MoJ interpreting hub a ‘false economy’
Concern is mounting that the Ministry of Justice's central contract for interpreting work could prove a false economy, incurring knock-on costs for criminal justice agencies.
A week into the new framework agreement under which courts and justice agencies across England and Wales obtain interpreters and translators through a single agency, questions have already been raised about the quality of the service.
Applied Language Solutions, set up by Gavin Wheeldon in 2003 and acquired by Capita in December 2011, won the contract last August following a tender process. Criminal justice agencies had previously contacted interpreters directly from a national register.
The MoJ expects the new service to save £18m a year, cutting translating costs by nearly a third.
ALS has provided interpreting services for some police stations since 2009. The Gazette has in the past reported concerns raised by defence solicitors over the quality of service.
Magistrate Richard Bristow, chair of the West London bench, told the Gazette that since 1 February he has had ‘lots of problems’ with the new system, with either two ALS interpreters attending hearings or none at all. He said colleagues had reported a fall in the quality of interpreters. Bristow warned that the new regime could turn out to be a ‘false economy’.
He said: ‘If cases have to be put off, the cost to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts is huge. There are bound to be appeals from people who say they did not get a fair trial due to inadequate interpretation.’
The Professional Interpreters’ Alliance (PIA), which represents public service interpreters, has also voiced concern. PIA director Madeleine Lee told the Gazette that 60% of the 2,300 interpreters on the national register have refused to work for ALS because of its pay policy and allegedly low standard of qualification required.
Since the start of February PIA members have gone to courts to observe. Lee said: ‘We are already hearing horror stories from all over the country. Being a court interpreter is a specialised and difficult job. You have to be accurate as people’s liberty is at stake.’
An ALS spokeswoman said all ALS interpreters hold recognised qualifications and undergo independent assessment. She said more than 3,000 interpreters have registered to work with ALS and are being vetted to ensure they have the necessary qualifications and experience.
She said ALS had not been made aware of complaints of the wrong interpreter being sent, but acknowledged that there have been circumstances where it had not been possible to fulfil a booking at short notice.
She added: ‘Prior to rollout there was limited accurate management information available regarding the expected daily volumes of short notice interpreter requests.
‘One week into rollout we now have a much clearer picture of daily volumes, which is enabling us to implement more resource with a focus on those languages where we are experiencing higher demands.’
An MoJ spokesman said it is ‘closely monitoring’ the operation of the new contract.
Comments
For some reason, ALS failed
For some reason, ALS failed to disclose the fact that NONE of their currently used interpreters have been assessed. They did attend assessments but they remain unmarked since autumn last year.
Furthermore, enhanced CRB discloures have NOT been carried out for any of their interpreters - therefore you could have a fellow drug dealer interpreting for his mate up on drug charges.
NONE of the interpreters sent to court are Tier 1 (qualified interpreters). ALS only provide Tier 2 interpreters which are somewhat on their way to being qualified. If the Court of Appeals thinks it has nothing better to do than clear up ALS mess, then I think we have major issues with out justice system.
The MOJ needs to wise up to the fact that the EU Commission fines HEAVILY those that breach Human Rights or Directives on purpose. Fines are usually closer to millions of EUROs than thousands. Not sure how that is saving money from the public purse.
The spokeswoman for ALS must
The spokeswoman for ALS must be joking. How can they have bid for a contract without knowing what the "expected daily volumes" of interepreter requests would be???
It seems pretty clear the MOJ cannot have done any kind of due diligence in respect of this, could details of the bidding process not be released?
MoJ ignored interpreters' warnings
The Ministry of Justice were warned repeatedly by interpreters' representative bodies that their proposals to award a contract for the supply of interpreting and translation services across the justice sector to a single commercial agency would not deliver the claimed savings and would lead to an immediate drop in the quality of interpreting available to the Courts.
An independent report jointly commissioned by the Association of Police and Court Interpreters (APCI) and the Society for Public Service Interpreting (SPSI) in September 2011 found that far from producing the vaunted savings of £18m p.a., the proposals would result in a net tax loss of £35m p.a., before taking into account the cost of delays, mistrials and miscarriages of justice.
This Association considers that the new arrangements run contrary to the provisions of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, and that the Ministry's actions in seeking to undermine the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) constitute an act of regression.
We therefore wrote on 14 January 2012 to Commissioner Viviane Reding, Vice President of the European Commission, to seek the intervention of the Commission with the UK government.
There can be no doubt that the new arrangements for sourcing interpreters are deeply flawed, will cost the UK taxpayer millions of pounds, and run contrary to the interests of justice.
Alan Thompson
Secretary
Association of Police and Court Interpreters
No Attempt to Assess New Interpretors Made by ALS
Whilst i am not an interpretor myself i am however friends with several legal interpretors and i am shocked by some of the horror stories that i am hearing regarding the poor standard of these inexperienced and unqualified interpretors working for ALS as well as some of the strange occurances regarding their assessmant policies.
One such example is of Interpretors who have registered for written translations and have been assessed for written translations being automatically asked to attend hearings in courtrooms for simultaneous legal interpreting without having been assessed or without having had any prior experience of doing so.
I have seen some of the documents and notes that my friends are expected to be able to understand in order to interpret effectively, and can honestly say that as an English native i struggle to understand much of this required reading. This may give you an idea of the level of legal knowledge that a serious legal interpretor should have.
Frankly i see the MOJ's decision to go with ALS as a ridiculously irresponsible attempt to save money at the expense of a fair legal system for non UK citizens. Undoubtedly this decision is leading to qualified interpretors boycotting the laughable pay rates that ALS are offering, causing them to have to employ unqualified and unassessed interpretors, who will happilly accept these lower pay rates.
