MP in Commons attack on Delph interpreter service

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/61902/lost-in-translation

12 October 2011

Lost in translation

MP in Commons attack on Delph interpreter service

THE Government has come under pressure to reconsider a deal with an Saddleworth company providing interpreters for police and the courts.

Earlier this year Applied Language Solutions was awarded a government contract to provide translation services, face-to-face foreign language interpreting, professional interpreting, telephone interpreting, instant telephone interpreting and language services for the deaf and blind — including British Sign Language — for the police and courts.

The deal with the Ministry of Justice is expected to save £18 million a year and will allow justice organisations to make a booking request which will automatically allocate the nearest interpreter with the right language skills and experience, who is security checked and approved to work within the justice sector for the particular assignment.

But Manchester Withington MP John Leech said Delph-based ALS, set up and run by Gavin Wheeldon, a former “Dragons Den” contestant, was not suitable to offer the service and urged the Government to rethink its decision.

Speaking in a Commons debate, Mr Leech argued there was strong evidence to suggest outsourcing led to a lesser quality of interpreting.

He said: “These proposals have not been properly thought through. The MoJ has failed to look at the evidence from outsourcing, and failed to treat all interpreters equitably.

“I hope that it is not too late for the Government to take a step back and review this decision.

“If they cannot do that, I would at the very least strongly urge the Minister closely to monitor the performance of the service, paying close attention to the delays and additional costs that will undoubtedly occur when cases are delayed as a result of a lack of an available interpreter, or when mistakes are made when under-qualified interpreters are used.”

Mr Leech told MPs that despite there being 2,300 interpreters registered with the national register of public service interpreters, only 1,000 had signed up to ALS.

He said the reluctance of people to sign up highlighted the level of opposition to the proposals which was also inevitably linked to worse pay and conditions under the company than interpreters previously received.

Parliament Debate - 10th October 2011

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0004.htm#1110115000002

10 Oct 2011: Column 154

 

Interpretation Services (Ministry of Justice)

10.13 pm

Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I am delighted to have secured this end-of-day Adjournment debate on the proposed outsourcing of interpretation services by the Ministry of Justice. I wish that it had not been necessary and that the coalition Government had recognised the mistakes made by the previous Labour Government in not taking action to stop police forces around the country outsourcing interpreting services to agencies, which has resulted in a poorer level of service not only to defendants but to police forces and the criminal justice system around the country. This is not the first time that I have raised this issue in Parliament. Back in March 2009, I secured a Westminster Hall debate in response to the north-west police forces planning to outsource their interpreting services. Unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears; I hope that it will not do so this time.

I would like particularly to thank my constituent Marc Starr, who originally brought this issue to my attention, and Geoffrey Buckingham, the chairman of the Association of Police and Court Interpreters, for providing me with a lot of information for the debate, and to recognise colleagues who have contacted me about this issue, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who is in his place.

A framework agreement to regulate the supply of police and court public service interpreters has been brokered by the Ministry of Justice. Its intentions are to endeavour to ensure that interpreting services to the judiciary and police are delivered to a high standard via qualified interpreters in a way intended to save about £18 million annually against the current £60 million budget. The Ministry of Justice has decided that the best way to do so is to let a contract to a single self-regulating commercial organisation that will book interpreters, individually or through agencies, to service the police and courts; determine a rate for the job; and monitor not only the quality of the interpreters’ work and need for further training and review, but its own performance. However, it is highly questionable whether this framework agreement and Applied Language Solutions, which is the agency that will provide interpreters, will be able to meet the Ministry of Justice’s requirements.

The plans introduce three tiers of interpreters, and the intention is to rank interpreters into one of three categories, with a rate of pay of £22 for tier 1, £20 for tier 2, and £16 for tier 3. Interpreters will be ranked according to their qualifications, but also subject to the agency’s own assessment, to which already fully qualified interpreters would be expected to subject themselves at their own personal cost. These rates of pay, along with severe restrictions on travel expenses and an end to travel-time payments, will result in interpreters refusing to sign up to the agency, or to take specific jobs, because of the low rates of pay. I have received evidence from one interpreter in Greater Manchester whose current net pay after travel expenses for a typical magistrates court job in Greater Manchester is £103.75 for anything up to a three-hour job, whereas under the proposed framework agreement it would be £10 for a one-hour job or £50 for a three-hour job, which equates to £4.44 per hour for one hour, rising to £11.76 per hour if the job lasts three hours.

