromise compliance with the standards set out in the National Agreement. Consideration should be given to ensure that rates of pay and terms and conditions do not act as a disincentive for qualified and/or registered interpreters, preventing them from offering their services and thus damaging service quality'. The guidance makes clear that the agencies concerned should use registered interpreters and police forces are strongly encouraged to ensure that their contract stipulates the use of qualified interpreters."
Unfortunately, that is simply not happening. Pay and conditions are lower in agencies to which interpreting has been outsourced in other police authorities. That acts as a disincentive, preventing registered interpreters from offering their services.
In this short debate, I do not have time to go into the various examples of the problems caused by the use of non-registered interpreters. If the debate were about whether registered interpreters should have priority over non-registered ones, I would address those issues, but the Government have accepted the case for using registered interpreters. Unfortunately, the Under-Secretary made it clear that she believes that the decision to use agencies lies ultimately with chief constables and that it is not appropriate to legislate. That is where I disagree with her. If the use of agencies results in the guidance not being followed, surely it is the job of the Government to intervene. If the Minister is in any doubt about the evidence, I will happily supply her with more facts and figures.
The problem is not new, but the recent move by GMP and other north-western police forces has brought it firmly back on to the agenda. I urge the Minister to re-examine the impact of outsourcing on ensuring the use of registered interpreters and to introduce further guidance against the use of agencies and outsourcing. If that fails, I urge her to legislate against it. If she is not prepared to go that far, will she at least consider taking action where outsourcing and the use of agencies is resulting in a reduction in the use of registered interpreters? Will she also commit to discussing the implications of outsourcing with GMP and making it clear that if GMP's commitments to maintaining the use of qualified interpreters are not kept, the force will be expected to scrap the use of the agency employed?
In conclusion, my constituent Mr. Starr says:
"Interpreters are aware that it is a freelance industry and what is not expected is a guarantee of work—this depends on too many factors. All we are after is that if there are three interpreters in a region in which a region requires an interpreter five times, an NRPSI interpreter is contacted first on all of those occasions".
That just does not happen when police forces outsource to agencies.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Scotland: Interpreter shortage leaves court system tongue tied
March 10th, 2009
Interpreter shortage leaves court system tongue tied
COURT officials are being forced to draft in interpreters from England for a high-profile murder case because of a shortage of qualified Scots-based translators, it has been revealed.
The Crown Office have retained two Czech linguists from England to assist in the trial involving Slovakian man Marek Harcar.
The Scottish Court Service, who provides interpreters for accused persons, have also confirmed they had supplied one Slovak speaker for the case but would only say that he had come from a UK based agency.
Mr Harcar, 33, is accused of the murder of Moira Jones in May last year and his case, which is due to last three weeks, is due to begin at the High Court in Glasgow.
Prosecutors have confirmed they are to bring two Czech translators from England for the trial and the Scottish Court Service have admitted that they too have been forced to look south of the border for interpreters in the recent past.
Scottish interpreting agencies have recently come in for criticism after claims their translators were poorly trained and not qualified to assist in trials.
In November last year Sheriff James Tierney halted the trial of Kyzsztof Kucharski on the second day of evidence after it was revealed his interpreter had no qualifications.
Scottish courts only prefer interpreters to have the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI) – in England this is the base requirement.
One industry source said the reluctance to introduce this standard and professionalise the industry has led to a dearth of qualified and competent interpreters in Scotland – forcing officials to look elsewhere and shell-out tax-payers’ money on accommodation and expenses.
The source added: “Until there is a move to create the framework to have full-time, professional linguists employed in Scotland, this problem is not going to go away.”
The Scottish Court Service have spent more than £3m on interpreters in the last five years.
They confirmed that sourcing qualified interpreters was an issue which was being looked into.
A spokesman for the service said: “There are challenges in providing interpreters in courts where the business is essentially demand led.
“In one recent case interpreters were brought in from south of the border due to the non availability on the dates in question of suitably qualified interpreters in Scotland. We continue to monitor the situation.”
The Crown Office confirmed they have sourced two Czech interpreters from England for Mr Harcar’s case but would not say whether this was due to a lack of qualified interpreters here. They have also employed French and Polish interpreters from Scotland for the case.
A spokeswoman said: “The Crown has responsibility for sourcing interpreters for Crown witnesses whose main language is not English.
“In accordance with the procurement contract that the Crown has for interpreting services, we have engaged two Czech interpreters, and one each of French and Polish interpreters. The fees are commercial in confidence, in accordance with the terms of the contract.
“The Czech interpreters have been booked for five days, the Polish interpreter for two days, and the French interpreter for three days.“
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Scotland: Inquiry into trial's use of unqualified interpreter
16 Nov 2008
Inquiry into trial's use of unqualified interpreter
An urgent inquiry has been launched into how a jury trial of a migrant collapsed after the sheriff discovered the accused’s interpreter had no qualifications.