I can only hope that anyone using ALS interpretors is made aware of the low standard of the majority of these interpretors and if necessary appeals to the point where the MOJ have to start paying attention to this issue and either force ALS to up their pay scheme to an appropriate level to attract a higher standard of interpretor or return to their old way of doing things which may have cost more money in wages for interpretors but at least ensured a fair hearing for all residents of the UK.
Our Lips Are Sealed.
Here's the current scenario:
- Magistrates complaining of problems.
- Interpreters complaining of problems.
- Defendants and witnesses involved in delayed cases surely can't be happy either.
The only two organisations that appear to be standing up to defend this, or at least still not accepting this has been a huge error [which I consider tantamount to the same thing], are the MOJ and ALS.
ALS now has what appears to be a new, updated figure of 3000 people registered with them whereas the last I was told, it was 2600.
Before the new system was initiated, one of the MOJ's reasons for this contract was that the NRPSI was deemed to be not fit for purpose, with 2300 people registered on it. The qualification held by NRPSI members was deemed not to be a guarantee of quality, more or less discrediting it, and the National Agreement has, as far as I am aware, been withdrawn.
If you take the word of the magistrate quoted in this story as a reasonable reflection of what is going on, there has been an increase in problems since February 1. I have drawn my own inference from taking on board what is being said by the MOJ/ALS and comparing it to the picture of chaos that has emerged almost immediately. Surely the increase in numbers was designed to prevent this.
One of the points I have made repeatedly was that if the NRPSI system needed some improvement, why were existing issues not addressed by improving it rather than abandoning the NRPSI?
The officials in the MOJ who have overseen this project do not appear to be unintelligent people, which makes their dogged pursuit of this initiative all the more baffling. They may well be 'closely monitoring' the operation but I have no faith whatsoever that the current scenario will be described as anything other than 'teething problems', or similar.
I may yet be surprised but if the MOJ's assessment after the initial phase does turn out to be as per my expectation, you should consider the following: this first month of operation is one that sees many NRPSI interpreters doing the last jobs for which they were booked under the old system. The real handover takes place once all those bookings have been dealt with.
It is funny that the MOJ itself has a principle in operation in its own criminal courts whereby admitting guilt when one is guilty results in a lesser punishment, and the credit goes down if the admission is made before trial. The warnings of the various interpreting bodies are equivalent to the prosecution presenting a strong case but in this instance, the MOJ would not face up to what was put in front of it and is now running the trial.
The whole project has been done with a short-term view and may have long-term repercussions. Unless, of course, it is stopped immediately and the people who know how interpreting works are involved in the next steps in a truly meaningful way.
If the situation doesn't look much better after a month, two months, three months, at what point does the MOJ climb down?
ALS register
"ALS now has what appears to be a new, updated figure of 3000 people registered with them whereas the last I was told, it was 2600. "
It does not actually matter how many people ALS claims it has registered as interpreters. Unlike the NRPSI, which is open online to the public, the ALS register is secret, nobody can check the actual numbers, language and geographical distribution and qualifications. For what we know ALS may have 1500 people registered in the North West where they first started and another 1500 registered in London. So what?
How does that help provide an interpreter in a timely fashion in Bristol, Exeter. Lincoln, Nottingham or Bournemouth?
Also, ALS does not employ any interpreters (anyway as far as I know) so it cannot guarantee any provision anyway as there is no obligation on people who registered with ALS to actually go out and work for ALS.
ALS Intepreters are NOT qualified
The "qualification" that ALS spokesperson refers to was in fact set up by ALS itself. In other words, ALS is saying "our interpreters are qualified because we say so". The actual assessment by ALS is in fact a simple English test, containing no specialist vocabulary or references to the legal system whatsoever. Anyone can pass it.
Question for Eric ...
Eric - your comment makes me wonder: what do they do if the candidate is a native English speaker, like me?
The new situation for Court Interpreters
The award of the public service interpreting contract to what Private Eye has referred to as a "small provincial company with heavy financial leverage" is all part of the Conservative government's strategy of outsourcing to private companies administrative tasks that would best be done in the public sector. Another example of this is the youth employment initiative which has also been an abject failure. Private companies are NOT more efficient and they certainly do not save money because the bosses cream off profits to go into their own pockets. The MoJ claims that ALS won the contract through "full and fair tendering" – just as they claim when they outsourced the printing of 11 million tickets for the Olympic Games to Arkensas. When this government's time is over, we shall need another Leveson-type inquiry to find out how private companies benefited from this government's largesse and how contracts were awarded to tiny companies like ALS which were then bought out by big companies such as Capita (clearly the deal had been cooked up long ago, as soon as the contract was won) and thus gained the opportunity to administer lucrative contracts that had never been awarded to them.
Public -v- Private
There are all kinds of sound reasons why public functions should not be delegated to private operators-the lack of accountability, the disproportionate profit motive, duties to shareholders before the consumer; and wider moral questions over the duty of the State and in what circumstances can that duty be abrogated-or abdicated.
I don`t think the Condems have demonstrated that for one second they have considered any of the above wider moral issues , but it would be naive to dismiss their squalid tamperings with the workings of justice as proceeding from brute ignorance rather than ideological zealotry; this really is the coalface of the new Victorian era that they aim for without even having the historical knowledge to realise it.
Who would put up a statue of Justice in a public place now ? It would only get nicked and melted down.
?????
I am not going to get into complicated debates or philosophical oratory but this is what puzzles me.