Perhaps an even starker example is that of a Lithuanian-speaking interpreter who sometimes has to travel to Plymouth Crown court from Surrey because of a lack of qualified Lithuanian-speaking interpreters. Under the current agreement, they would receive £246.25 after travel costs for the 11.5-hour return trip. Under the new framework agreement, this would be minus £65.10 after travel costs. Does the Minister seriously think that that is acceptable, and does he really think that this will be an incentive to accept that particular job?

Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con): I assure my hon. Friend that the worries that he has outlined are shared by interpreters in Wales, whose concern is not so much the finance but the fact that the service is going to deteriorate because of the quality of interpreters who will work at these rates.

Mr Leech: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. That is a common issue that has been raised with me by interpreters around the country, in England and in Wales.

When one adds in the additional disincentives of no pension, holiday pay or sick pay, as well as no job security and no increase in interpreters’ rate of pay since 2007, it is unthinkable to assume that these proposed rates of pay and costs are suitable. It also seems perverse that the new framework agreement encourages the use of an interpreter’s car rather than public transport. Currently, standard-class fares are reimbursed in full, while the car mileage rate is 25p a mile. A higher rate of 45p a mile, which is more in line with the true cost of running a car per mile, along with parking costs, is payable only if the interpreter can show that there was no public transport option. However, under the new arrangements all calculations will be based on the use of a personal car and public transport costs will not be covered—not much of an incentive for interpreters to reduce their carbon emissions and travel on public transport.

One of the stated aims of the framework agreement is increasing the number of suitably qualified and vetted interpreters to meet the demand. There are currently around 2,300 interpreters registered with the national register of public service interpreters. Applied Language Solutions claims that 1,000 linguists have signed up to its Linguist Lounge recruitment website. That means a cut of around 1,300 qualified interpreters available to the courts system, assuming that all 1,000 are NRPSI-qualified. If they are not, the cut in qualified interpreters will be even greater. The failure of ALS to reach agreement with at least 1,300 qualified interpreters shows the level of opposition to the proposals, in spite of evidence to suggest that ALS has sought to pressurise interpreters into signing up, with thinly veiled threats that the registration is closing soon. Does the Minister think that that is appropriate behaviour for a company purporting to implement the legal interpreting and translation register, which surely must be consistently open to applicants as a public resource?

Does the Minister also think that closing the list when more than half the NRPSI-qualified interpreters have refused to sign up will increase the availability of suitably qualified and vetted interpreters? Of course, it will not. We should look at the evidence from where outsourcing has already taken place and at its impact on the quality and availability of interpreters. The Ministry of Justice claimed on 6 July that “collaborative authorities” had “concerns that NRPSI registration does not necessarily guarantee quality. The evidence for this is anecdotal, but has been consistent enough to warrant action.”

I would prefer to rely on hard evidence, and there is significant evidence that the outsourcing of interpreting services by police forces has resulted in the use of unqualified interpreters.

When Cheshire constabulary outsourced to ALS, only 34% of the interpreters provided by ALS were on the NRPSI. In Lincolnshire, outsourcing led to a reduction of registered interpreters from 68% to less than 30%. Where outsourcing has taken place there has been a significant reduction in the number of registered interpreters being used—clear evidence that the quality and availability of interpreters is reduced.

Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my constituent Svetlana Clark who is a member of the Chartered Institute of Linguists and a public service interpreter on the national register, that the potential cost to the judiciary of adjournments, mistrials, appeals and failed prosecutions as a result of inadequate interpreting cannot be overestimated and does not serve the interests of justice?

Mr Leech: I do agree with the hon. Lady’s constituent. There is lots of evidence to suggest that where unqualified interpreters have been used there have been delays in police and court action, resulting in additional costs. I have been handed pages and pages of examples of unqualified interpreters being sent to police stations and courts by agencies, or interpreters proficient in the wrong language. One example that made it into Private Eye was ALS providing a Czech-speaking interpreter for a Slovak-speaking suspect. ALS’s explanation was that “it is fair to say that most people from Slovakia essentially speak Czech.” Is this really the sort of organisation that we want in charge of ensuring that justice is done?

Other questions have been raised about the suitability of ALS to fulfil the role. The Minister has already assured me that the Department’s procurement specialists were satisfied by the company’s stability and probity, but the fact remains that more than 50% of qualified interpreters do not and will not work for it. The company has been found to be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 on three occasions since 2007. Can the Minister assure me that potentially highly sensitive data are safe and that is it appropriate for them to be handled in non-UK call centres?

