18 July 2012 by Catherine Baksi
MPs to probe interpreter
deal
A high-profile
parliamentary committee has launched an inquiry into the controversial deal
between the Ministry of Justice and the private company contracted to provide
court interpreters.
The Justice
Select Committee today launched a call for written evidence to examine the
service provided by Applied Language Solutions and the process by which it was
selected.
It will seek to
explore six areas:
1. The rationale
for changing arrangements for the provision of interpreter services.
2. The nature
and appropriateness of the procurement process.
3. The
experience of courts and prisons in receiving interpretation services that meet
their needs.
4. The nature
and effectiveness of the complaints process.
5. The steps
that have been taken to rectify under-performance and the extent to which they
have been effective.
6. The
appropriateness of arrangements for monitoring the management of the contract,
including the quality and cost-effectiveness of the service delivered.
The Oldham-based
business was made sole supplier of interpreters for the courts in England and
Wales following a competitive tender last year. Its tender was £50m less than
the next cheapest bid.
The contract was
intended by the MoJ to save £18m a year, cutting translating costs by nearly a
third. That target was cut to £12m - a figure that justice minister Lord
McNally admitted last week ‘will probably not be achieved’ in the first year of
the contract.
Under the
contract, courts request interpreters from a list of freelance interpreters who
have agreed to work for the fixed rates paid by Applied.
Before the new
contract, courts contacted interpreters directly using the contact details on
the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, and were paid hourly
rates or rates they negotiated with the courts.
Many freelance
interpreters have refused to work for Applied, citing concerns over an alleged
lack of qualifications required to work for the company, and over the low pay
rates, which they say attract inexperienced and poorly qualified people.
Applied maintains that all the interpreters it uses are sufficiently qualified.
The new
arrangements, in force since the end of January, have been dogged by problems,
with solicitors and judges complaining that interpreters have not turned up,
have turned up late, or have not been able to do the job.
Performance data
provided to the MoJ by Applied showed that three months into the contract the
company had not met its 98% performance target, but had provided interpreters
in 81% of cases. During the period 2,232 complaints relating to requests had
been made.
The MoJ
described the initial difficulties as ‘teething problems’ but said the
situation has now improved.
In May the Gazette
reported that the committee was likely to enquire further into the contract,
after it questioned the head of court services Peter Handcock about matters,
including the operation and cost of the interpreter contract.
Committee chair
Sir Alan Beith told the Gazette: 'We have heard anecdotal
evidence about what is happening around the country, but we don't know how that
is supported. We need to get proper evidence.'
He said that
when Handcock appeared before the committee, he had given assurances that the
contract contained sufficient provisions to enforce compliance with its
requirements and that there are sufficient penalty provisions.
But he said:
'Nothing much seems to have happened regarding the contract management'.
'By the autumn
there will have been sufficient time to see if the contract is capable of
settling down. We are not pre-judging the issue,' he said.
The deadline for
submissions is Monday 3 September.
No comments:
Post a Comment