ALS states that they have 3000 people on their books (I will not call them interpreters at this stage as I do not think it is appropriate but ALS defends they are “qualified”). However, the NRPSI only has 2300. More than half will not work for ALS. One of the two is happening, is ALS importing qualified interpreters by any chance or there has been an inexplicable increase on the attribution of DPSI qualifications by the IoL in these last few months? The third possibility is that they may be accepting registrations from husbands, wives, friends, etc. We are talking about over a 1000 people here. (By the way, in my view, there is no such thing as “partially qualified” or “about to qualify”. Either you are or you aren’t. If we want the profession to gain the respect it deserves this should be our prerogative. The reason why we are in trouble now, is because none of us has taken this situation seriously. If you are a health interpreter don’t go to court but to the hospital, you are indeed putting people’s lives at stake. It is as bad as what ALS is doing at the moment. Remember we work unsupervised. Therefore, saying that someone is using the opportunity to do some court work whilst working towards obtaining the qualifications is extremely dangerous and not acceptable. There is no one there to correct serious mistakes.
I do strongly believe the situation is reversal and this is a wake up call for the profession. Things will get to a point where the MoJ will see no alternative but reviewed the situation. We need to stick together and keep truthful to the interpreters’ pledged regarding ALS. Some have said they will but we know they won’t.
The interesting thing about governments, their policies and chances is that they never seem to be interested in seeking the opinion of those in the field.
I struggle to understand why there is a different treatment when it comes to BSL. Could it be because we are talking about BRITISH Sign Language and Italian, Polish, Croatian, etc are foreigner languages? Do not get me wrong, I could not do the job of a BSL interpreter but I pretty much doubt that they are qualified in every language that exists to be able to substitute one of us. We are all interpreters, we deserve the same treatment. Passing a DPSI or equivalent qualification is the product of many years of gathering linguistic knowledge.
BSL Interpreters
I agree with everything that CR has said in their posting.
I would just like to point out that BSL interpreters in the UK have had fair rates of pay and working terms and conditions established for many years, sometimes above those experienced by spoken language interpreters. We should all be fighting for the highest possible level of service and professional standards.
We too are seeing an attempt to erode these standards and use untrained and unqualified people as a 'cheaper option' in many cases now.
Just as CR could not interpret into BSL, I could not interpret into his/her language(s).
We have all worked extremely hard at our training, taken many years to gain knowledge, experience and our qualifications and should fight to keep the high standards that all of our clients deserve.
ALS and NRPSI
In fact, what we are doing here is expressing our frustrations. I understand we can only wait and believe in a brighter future but, meanwhile, can’t we do anything else? Those of you that understand the most about the dynamics of this country, or have the intellectual knowledge lacking to some of us, what would you suggest?
ALS is just part of the problem; the bigger picture is quite daunting. At some stage we will have to start discussing seriously the role of the NRPSI. Why are we paying more, when we are getting less? I can put my name down on the yellow pages and probably get more work out of it. My qualifications and experience no one is going to take away from me. Why do I need the NR to say that I am qualified if I am the one that holds the original qualification documents to prove it? Besides, they are not effectively controlling the quality of the work done by interpreters. Are they going to courts or sending any representatives and assessing any of us on-site? They should be demanding interpreters to do annual CPD, like ILEX does for instances.
To the BSL Interpreter – Thank you for your words, you are right to say that we need to work together so that we are treated the same and improve our pay conditions, as well as reputation. We need court staff, solicitors, barristers and judges to be on our side too, but we also need to work with them It is true that no one is irreplaceable, however try to replace any of these professionals by a non-professional and the outcome will be laughable.
ALS assessment
ALS is an agency and not a recognised accreditor of qualifications. The assessment is worthless. It does not lead to any formal qualifications and is not regulated by OFQUAL. The persons who have paid for this assessment are just as unqualified as they were before taking it unless they already have a recognised, OFQUAL accredited qualification, in which case there is no need for them to sit the ALS assessment and, to add insult to injury, actually pay for the privilege. I have never seen anything as farcical as this before.
Assessment is not worthless
Zuzana, you are partly mistaken: the assessment is not worthless because it's design and creation will have been a fundamental part of the ALS tender response.
Therefore the assessment has credibility within the context of the marking and awarding) of the bid, and it will have been on the basis of this assessment (and it's execution and governance) that the MoJ has set its standards of acceptance through its choice of awardee.
All things are relative, right?
(BTW this is tongue-in-cheek, just to avoid misunderstanding)
Agencies
Unfortunately, ALS is not alone in this game of inventing qualifications or excuses to send unqualified people to police stations, courts, hospitals, surgeries, etc. There are a few well known agencies calling these false interpreters “safe to practice”. They are “safe to practice” according to whom? According to the agency and their financial interests. Some of the unqualified people will never achieve any qualifications even if they try a thousand times. We are not all suitable for the same job. (When I was younger I wanted to be an astronaut but I hated physics. I am glad I was sensible enough to keep the moon at a safe distance otherwise, I would be lost in space by now.) Do agencies inform their clients when they send unqualified people to the job? How much do they charge the client? (In all honesty, they should really be paying the client for giving unqualified people the chance to practice). This profession needs strict regulation. Clients need to understand that more than just booking an interpreter over the phone they need to demand documental proof from these agencies stating that they are indeed being sent an interpreter properly qualified for the job. This sort of guarantee is vital.
Teething problems?
Teething problems can no longer be given as an excuse. ALS had six months to prove they had the number of people which we all knew they didn't. ALS had half a year to prepare themselves for implementing the contract. They are failing miserably and bargaining for more time to recruit new people from the streets is simply ridiculous.
Please tell your colleagues
Please tell your colleagues to get together and tell your court manager.
The more complaints come from the staff of courts, the faster the MOJ will get the message.
It is worth considering that court staff simply want a system that works and they aren't 'pro' or 'contra' the NRPSI interpreters and the complaints should be viewed as sincere and centred entirely on the smooth running of their part of the court system, and is hence not a partisan stance in any way. They are entirely impartial.