Sheriff James Tierney halted the trial of Krzysztof Kucharski on the second day after the freelance interpreter admitted her inexperience in open court, despite reassurances from the interpreting firm that she was suitably qualified. She herself had, at the start of the trial, confirmed that she was able to undertake the work.
The Scottish Court Service (SCS) hired criminology and psychology student Beata Kozlowska from Alpha Translating and Interpreting Services, the country's largest interpreting firm. Kozlowska was to interpret in the case against Kucharski, 24, at Aberdeen Sheriff Court last month, despite not possessing the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI), the minimum industry benchmark qualification for linguists working in the public sector.
Kucharski, a car valet from Aberdeen, was alleged to have repeatedly struck his victim, Fryderyk Polak, on the body with a knife or similar instrument to his severe injury on October 12 last year. He has always maintained his innocence.
Kucharski's defence lawyer, Taco Nolf, himself a qualified translator in two foreign languages, formally objected to Kozlowska's handling of key evidence from two Polish witnesses.
The sheriff then investigated the interpreter's qualifications and deserted the case pro loco et tempore ("for the place and time") and discharged the 15-strong jury. Legal sources have indicated it is unlikely the trial could be re-staged.
The event highlighted how the SCS is continuing to use inexperienced foreign students - without the DPSI or any other interpreting qualifications - despite issuing guidelines in June that interpreters should hold the DPSI with the option in Scots law "or an equivalent qualification of similar standard".
The Sunday Herald revealed this year how mistakes are being made that could lead to miscarriages of justice, and that migrants without the DPSI are exploiting a lucrative trade in court interpreting.
Labour's justice spokeman, Richard Baker, said: "If cases are being lost like this due to translation errors then something is seriously wrong with our prosecution system. There is a principle that everyone is entitled to fair representation but from this evidence it appears this is not the case when some translation companies are involved."
In 2006, Nolf was representing in an assault case at Wick Sheriff Court that collapsed because of an error made by one of Alpha's unqualified freelance interpreters.
The lawyer said: "This is the third trial in which I have been involved that has been deserted because of incompetent interpreters, all of them supplied by the same agency."
In a statement, the SCS said that an interpreter with the DPSI plus Scottish law option qualification was "specifically requested in this case", and that Alpha provided a note to the court explaining why it thought the interpreter had other suitable qualifications, which was accepted.
It added: "The matter has been urgently raised with Alpha Translating, and we are awaiting the outcome of their internal inquiry."
Saif Shah, head of interpreting at Alpha, said it followed the guidelines in providing all relevant details about its interpreters. He added: "We are very disappointed about this development and will be investigating the matter internally and with our clients at the SCS."
Friday, 1 August 2008
National Agreement
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100920143552/http://frontline.cjsonline.gov.uk/guidance/race-confidence-and-justice/
Attendance of interpreters within the CJS
The National Agreement
document provides key guidance for all parties to criminal investigations and
proceedings on the selection and treatment of interpreters within the Criminal
Justice System. It replaces the National Agreement on Arrangements for the
Attendance of Interpreters in Investigations and Proceedings within the
Criminal Justice System (2002) and Home Office Circular 17/2006. Below, you
will also find the terms and conditions for individuals providing face-to-face
interpreting services at court for defendants and prosecution witnesses.
National Agreement on Arrangements for the
Use of Interpreters, Translators and Language Service Professionals in
Investigations and Proceedings within the Criminal Justice, as revised 2007
Terms & Conditions for Individuals Providing Face-to-face Interpreting Services
Saturday, 24 May 2008
Scotland: Justice system compromised by unqualified interpreters
24 May 2008
Justice system compromised by unqualified interpreters
Fears of miscarriages in cases involving migrants
SCOTLAND could be seeing miscarriages of justice because sheriff clerks and procurators fiscal are using unqualified linguists as interpreters for migrant defendants and witnesses in the courts, the Sunday Herald can reveal.
The Scottish Court Service and Crown Office are allowing foreign students without the industry benchmark Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI) to work, through approved agencies, as interpreters in cases ranging from custody disputes to serious assaults, including an alleged rape.
The rising number of migrants appearing before the court has led to a greater need for foreign-language speakers. Interpreters working without the qualification - described by the Chartered Institute of Linguists as "indispensable" - are being used to plug the shortfall.
The Sunday Herald has evidence that fiscals and sheriff clerks are routinely using unqualified freelance linguists provided by Scotland's largest interpreting agency, Alpha Translating and Interpreting. Solicitors, court officials and qualified interpreters have raised fears that mistakes are being made that could lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals.
