22 October 2013
Ministry of Justice Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13
page 4
Q9
"Graham Stringer: What about areas like the interpretation
service, where you changed the interpretation service and it might lead to
costs elsewhere in the service in extended or ineffective trials, or cuts in
legal aid, which will lead to more self-representation? Have you taken that into
account?
Dame Ursula Brennan: The interpreters are, in a way, a good example. We
absolutely have saved money through the interpreters’ contract, but it was not
the intention to worsen the service. We did have a problem, which we have
acknowledged and put our hands up about, when we introduced that contract, but
it is, in a way, a very good example. The service we were giving before was
really poor and was bad value for money. We had a not well-functioning service.
We entered into a contract to reduce the cost of the service and to ensure that
we could have assurance about the quality standards, which we did not have
before, about interpreters.
We had a real problem when we launched it. It is now operating at 90%
fulfilment, the number of complaints has absolutely plummeted, and we have
decided to reinvest some of the savings in order to put some more money back
into the system so that interpreters can see more financial gain in some
circumstances because we have recognised that the savings we were making enabled
us to do that. It was not, “Let’s change the interpreters’ contract and save
money and have a worse service.” It was, “We have a not very well-functioning
service; we can improve it and do it at lower cost.” That is actually what is
happening."
No comments:
Post a Comment