And the cost to defence solicitors
‘If cases have to be put off, the cost to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts is huge. There are bound to be appeals from people who say they did not get a fair trial due to inadequate interpretation.’
Is there a reason why the costs to defence solicitors is not also mentioned?!
The cost to defence solicitors is huge since we do not get paid at all for waiting (sometimes all day) whilst efforts are made to book an interpreter, only to be told one isnt available and we have to come back the following day. The same fixed fee still applies.
From an Interpreters perspective - I agree.
As a fully qualified, well experienced interpreter I can see why this is an issue. I am aware that a lot of my colleagues and associates who have been affected by the MoJ agreement with ALS could've predicted the issue with quality and availability of good interpreters, given the fact those with experience will not accept the conditions enforced by this exclusive contract arrangement.
It is simply not worth accepting appointments for the money paid; the fees interpreters are paid have been slashed following this arrangement and the attitude of ALS is not acceptable. They have invited existing interpreters to attend an internal assessment (despite some of us having DPSI and being registered with the CIoL) and costing the interpreter £120 for the pleasure - if you do not complete the assessment you cannot be offered these appointments. In addition, their proposed payment structure has been reduced so harshly that it would end up costing us money to complete a job. I can't imagine anyone working for free and who would be prepared to drive 20 + miles for a 20 minute appointment where the mileage outweighs the payment? On top of this the interpreter is expected to pay parking fees also. Unless the payment structure for qualified, experienced interpreters is revised I will not be accepting these appointments. I know a lot of other interpreters feel the same way and hence; these issues being reported only 1 week in are realisation of this problem.
NO more favouritism and hopefully NO more high fees with IOL
There are some interesting points here, nonetheless let's do the figures and look at the bigger picture. Does anyone remember when the register was only available for a hefty fee to clients? Do you guys remember how much you spend in exam fees, membership fees and revision courses with IOL - now - in whose interest do you think the reversal of the contract might be? Another point is that the assessments are being done independently by Middlesex University - is this really that bad? And if you choose to work 5 day week, 5 hours a day you will take home in excess of £2000 - there are many people that do NOT earn half that - and yes, some are well qualified. Also, being a freelancer you claim all your business expenses on your tax return. Lastly, the new contract will most certainly allow new blood into the system, which has seen a lot of favouritism from public sector when choosing their interpreters for years...now they are furious because it is not them who make decisions - of course they will oppose - who wouldn't? and now the public sector anger is being fuelled by IOL and its members. And just for a moment, please reflect back on your first days in court? Perhaps there may be an alternative where more experienced interpreters lead the new ones in and buddy them for a short period of time for the benefit of fair and equal opportunities in a long run. Just because some interpreters were long standing favourites on public sector list it does not mean there isn't out there a surge of skilled and promising NEW interpreters.
Smoke and mirrors reply from ALS
Is this another smoke-and-mirrors reply from ALS in disguise? Where does the figure of £2000 come from? Do your sums, mate: 5hours x £20/hour x 5days =£500 minus travel, minus parking, and that is 5 working hours net! You would need to travel to some venues and that can take half a day.
How does ALS account for instances of their inexperienced buddies getting real experience in police stations, for example? Interpreting "you are going to be charged" as "you are going to be charged a fee" and "you do not have to say anything" as "you keep quiet"?
ALS fails to provide - do not distract
The real issue here and the one highlighted in the article is the fact that MoJ's favourite supplier - Applied Language Solutions - fails to provide a service it promised to provide and about the ensuing costs to the justice system.
The new contract is not about allowing new interpreting blood into the system, about breaking up the monopoly of the IoL or about providing an interpreter with earnings of £2000 per month.
The new contract is only about cutting costs to the justice system and you are right - we should do the figures and calculate whether waiting for an ALS interpreter for a whole day is cheaper than engaging an old favourite sourced from an online public register.
As has already been pointed out, ALS signed the contract with MoJ in August 2011 and it went live as of 1st Feb 2012 - that should have been sufficient time for the ALS to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately qualified interpreters, even for short notice bookings so that it could deliver the promised savings to the justice system.
Where are these savings?
Hey, buddy!
I am sure I've heard this sort of unctuous, falsely friendly tone before somewhere ...
I can't see how anyone could write the above without a vested interest. Like the horse/car post, it isn't written under an identity and until we know for sure who wrote it, I will hold it between my fingers at arm's length, wearing gloves and breathing though my mouth.
I will also declare my own position. I am not even sure now if I would go back into public service interpreting and while I won't rule anything out, since the first moves to outsource were initiated, I have passed the IOL Diploma in Translation and made my moves further into private sector work, something I intend to continue and develop with a ferocity driven by necessity. I will only go back into public sector work under conditions I accept.
Therefore, you can read anything I say as being posted without vested interests.
We begin with the tempting sum of £2000.00.
Two grand in a week? Seriously? Rates have been slashed wildly.
Let's work on the basis that ALS's magic solution means that if their claims work in the far foreign land of reality, where I sign up and the public services are promised a person at a venue within an hour, I am sitting at home and the phone rings and I'm asked to attend a Monday-Friday five-day trial at a court no more than an hour away from my home. (This seems not to be have been delivered because if it were deliverable, the reports of absences, cancellations and failures would not be emanating from all points of the country - work it out for yourself).
A five-day Crown Court trial in a court used to be paid as follows:
£85 for the first part, 1pm-4pm is paid at £30/hr = £90.00 so court time is £185.00, travel time is between £15.00 and £30.00 and mileage could be between £2.50 and £5.00 for a round trip of 10/20 miles.
That comes to a grand total, at the very best, of £215.00 plus parking (around £5/£10 all day in central Manchester) if driving or a similar total if you replace without including parking or train fare and potentially a bit more travel time. That means a full five-day trial from 10am-4pm comes to £1,075 for the whole week. Reminder: this is under the OLD payment model now discontinued since the withdrawal of the National Agreement.
