Justice Committee - Written evidence from the
Professional Interpreters’ Alliance (PIA)
Justice Committee
Written
evidence from the Professional Interpreters’ Alliance (PIA)
THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT WITH APPLIED LANGUAGE SOLUTIONS LTD/CAPITA PLC. FOR THE
PROVISION OF INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATION SERVICES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SECTOR
What? A National Framework Agreement that changed, ie lowered, the minimum
standards for interpreters working in CJS.
Where? The MoJ has contracted on behalf of: all of HMCTS in England and Wales;
the CPS; and NOMS.
In addition, nine police forces currently use ALS Ltd (not all under the
FWA). If the Home Office Police Procurement Proposals are adopted, the MOJ/ALS
FWA will become mandatory for all police forces.
When? In HMCTS in North West England, since November 2011; HMCTS across
England and Wales from 01 February 2012. However, interpreters continue to be
engaged directly by HMCTS and the AIT Bookings centre as well as through other
agencies, alongside ALS Ltd.
The CPS contract is signed but not yet live across all regions. The CPS
has been making use of the Framework Agreement in four Witness Care Units since
1 February 2012. The CPS is now scheduled to start using the Contract for the
remainder of its interpreting services from 1 September 2012, but this date is
being kept under review.
Before
Under the previous system, as outlined in the National Agreement,
freelancers drawn from the NRPSI and other approved lists were contacted directly
by courts and police. Rates were set centrally. Around 2,300 NRPSI interpreters
(qualified, vetted, registered, experienced, subject to an independent
complaints and disciplinary procedure) served the courts with problems
occurring only rarely. The MoJ’s rationale for changing the system is
unpersuasive.
Since February 2012
More than 60% of NRPSI interpreters expressly reject ALS Ltd’s terms of
engagement and lowered quality standards and are currently refusing all direct
court bookings as well.
Media coverage in the first weeks of the contract concentrated on ALS
linguists simply not turning up, turning up late, or leaving early, causing
adjournments and unnecessary remands.
As an interim measure, in the first weeks of ALS supplying courts
nationwide HMCTS reverted to using the old system alongside ALS to provide for
hearings at short notice. Most NRPSI interpreters who refuse to work for ALS
Ltd are also refusing direct HMCTS bookings as they refuse to help prop up ALS.
Effectively, the majority of NRPSI interpreters have withheld their services
from HMCTS since 1 February 2012.
As we predicted, ALS does not have sufficient linguists with the
necessary skills and qualifications for CJS work. Now, the poor quality of ALS
Linguists is receiving media attention and Judges are increasingly outspoken.
Recently, a trial collapsed due to interpreter error, costing £25k. There have
been others.
In addition, concerns have been expressed about unlawful harvesting of
interpreters’ personal data by ALS to purport to have more on its books than it
does. Interpreters who are known to have a police record or criminal record
(and were struck off the NRPSI) are verifiably working in the courts through
ALS.
Concerns
There is no assurance of quality, experience, professional ethics,
vetting or professional indemnity insurance cover.
The MoJ has taken ALS Ltd/Capita’s assurances (about quality, vetting,
number of qualified linguists) at face value and made no checks.
Legal professionals including Judges appear to be allowing incompetent
ALS linguists to muddle on, even when defendants protest about the poor
quality.
There is a lack of awareness about the change in interpreter provision
and a lack of vigilance by defence counsel to ensure the interpreter is
competent.
The figures released by the Ministry of Justice on 24 May 2012
constituted only one tenth of the management information that ALS Ltd is
required to provide according to the terms of the contract. The presentation of
the figures is skewed, but even by the Ministry of Justice’s own admission more
than one in ten assignments (12%) resulted in a complaint. ALS Ltd’s fulfilment
rate is cited as 81% (of the requests placed with it), overlooking the fact
that a large proportion of HMCTS assignments bypass ALS Ltd when courts book
interpreters directly or through other commercial agencies. ALS Ltd has not
fulfilled 81% of all HMCTS bookings, but just 81% of the bookings entrusted to
it.
The continued operation of this ‘mixed economy’ approach to sourcing
interpreters for the courts and police is evidence that Applied Language
Solutions is failing to meet the Key Performance Indicators of the Framework
Agreement. Moreover, with HMCTS and police forces paying to engage interpreters
directly in addition to the budget set aside for ALS Ltd’s services, just where
are the savings promised by the Framework Agreement being achieved?
A formal complaint sent by PIA to ALS Ltd on 22 May 2012 logged more
than 250 separate incidents where ALS Ltd’s performance caused disruption to
the legal system, and more than seventy separate incidents where the competence
and performance of ALS workers has been inadequate. ALS Ltd has not responded
to PIA’s complaint.
Adjournments result in wasted costs: wasted court days, the cost of
prisoner transport and detention, expenses of parties and witnesses attending
court, and the cost of unnecessary remands in custody. The costs incurred by
ALS Ltd’s failings are both human and material.
In the courts, wasted costs caused by ALS Ltd’s failings have been
granted routinely since the contract began. Non-English speakers denied an
interpreter and unnecessary remanded in custody as a consequence are now
bringing damages claims based on HRA Art 5&6 breaches. Appeals resulting
from mistrials are sure to follow.
ALS Ltd has not published a formal complaints procedure. No Disciplinary
Framework and Procedure is published by ALS Ltd, so that neither complainants
nor ALS Ltd workers facing disciplinary procedures are fully informed of the
process they can expect to be followed, or of any Appeals Procedure open to
them. This is contrary to principles of Natural Justice and accepted employment
practice.
The various responsibilities that ALS Ltd has under the Framework
Agreement are in direct conflict with one another: ALS Ltd controls
registration, assessment, work provision, quality standards, recruitment, code
of conduct and disciplinary functions and sanctions.
Interpreter Initiatives
At grassroots level, interpreters are effectively on strike and are
monitoring the courts; their reports are centrally collected. Eyewitness
accounts of ALS failings are also reported on a dedicated website set up by
interpreters.
A number of interpreter organisations are working together to continue
to lobby through the Professional Interpreters for Justice Campaign. There have been various demonstrations, two of
them at Westminster.
PIA’s members are volunteering to interpret for solicitors pursuing
damages claims with their non-English speaking clients and information has been
produced in various languages.
No comments:
Post a Comment