Finally, will the Minister explain why foreign-language-speaking interpreters are being treated differently from British sign language interpreters, who will retain their existing terms and conditions? Surely that contravenes sections 13 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010, by providing less favourable terms to foreign-language interpreters? The Ministry of Justice also intends effectively to re-test foreign-language interpreters, but not British sign language interpreters. Surely it is a contradiction that the Ministry accepts BSL qualifications as valid but rejects foreign-language interpreters, even though they have the same level of accredited qualification.

These proposals have not been properly thought through. The MOJ has failed to look at the evidence from outsourcing, and failed to treat all interpreters equitably. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to take a step back and review this decision. If they cannot do that, I would at the very least strongly urge the Minister closely to monitor the performance of the service, paying close attention to the delays and additional costs that will undoubtedly occur when cases are delayed as a result of a lack of an available interpreter, or when mistakes are made when under-qualified interpreters are used.

Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) for raising the important issue of the outsourcing of interpretation services by the Ministry of Justice. I want to raise the case of a local company, Sign Solutions, which is based in my constituency and which specialises in interpretation services for British sign language. It was formed in 1998, following the retrial of the case of R v. Smith, Smith and Sams. This murder trial had been running in the Old Bailey for seven weeks using an unskilled, unqualified BSL interpreter. The interpreter errors eventually became so great that the judge had to stop the trial.

My constituent Sean Nicholson and his friend Gloria Ogborn were interpreters of known expertise, and they were approached by the Ministry of Justice to undertake the retrial. Their company, Sign Solutions, went on successfully to tender for civil and family court work for more than 10 years. Since then, it has helped to streamline interpreting services, and introduced cost savings by reducing the number of interpreters booked for cancelled hearings and supplying the right number of interpreters for each case. It has also suggested cost-saving ideas to the MOJ, such as using a web-based video system that could cut pricing by up to 50% without compromising quality. Sign Solutions is an award-winning national vocational qualification centre that offers post-qualification training in police and court work. It employs apprentices who are training to become the next generation of BSL legal interpreters. Its services encompass all languages and telephone interpreting, in order to be able to compete for one-service tenders.

During the recent MOJ tender process, Sign Solutions was rejected on the basis of having insufficient turnover, despite being one of the most experienced BSL court interpreters in the country, with more than 12 qualified interpreters in house, four of whom have more than 20 years of legal experience each. Small and medium-sized enterprises such as Sign Solutions are just the kind of business that this Government are committed to supporting, so may I ask the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to look carefully at the MOJ procurement process, to see how a more level playing field could be created so that companies such as Sign Solutions have a better chance of winning Government business?

Continues: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0004.htm#1110115000002

Watch the debate: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9067

(starts at 10:13 pm)

Interpreters on the cheap could lead to miscarriages of justice

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3185193.ece

6 October 2011

Interpreters on the cheap could lead to miscarriages of justice

Matthew Scott

Anyone who watched Amanda Knox's powerful closing speech was struck by her ability to persuade her jury in fluent Italian, the product no doubt of four years education in an Italian jail. It may be no coincidence that her Italian was very much less accomplished when she was first arrested and convicted, amid claims that her retracted confession was made under duress.

A suspect arrested and investigated in a foreign country needs a good interpreter and translator just as much as she needs a good lawyer.

In 2007 Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, a former Egyptian army officer alleged to be one of the masterminds of the 2007 Madrid train bombers, was acquitted after he successfully argued that translations from Arabic of his wire-tapped conversations were inaccurate.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires that every defendant should "have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot speak the language used in court". Victims and witnesses should, of course, be afforded equal consideration.

Many in Britain fear that the result of a little-publicised change in the way police and court interpreters are to be engaged will dramatically increase the scope for miscarriages of justice and unfairness to victims of crime, as well as lengthening trials. It could ultimately lead to the Government being dragged before the European Court of Human Rights.

Both the 1993 Runciman report and the 2001 Auld report into the criminal justice system emphasised the importance to the justice system of properly qualified and remunerated court interpreters.

Following these recommendations the courts and the police have, save in exceptional cases, obtained interpreters and translators from the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI). All its members are qualified, at the very least by long experience, and most possess at least a Diploma in Public Service Interpreting or equivalent qualification. All are security vetted.