As an aside, if under the new system you do ever earn £2000, it would be via an intermediary that takes its own cut. If you earned £2000 in a week from the old system, that was what was paid, gross, by the public service to the interpreter.
My suggestion is that if the person who made the comment is so keen to see interpreters receiving £2000, they lobby the government to pay interpreters a fee that is raised so that a one-week trial pays such a sum, because the last rise in fees was in 2007 and that was raised after an even longer period without it being changed. Any cut in fees has been over the last decade and it has been done by stealth by simply not raising them.
Please now visit the ALS site and compare what the same job would pay now.
Then look again at the figure of £2000 and work out if there are enough hours in the day, enough of a perfect, seamless sequence of jobs to offer that sum under ALS's payment model.
You'd need to leave court and be in Police interviews all night every night of the week and some of the weekend, and let me tell you, in that scenario, you'd be a sorry mess in court by day three.
Let's now move on to put the rest of this confused argument out of its misery.
- "Does anyone remember when the register was only available for a hefty fee to clients?" ... The clue here is in the word 'was' - it is in the perfect tense. Next!
- The definition of 'interpreter' has been covered above by comments that explain the difference between the ALS 'assessment' and the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting. Rather than waste time, I refer you to those.
- Buddying up? Corporate-speak at its most laughable! In my own first days in court, if I was unsure of something, I'd ask. At that time, however, I had passed a DPSI. The only reason I can ascertain for someone new to the system needing an experienced hand to guide them, a 'buddy', is that they are not adequately skilled or prepared. So in a way, I take this to be a tacit admission that the people coming into the system are not adequately prepared or the suggestion of going in effectively on stabilisers would not need to be made. Oops - a transport/interpreting analogy - sorry!
- The exam fees and membership fees are worth every penny if they are spent on a meaningful professional status, something we had in a half-baked way and which needed to be strengthened, not demolished. My professional fees for the IOL, ITI, APCI, NWTN and NRPSI and a couple of others come to over £1000 a year but one conference I worked on for two days last year almost covered that. Once that is out of the way, I start to make a living. The contact made by my clients comes in part from membership of those organisations, and that membership came from proving I had qualifications and in several cases, I had to prove I had worked several hundred hours' worth of assignment. It is something I have EARNED. It is the 180-degree opposite from some sort of merit-free monopolistic domination ... I'd suggest that if you want one of those, there's an example staring you in the face not far from here.
- The comment talks of '... fair and equal opportunities'. I suggest that allowing people to call themselves interpreters based on a flimsy 'assessment' is anything but fair and equal. The DPSI was a pretty level playing field as far as I could tell: anyone can take it and like any test, you either pass it or you fail. It's the same for everyone. Your standpoint is based on a race-to-the-bottom ethos. I favour a system where a tough assessment results in a highly trained, well prepared workforce. Quality, my dear old bean, not quantity. But ideally both. Why compromise?
- Favouritism? Are you serious? Favouritism is when a completely arbitrary decision favours one person or company over another. I think you have a funny way of spelling the word 'merit'.
See you later, 'buddy'. I'm off to listen to Manchester United hopefully being taken apart by Liverpool as ruthlessly as I've just dismembered your claims ... with a smile!
Tick tock!
"And another thing!"
In terms of the idea anyone even under the old system could earn £2000 in a week, I'd like to add that I've interpreted on a five-day crown court trial on fewer occasions than I have limbs.
The most wildly busy weeks that led to earnings even half-way to that figure were ones where I had a handful of short hearings, some evening callouts to Police stations and perhaps a long Sunday call-out to a Police station and let me assure you, giving up a weekend is well worth the apparently exorbitant rates we were paid.
If anyone reacts to a life where you're permanently unable to ever plan for anything without the idea at the back of their mind that they may be suddenly asked to drive 50/100/150 miles to a situation of usually intense emotion, because often the longer the job, the more harrowing the circumstances, and keep their cool, retain a clear head, interpret well ... they deserve every penny.
... of course and one of these so called NEW interpreters happen
A very direct question, how much is ALS paying you to write this bias view? I very much doubt you are a professional interpreter. What do you really know about interpreting to even say such things? Have you set up your business in your small bedroom too and accepted a 20000 pounds translation work, not knowing what to do with it? I suppose history repeats itself – MoJ contract… not to know what to do with it? How to handle it… I have never seen any professional advocating earning less or defending relegating official qualifications on behalf on non-official ones. By the way, how many candidates have failed? And how many did YOU have in total? Are you being picky... or not really? It would be nice to see the “strict selection criteria”. Show us proof that Middlesex University is in fact involved, not that it matters that much! Tell the people in charge of ALS to work 5 days a week for this sort of pay. The fact that many people do not earn half of the amount you mentioned, though! There are people dying in Africa of starvation and I am sure you do stop eating because of that. ALS has been desperately offering those that register with them 250 pounds if they introduce “friends”, bla, bla… How pathetic! Good look on your pursuit to convince the rest of the world that your words are wise. By the way, this is not a personal attack but a mere form of questioning your line of thought.
Troll on, ALS 'Interpreter'
Troll on, ALS 'Interpreter' posting Sat, 11/02/2012 - 04:49.
I note your specious claim of 'assessments done independently by Middlesex University', the very institution identified by ALS as its partner in the language course business -
Quote 'We are delighted to announce that through our partnership with Middlesex University, Applied Language Solutions is now able to offer language courses to public and private sector staff.' End quote http://tinyurl.com/77lxbfv
Middlesex University is not able to offer interpreter accreditation, neither can its 'assessments' be said to be performed at arm's length from ALS.
