http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/interpreter-contract-still-failing-after-two-years/5039494.article
22
January 2014 by Catherine Baksi
Interpreter
contract still failing after two years
The outsourcing giant contracted to provide
court interpreting services has failed to hit its performance targets after two
years, a report by the public spending watchdog reveals today.
The National Audit Office’s second report
on the Ministry of Justice’s contract for language services finds that Capita
has not met its 98% performance target since the contract came in to effect on
30 January 2012.
The
NAO found progress has been made in implementing many of the recommendations
made by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in its damning December 2012
report. However, it says a number of areas remain where the ministry and Capita
still need to improve.
In line with the
PAC’s recommendations, the report notes that the ministry is now performing
audit checks of the security status of interpreters and on some data generated
by Capita.
In
addition, it says the number of interpreters available to work under the
contract has increased ‘significantly’. From the start of the contract the
number available has risen 102% from 1,365 to 2,705 in November 2013.
But
the NAO laments that the ministry has been slow to implement some of the PAC's
recommendations. A new assessment system for interpreters has not been
implemented and an independent review of quality standards has not yet been
performed.
The
report shows the ministry has penalised Capita for its poor performance,
claiming back the maximum contractually allowed after the first three months of
the contract. In total the ministry reclaimed £46,139 between May 2012 and
November 2013.
In
addition to the financial penalties imposed by the ministry, judges have made
11 wasted costs orders totalling £7,229 against Capita.
The
ministry initially estimated the contract would save £18m a year from its bill
for interpreting services. It was forced to provide extra money to enable
Capita to increase its rates of pay in order to secure interpreters. The
ministry now estimates that the contract will save £13m in 2013-14.
The
contract springs from a framework agreement signed by the MoJ in August 2011,
worth an estimated £90m over five years, with a small company called Applied
Language Solutions which was subsequently purchased by Capita.
The
aim of the contract was to improve the efficiency of the service and to save
money, but as the NAO points out, once it became operational it ‘immediately
faced difficulties’.
Performance
statistics published by the ministry this month show that from 30 January 2012
to 30 September 2013, Capita received 237,700 requests for interpreters.
The
number of requests rose in each quarter since the start of the contract, with
23% more requests in quarter three of 2013 than in the previous year.
They
show Capita fulfilled the requests for an interpreter in Q3 of 2013 in 94% of
cases, up on the 87% completed in the previous quarter, but still below its 98%
contractual performance target.
From
30 January 2012 to 30 September 2013, 11,100 complaints were recorded relating
to completed requests - 5,700 in 2012, and 5,400 in the first three quarters of
2013. Complaints related to the lack or availability, lateness and poor
performance.
Complaint
volumes increased to 2,150 in Q1 2013 – a high since the contract began –
before decreasing to 2,000 in Q2 2013 and again to 1,300 in Q3 2013.
The
overall complaint rate decreased from a complaint relating to 6% of completed
requests in Q1 2013, down to 5% of completed requests in Q2 2013 and to 3% of
requests in Q3 2013.
The
falling number of complaints in Q2 and Q3 2013 coincided with improvement in
fulfilment rate after travel payments were increased. In the first two
quarters of 2013, around 60% of complaints related to interpreters not being
available.
The
data also shows a fall in the number of off-contract bookings in the third
quarter of 2013 compared with the second quarter, when the MoJ first collected
the data.
The
Gazette first flagged up concerns over the contract in February 2012. Since then it has been the subject
of two reports, form the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee, criticising the
contract's procurement process, performance and management.
Responding
to the report, justice minister Shailesh Vara said: ‘I am pleased that the
National Audit Office has recognised the significant progress made — we have
seen dramatic improvements over the life of the contract so far, record numbers
of bookings are now being made and fulfilled, complaint levels are very low and
we continue to drive further improvement.’
Vara
said: ‘It is important to remember that the new interpreting contract was
introduced to tackle the inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the previous
system — and it has already saved taxpayers £15m in its first year.’
The
chairman of the PAC Margaret Hodge said: ‘Whilst I am pleased that progress has
been made on implementing many of our recommendations, I am unimpressed that
over a year later, Capita are still not meeting their target of fulfilling 98%
of bookings.'
Andy
Slaughter MP (pictured), shadow justice minister, said: ‘It is predictable but
depressing that two years after Capita took over court interpreting and
translating services they’ve still not got the basics right.'
Based
on this experience, Slaughter questioned how the ministry could be trusted to
organise its planned contracts for prison and probation outsourcing.
Law
Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said: 'The Ministry’s slow response in
implementing the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and Capita’s
poor performance in delivering the interpreters contract is a cause for
concern.
'Delays
caused by non-attending, late or poorly trained interpreters have serious
consequences for the efficiency of the whole criminal justice system and for
defence solicitors in particular who already face the brunt of waste elsewhere
in the system, ranging from prisoner transport failings to bad court planning.
'If
a defence solicitor showed the same level of errors and failures as Capita has,
their contract would have been be terminated. Is this a case of one rule for
Capita and a different one for everyone else?'.