Edinburgh-based Alpha promises high-quality trained staff and "24-hour coverage, 365 days a year". It provides staff to 50 courts, as well as the Scottish government, the NHS, police forces, local authorities and football clubs.
Two years ago, an assault trial at Wick sheriff court involving a Polish accused and a number of Polish prosecution witnesses collapsed because of mistakes made by an inexperienced interpreter. She did not have the DPSI and had not even started the one-year training course that leads to the diploma.
Aberdeen-based defence lawyer Taco Nolf is so concerned about the quality of some interpreters supplied by Alpha, which is approved by the Scottish Court Service and Crown Office Procurator Fiscal, that he has hired his own interpreter to ensure that evidence is being accurately translated.
Nolf, who represented the defendant, Wojciech Wszolek, in the Wick case, has objected to Alpha's interpreters in court, claiming they didn't possess the proper qualifications, did not hold relevant UK degrees or had questionable English.
He said: "An uncommonly large number of court interpreters come from Alpha. They are often unqualified and incompetent. The girl who sank the Wick trial was still working for them six months later.
"It is not good enough for an agency to say that the interpreter is a native speaker of Polish and that he is fluent in English. It does not make him or her a competent interpreter."
Wszolek said he is still angry about the linguist's errors that led to the case collapsing, as he believes the proceedings left him with a stain on his character.
He was cleared in June 2006 after the Alpha interpreter missed out words in translating a witness statement. Sheriff Gordon Fleetwood halted proceedings and deserted the case after being told by Nolf that the interpreter was "entirely unqualified as a translator" as she did not have the diploma, although she had a master's degree in English.
Nolf said he sympathised with the difficulties the courts face in hiring translators for the growing number of cases involving migrants who can speak only their native language, but that he was shocked that many of those hired lack the necessary skills.
Anna Kocela, 29, the interpreter in the aborted Wick case, is working for Alpha while studying for the DPSI, which she expects to pass next year.
She insists there is no question about her English-speaking ability, but says she is often "embarrassed" by the behaviour of some colleagues at Edinburgh sheriff court, who, she claimed, don't understand the Scottish legal system.
Kocela, a former English teacher in her native Poland, said: "Loads of Polish people come here and say they can speak English, but interpreting and speaking English are totally different.
"There's loads of people who are simply taken from the streets, without any qualifications, that haven't been checked on properly."
She said some colleagues were unprofessional in touting themselves around three or more agencies every day to profit from court work, where rates are typically £11 an hour after the agency's fee has been taken off.
Another interpreter had been working for Alpha recently in Edinburgh District Court with only a degree in English from a Polish university. The 30-year-old told the Sunday Herald she was able to gain the work because of her previous experience as an interpreter with the city council.
However, she appeared confused about whether she had worked in the sheriff or district courts when questioned by the Sunday Herald and incorrectly described the system as being "just like the Polish courts".
Another Pole, who is studying business at university and doesn't hold the DPSI, boasted that he covers anything up to 150 sheriff court cases and could potentially earn £1000 a month.
The 24-year-old worked for Alpha after passing a course in English for business run by an accredited private language specialist, and graduated in business studies from a UK university as part of a student exchange programme.
He revealed that he earned £50 for a two-hour interview at Perth police station on behalf of a Polish alleged rape victim on one of his very first assignments last year after Alpha could find no suitable female interpreters.
The man, who spoke broken English, said: "I wasn't quite sure I could manage the rape case, and knew it would be difficult, but she was fine with me.
"Alpha asked for the DPSI, but my English is good enough and I was about to graduate so they gave me work."
Tayside Police said the rape interview would have been re-arranged if the alleged victim had requested a female interpreter to be present.
Cetty Zambrano of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, which set up a national register of public service interpreters in an attempt to improve the quality of linguists, said the DPSI is an indispensable qualification if people want to work as an interpreter in the public service. But the Institute revealed that in three years, only 150 people have sat the diploma's Scottish legal option exam, which is preferred by the courts and Crown Office.
Zambrano added: "The law courts don't demand the diploma because the national agreement isn't even law. Things need tightening up."
A Crown Office spokesperson said: "The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service interpreting contract states that interpreters should have the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (Scottish Legal Option) and recent experience of both consecutive and simultaneous interpreting in the court context.
"Where an interpreter does not have the DPSI qualification, it may still be possible and appropriate to use them if, for example, they have other relevant qualifications or the agency can provide us with evidence of the interpreter's recent relevant experience."
Alpha, which refused to say how many of its interpreters are unqualified, said in a statement that while the introduction of tendering contracts had improved standards of court interpreting, the "very nature" of freelance work is "a barrier in its own right" to improving the quality of linguists it uses.
"Without a career path, and the potential for viable income generation, there is no incentive to study," it said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)