I doubt heads will roll at the MoJ over the unholy mess of the Framework Agreement, but they should at the very least be bowed in shame.
Horse or a car
Most of us do not remember the days when everyone thought a car was a silly and unnecessary invention...who opposed? Horse breeders and those who would not learn to drive – the only difference being that the car was only available to those affluent ones...again...until Mr Ford came up with mass production.
So you are turning it into a mass production now, are you?
So you are turning it into a mass production now, are you? Interpreters will be "produced" on a mass scale just like machines or, perhaps more appropriately, machine translation? You won't get very far. Cars and people are two different things. It's a joke!
Try the maternity wing of a hospital ...
First of all, this comment and the one above it, if you are suggesting with that viewpoint that you are an interpreter, if you think anyone with a grain of intelligence seriously believes that, try the maternity wing of your local hospital - there were people in there who really were born yesterday. What interpreter would write anything so evidently suicidal? [#Turkeys/Christmas]
First of all, where is your evidence that 'everyone' thought cars were a bad idea? How can you ever claim to know what 'everyone' thought over a century ago? I'm more than happy for you to present it. Even then, does this mean there was a 'right' or 'wrong' to such an opinion?
Furthermore, comparison of horses/cars to trained interpreters is almost so laughable that I barely understand why I am dignifying it with an answer. But your argument seems to be based on the same 'FASTER FASTER FASTER, MORE MORE MORE, NOW NOW NOW' basis as the comment above, also made by 'interpreter'.
(Only the Law Society Gazette itself can tell us whether the email address entered is an anonymous one, an ALS one, or one that can be verified as being that of an interpreter who is prepared to name him/herself.)
In order to address your point, Interpreting and transportation are two entirely different things based on dynamics that simply do not bear up to comparison. Interpreting, if anything, MUST be painstaking and careful. You aren't just trying to get from A to B, it's a completely different issue. The provision of interpreting isn't mass transportation - I'm not confusing this to be about the actual skill of interpreting, I realise you're talking about provision, supply, so fortunately the technology-versus-human debate can be left for another time.
So what you are saying here is that the supply of interpreters pre-ALS and post-ALS is that interpreting supply was a bespoke, painstaking, detailed issue and it has now been reduced to a factory, a mass production line pumping out product. Thanks! That's exactly the point I've spent the last three years making - I'm delighted to see you agree with me. It's just that you think it's a good thing and I don't.
Oh, there's one other key point. Henry Ford was successful because even if you put aside the small inconvenience of the wild debate about whether mass production of motor vehicles has been a good thing for the planet, he was good at it. He produced something that was clearly effective, something the end user wanted.
The end users here are magistrates, listings officers, solicitors, legal advisors, ushers and let's not forget the little old defendant/witness/victim shall we. Let's see how many satisfied end users there are after one month, two months, three months ... will it last long enough for us to find out?
The very same comment is one that was once made to me by someone in an influential position in one of the key public services that signed one of the first contracts with ALS and if it were not for the fact that I don't know the legal implications of naming him/her, I'd do so. The other reason why I won't name him/her is that I'm quite sure that they would deny having said it, so there is no point in even bothering.
If one of the legal standards used in cases is 'beyond reasonable doubt', I'm beyond any doubt that having heard it from someone involved in one of the services that outsourced first, that at one or another time, this hare-brained idea has been bandied about in conversations that led to these contracts. I can picture it now - people in meetings, back-slapping each other, thinking how clever they were to have come up with this handy, homespun piece of nonsense.
I can't stress enough how dangerous half-baked thinking is when people convince each other they are right sit in closed spaces, shutting out the dissenting voices that were making evidence-based arguments they did not find to be convenient to their aims. The lack of true and meaningful consultation under any truly independent scrutiny worthy of respect is what has made this such a one-sided process and one where ideas such as this have led to the situation described above.
If you were so right about this, why is the above story appearing in a serious publication?
I have faith that anyone with any intelligence can see through when looking at the facts and evidence being presented in pretty much every comment above the last two comments and will draw their own conclusions.
The writer Hunter S Thompson once described how he had run into a young George W Bush, saying that he barely noticed the eventual US President: "I'd been in another room, talking to the bright people".
I'm off back into the other room. I'll come back in to see you when you identify yourself and present some hard evidence.
Most of us are less than 100 years old
You are trying to convince the wrong people. Move to another forum.
By the way, Marc, you forgot to mention that if the 5 day trial is cancelled you do not get paid for those 5 days plus you may have said no to other interpreting jobs, which you will not be able to go back to anymore. What a fabulous deal for interpreters with ALS! Stop underestimating our intelligence. It is a waste of time MR/Mrs Interpreter “horse or a car”. Advise – Get the bicycle and go. You have not succeeded. They will not pay you the extra 250 pounds.
going back to the era of horses
Let’s not forget that in the past there were unqualified interpreters used and it has been changed, because it was not good. After that change you had to be qualified to act as an interpreter in CJS. So what you are suggesting Mr/Mrs Interpreter (or shall I say Gavin?), that we should come back to the era of horses (read: unqualified interpreters) and now it will be good. I will tell you what your problem is Mr/Mrs ALS. You cannot stand us, in fact you hate us - qualified interpreters, us - people with university qualifications. You cannot bear the thought that we - the bunch of intellectuals - are ruining your plan. You are a little man/woman who is not intelligent enough to be compared to Mr Ford. Is that the best you can do - preying on other people? Why don't you invent something instead? This would bring you fame and money and what is the most important – respect (something that you are very unfamiliar with)! But wait a minute; you did invent something - the newest model of slavery! Your plan was: let’s slush their rates, get a contract with MoJ as a sole supplier and what are the interpreters going to do about it - they have to work for us surely! But your cunning plan did not work and what ALS is doing now I can describe only as: a drowning man catches at a razor: this is how desperate you are, that you would send a bilingual cat to interpret in court – only if he was willing to go, but it won’t, at your rates he would not be able to afford his daily bowl of ‘Whiskas’.