Membership of the register is regarded as a mark at the very least of competence, and in many cases of excellence. Interpreting fees (which have not increased since 2006) are paid by the Courts Service and are not particularly high. At present, an interpreter is entitled to a minimum payment of £85 to cover the first three hours of interpreting. Thereafter he or she is paid at £30 per hour. Travel time is paid at a lesser rate and reasonable travel expenses are paid. The profession is highly competitive but good interpreters are able to make a reasonable living.

There may be a perception that interpreting fees are out of control, but the figures suggest otherwise. The total spent by the Courts Service on interpreters fell by 13 per cent from £49.2 million in 2009–10 to £47.2 million in 2010–11, while the Met's expenditure on interpreting and translation services has declined steadily from £10,541,000 in 2007-08 to £8,829,552 in 2010-11.

Nevertheless, if the Ministry of Justice has its way it is a system that is about to change. In August the ministry awarded a four-year contract worth £300,000,000 to Applied Language Solutions, an Oldham-based company set up and run by Gavin Wheeldon, 34, a former Dragons Den contestant.

The plan is that, from this month, instead of each court or police officer contacting a member of the NRPSI when an interpreter is required, they will instead contact ALS, which will engage its own interpreters, paying them a lower hourly rate and, crucially paying no minimum fee and no travel expenses. The hope is that the savings will be passed on to the Government.

It is in some ways surprising that the ministry is pushing ahead with the scheme given that a pilot scheme involving ALS and Greater Manchester Police collapsed this year amid mutual recriminations and the threat of legal action by the Professional Interpreters Alliance.

Other critics point to a similar scheme in Scotland where interpreting expenditure actually increased after it was introduced.

Many NRPSI-registered professional interpreters are angry. Hundreds are refusing to sign up with ALS and there is a real fear in the courts that interpreting standards will drop as a result.

ALS claims that this will not happen because it will require all its interpreters to pass a test run by "independent assessors" from Middlesex University. Candidates (who will have to pay £100 to take the test) will then be graded into three tiers. There will be no requirement for any of them to have any other professional qualifications or experience, leading many to fear that the only way ALS will be able to supply interpreters will be by employing unqualified and inexperienced staff who will earn (after deducting travel costs and waiting time) little more, and on some assignments considerably less, than the minimum wage.

Questions are also being asked about the independence of Middlesex University and its involvement with ALS. Far from being a disinterested assessor, the university is described on the ALS website as a "partner". The criteria that the university assessors will use, and the identity of the assessors, has not been made public, leading many to claim that far from trying to maintain standards the university will actually have an interest only in ensuring that ALS has a sufficient number of interpreters available to work for ALS for rock-bottom fees.

Understandably the Professional Interpreters Alliance has again threatened to bring judicial review proceedings against the Government and it may be that the contract will collapse ignominiously like that with Greater Manchester Police. If it does not do so then the courts may have to prepare themselves for a shortage of quality interpreters and the miscarriages of justice that will follow.

The author is a barrister at 3 Pump Court, Temple.

Report "A fair deal for Interpreters"

Report "A fair deal for Interpreters" - an independent survey on the impact of the MOJ’s plans to outsource legal interpreting services.

http://www.eulita.eu/sites/default/files/file/A%20Fair%20Deal%20for%20Interpreters%20%28Confidential%29%2026-9-11.pdf

MoJ Framework

Language Services Framework Agreement

http://www.contractsfinder.businesslink.gov.uk/Common/View%20Notice.aspx?site=1000&lang=en&noticeid=264052&fs=true

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0tXqQzbT728amlmRjAzYnlESDA

Daily Telegraph’s correction

Thanks to a colleague's complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, the Daily Telegraph has published a correction today on Page 2.

 

 

http://www.pcc.org.uk/advanced_search.html?keywords=interpreters&page=1&num=10&publication=x&decision=x&image.x=0&image.y=0

 

PQ - 12th September 2011

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-09-12b.71011.h

12 Sep 2011

Interpreters: Training

Justice

Graeme Morrice (Livingston, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department is taking to ensure that interpreters employed in the criminal justice system have professional qualifications.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

As I announced in a written ministerial statement I made to the House on 15 September 2010, Hansard, columns 46-47WS, we are reforming the delivery of interpretation and translation services across the justice sector. This will primarily affect England and Wales.

A framework agreement with a single supplier was signed by the Ministry of Justice on 24 August 2011. This document includes clear quality standards specifying the qualifications and experience required for interpreters to work in the justice sector.