Lack of management information or competence
So here we are at the end of week 2. Just some simple facts.
At Lincoln, at least 5 remand hearings were adjourned and the defendants bailed because ALS could not provide interpreters.
At least 2 cases suffered the same fate in one day at Huntingdon and there are countless stories of people being held in custody longer than nessecary, because interpreters cannot be supplied. When they did turn up, many were late and the so called quality linguists clearly were not up to the job.
Just a few facts buddies (or David or whatever your name is).
This is not a case of poor management information, as the ALS spokeswoman infers. Simple research would have shown how many bookings are made at short notice.
If this contract was between two private sector companies it would not have lasted the first day. Sadly it is between a Government department and an outfit way out its depth, so we will have to wait a little longer. Hopefully, it will be gone before a calamity occurs.
Calamity?
It already is a calamity.
But I know what you mean - however, don't be too optimistic. I think it will be a calamity (or more accurately, a tragedy or disaster) that forces it to be sorted out.
Something perhaps like the Begum Case, Crispin/Nick/Kenneth? Ring a bell?
Just a little bit of history repeating.
COURT LISTINGS
Can anyone tell me how to find out in advance the listings for the following day at any court? I do not want to go there everyday for nothing. The site I have been looking at only shows the listings after the cases have been heard or not the previous day. Thank you.
Crown Court Listings
Crown Court Listings are published here for the current day and then for the following day at around 4 pm the day before:
http://www.courtserve.net/courtlists/current/crown/indexdailies.htm
COURT LISTINGS
Thank you very much Yelena. I am going to enjoy playing the detective around my area.
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
I found this online
http://www.eulita.eu/sites/default/files/file/A%20Fair%20Deal%20for%20Interpreters%20
(Confidential)%2026-9-11.pdf
READ PAGE 23
TELL EVERYBODY
The correct link to the
The correct link to the document refered to above is:
http://www.eulita.eu/sites/default/files/file/A%20Fair%20Deal%20for%20Interpreters%20(Confidential)%2026-9-11.pdf
BBC Radio Five Live
You might be aleady aware but there will be a 10 minute discussion on BBC Radio Five Live today between 9pm and 10pm second half about the situation with courts interpreters. The participants are solicitors and possibly ALS representative(s). I think it is worth recording it on iphones, ipads, any other devices and playing it to solicitors in your part of the world.
BBC radio
Please let us know what they have discussed. I will not be able to record it. Why haven't they invited and interpreter for the discussion too?
ALS - MOJ
Before these new changes I used to do a couple of jobs for ALS. Even at that time back in 2010 they always dictated that I have to lower my hourly /daily rates. This is probably why they have not contacted me since. And this is why I will not work for ALS because when they charge a client a handsome fee, ALS pays only 1/3 or maybe 1/4 of this fee to an interpreter.
MOJ contract
If the writer,who posts messages as an "interpreter" knew anything about qualifications, he/she/it would realise that the ALS assessment would be meaningless even if ALS's business partner was Harvard and not Middlesex University, because it does not lead to any formal qualifications. As a PhD in English linguistics, a qualified English teacher from this country and a holder of two DPSIs, I find the proposal that I should subject myself to this demeaning assessment not only degrading, but hilariously ridiculous. No need to say I have no intention of doing so. No matter how skillfully you wrap your unsustainable argument in fancy neurolinguistics jargon, you cannot conceal the fact that the vast majority of the ALS persons currently attending CJS assignments are unqualified. As for me "buddying" an unqualified person on such an assignment, let me quote John McEnroe and scream "You surely can't be serious!!!" I would much rather spend my time going to my local hospital to watch my local consultant neurosurgeon buddying the local pizza delivery boy during his first stint in the operating theatre.
ALS AND PAYMENTS
A friend of mine accepted to work for ALS last year, she did a job and still no payment. I hope she has learn't her lesson.
5 live investigates - radio broadcast
The section on court interpreting starts at 52.15 on this bbc iplayer link,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bwgjl/5_live_Investigates_12_02_2012/
Any distinction between linguist and interpreter is clearly as insignificant as that between Polish and German.
Court chaos follows interpreter change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17009115
Court chaos follows interpreter change
Police and court interpreter
Hello, I find this a fascinating thread and very interesting to read. is it true that most of the comments are from interpreters themselves. Let me talk to you about my experience. I am an engineer from Poland, my spoken English is very good, not so my writing though. In 2011 my wife, also Polish, was charged with a minor offence. It is unfortunate that her English is not so good. I offered to translate for her with the police, they refused and employed an interpreter from 150 miles away, my wife was made to wait in a cell for 6 hours till this person arrived. When the case got to the English court I again offered to translate for my wife and this was refused. An interpreter came from south of England for the hearing. I sat at the hearing and thought that the translation was not very good. After I talked with the interpreter who said she is qualified to work in court by Institute of Translation and Interpreting in UK. I look at their website and talk to other Polish friends. I talk to a nice person at the office of the Institute. This Institute does not examine interpreters in their language, how can they supports people to work in court who are not examined and not qualified. I think this is all about money. I could translate for my wife for free instead the cost is very high for the government and me the tax payer. I hope that the court can start to use new technology and have interpreters appear on a tv screen without such high time and travel cost. By the way my wife was found not guilty.
You cannot have family interpret for a case.