Unite campaign backs public service interpreting

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/unite-campaign-backs-public-service-interpreting
Thursday 08 September 2011 by Catherine Baksi

Unite campaign backs public service interpreting

Trade union Unite is to launch a campaign to support public service interpreting and ensure that properly trained translators are used by criminal justice agencies.

The campaign, Speak Up, Speak Out, follows the decision by the Ministry of Justice in July to contract with a single commercial agency, Applied Language Solutions, to provide translation and interpretation services to criminal justice agencies, dispensing with the requirement for registration with the Register of Public Service Interpreters and its sign language equivalent.

To date, public bodies such as the courts and police have contacted interpreters directly using the national register, which only lists qualified and security-vetted professionals.

Interpreting unions including NUPIT, the translators and interpreters branch of Unite, fear the government’s new arrangements will reduce the quality of services and harm the interests of those engaging with the criminal justice system.

Their campaign will seek to persuade the government to retain the national register and ensure a properly regulated public interpreting service.

An MoJ spokesman said: ‘We currently spend in the region of £60m a year on interpretation and translation services. This new framework will substantially cut that bill, by reducing inefficiencies, while still ensuring high quality interpreters and translators are available to those in need.’

Applied Language Solutions has previously pointed out that all work is done by appropriately qualified interpreters.

West Midlands Police to cut £750k from budget for translators

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2011/09/08/west-midlands-police-to-cut-750k-from-budget-for-translators-65233-29383853/#ixzz1YPQpyo1E
Sep 8 2011

West Midlands Police to cut £750k from budget for translators

West Midlands Police is to cut 40 per cent off the £1.8 million a year it spends paying interpreters to communicate with non-English speaking offenders.

The force, which has to save £126 million over four years as part of Government budget cuts, said it can save at least £750,000 a year by changing the way it employs translators.

The force spends £1,898,000 on interpreters, who are used at police stations and in courts to translate more than 100 different languages.

Senior officers said the overhaul will end lucrative pay and perks packages.

But some interpreters said they were being forced out of the profession because the new contracts will halve rates of pay and removes travel expenses when it is introduced next month.

They have branded the cost-cutting overhaul as “dangerous”, claiming the changes could lead to the use of lesser qualified translators and the possibility police and court cases could collapse.

The force was due to discuss the changes at a meeting with interpreters at Tally Ho! in Edgbaston, Birmingham, this week. Under the current structure, officers would arrange interpreters to cover cases, without knowing how long they have been qualified, how they are rated or how close they are to the station.

The interpreters would then get paid while they travelled to the station and were guaranteed a minimum two hours payment whether they were needed for that long or not. Police could also find themselves paying for a court-level interpreter to simply tell a suspected offender what was going to happen to them in custody.

Now private firm Applied Language Solutions has been awarded a contract by the Ministry of Justice to manage interpreting services for the criminal justice system. West Midlands Police said the firm would find the nearest and most suitable interpreter for its needs.

Under the new deal, interpreters would see their hourly rates cut by as much as half, from £32 to a minimum of £16, the abolition of a minimum two-hour payment and the removal of travelling time payments and travel expenses.

It will also require the interpreters to sit a mandatory test, which they will have to pay £100 to sit. Marie Adamova, who has been working as an interpreter in Birmingham for the last four years, is worried about the changes.

The 46-year-old from the Czech Republic said: “My household will be in danger because of these changes and I may have to leave the profession.

“They can call you out at any time of the night or early morning and you have to leave straight away.

“If I am receiving £16 and there is no payments for travel time, parking or petrol, I will not be able to continue.

“But my biggest worry is that the most qualified and experienced interpreters will be forced to leave the profession.

“If they only attract students, or people who are not as well qualified, it increases the risks of errors and mistakes. If there is misinterpretation it is very serious.”

Ms Adamova, who has a Masters degree and a diploma in public service interpreting, added: “I think they should have consulted with us about cutting costs and maintaining standards.”

Another interpreter, who did not want to be named, said: “The system is being ripped apart by a bunch of accountants. If cheaper, less experienced and less qualified people are used there is a very serious risk of police and court cases collapsing at huge cost to the taxpayer.”

Chief Supt Steve Anderson, from West Midlands Police’s community justice & custody department said: “We do recognise that many of our interpreters have given excellent service to West Midlands Police and feel nervous about the new arrangements, but we are confident that over the next couple of months their fears will be allayed.”

Manchester Evening News correction