In this case it might be that two brains are better than one, therefore you cannot effectively put your thoughts alongside your partners. I am surprised the police called somebody from the ITI - they do not set examinations for interpreters. The national list is (was?) the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI). This body sets exams at degree level so they should be competent (ALS exams are not accredited, and many would say very weak). There is no way they would come from 150 miles away for Polish (normally arriving within an hour or so) because Polish is the most common language. If you want to see the register look at www.nrpsi.co.uk to show who should have been called in your local area.
Professional interpreters
Dear Mynewlanguage,
Thanks for this insight, it is always good to hear from users of our services. Where are you based? It sounds quite unlikely that the authorities in question could not find a Polish interpreter near your place. There are 315 interpreters registered on NRPSI, virtually in every county you will have someone registered with Polish. It is also I think inappropriate to think that your wife spent 6 hours in the cell just because an interpreter could not arrive any earlier - however blaming the interpreter is a pretty good excuse for virtually almost everything. You should remember that interpreters, even Polish ones, are not employed directly by the police. So maybe you could use your experience to lobby your local MP to persuade the police to employ Polish interpreters directly so that your wife or any other person in a situation similar to hers should not be kept in the cells unncessesarily long.
Your point about technology is misinformed. Technology costs a lot of money and an interpreter will still need to travel to a point where the appropriate technology is installed - unless of course you use google translate.
Polish interpreter or not...
It does seem to be the case that most comments here come from PROFESSIONAL INTERPRETERS. I understand where you are coming from because that is the most common mistake made by people that do not understand the need for this profession and its idiosyncrasies. We are all very used to people saying “I speak another language so I can be an interpreter”. WRONG. I will give you my own example. I hold an interpreting degree, 3 languages; I never accept work in one them or even promote myself as a professional interpreter in that language. I am losing the opportunity of making more money, I know, but at least I go to bed and sleep. Why? My use of this 3rd language is very limited; as a matter of fact I only use it when I go away on holidays. I do not know enough about the way things work in the countries this 3rd language is spoken. Above all I do not feel this language as being a part of me… of who I am. Therefore, there is more to interpreting that meets the eye. You being your wife's interpreter would almost be like the perfect crime (do not misunderstand my strange analogy). What makes you think that the Police would believe you were interpreting in an impartial manner, no strings attached? She is your wife, someone you are linked to emotionally, financially, etc. One of the people, we assume, you protect the most. Do you understand my point? No friends, family and non-qualified people. This is a profession, not a hobby. In your case, I wouldn’t even think twice. If my husband’s freedom was at stake I would want him to be assisted by professionals. To be honest, sometimes he does get on my nerves and you know what is like… him in a cell just for a short while when he does not do what he is told would be a good lesson. Jokes aside, keep reading this thread, it is reassuring to know that you have noticed we have a voice and your opinion and queries do count.
Court interpreters
Thank you all for feedback I find it very useful and now I understand more. I phoned ITI office again today and am told that they sincerely do provide trained and qualified interpreters for UK court. This I do not understand as Mr. Cornell makes a statement that they do not. Their interpreter for my wife was not good with her words. I live in Bangor Wales, a lovely place.
Interpreter Contract Suspended
Andrew Keogh of http://www.crimeline.info has tweeted the following which HMCTS has sent to courts today:
"We are aware of the problems that have occurred with the new contract and are monitoring things very carefully. We have agreed a number of actions that need to be taken with the contractor but we have accepted that whilst this action will help improve performance we expect it to take some time to reach an acceptable level. As a result we have decided that HMCTS must take urgent action to mitigate the number of hearings that are failing as a result of the contractor’s difficulties with sourcing interpreters at short notice. With immediate effect HMCTS will revert to the previous arrangements for all bookings due within 24 hours at the magistrates’ courts. Magistrates’ courts bookings should be made direct with the interpreter under the terms of the national agreement. It has also been decided that we will revert to previous arrangements for urgent bookings required for bail applications, deports and fast track applications in the First Tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum and urgent bookings in the Asylum Support Tribunal. Discussion with the contractor indicates that reducing these urgent bookings should allow a significant increase in the contractors ability to meet other demand. We will be constantly reviewing performance over that period and these arrangements will remain in place until we are clear that the contractor is able to meet demand (and at least 24 February). It remains the firm HMCTS intention to move all business to the contract. Initial management information suggests that despite the problems we have experienced in some languages, the primary problem seem to be matching interpreters to jobs rather than insufficient supply (in essence if we can get the booking system to work better we should get a significantly improved service). We understand that some staff and judiciary have sympathy with existing interpreters. We must however do all we can to encourage sign up to the new arrangements – the new contract has the potential to bring significant benefits to both interpreters and the Justice System as a whole. Many of the interpreters signed up to the new arrangements are those that were previously serving the courts and tribunals, and more continue to move across."
SUICIDE!
You know what that paragraph boils down to? This:
Dear NRPSI interpreters: your widespread refusal to work under these arrangements is working so what we're going to do is give you back some small quantities of work, for maybe a week or so, under National Agreement terms and conditions - you know, that National Agreement we so confidently withdrew last year, remember? - and you can do some jobs again while while we regroup. You won't get any other work, only when we are desperate will you be called and whereas you used to be first choice, now you're the back-up. Please feel free to place a noose around your own neck. We'll be back soon at an unspecified time to pull the lever on the trap door.
==========
Do not buy the line that this situation is a mere 'teething issue'.
By the way, the issue is said to be 'matching interpreters' - what on earth does that actually mean? That is absurd. It means nothing. If you can't 'match' an interpreter to a job, you quite simply can't find one available in the correct language who can go to a venue when you ask them to.
Are they seriously suggesting that the issues, which to me does look very much like a supply problem, is some sort of remarkable series of unfortunate chance events where the language they needed was not available? Just a small matter of hundreds of them across the country, with the wild coincidence that this started to happen when the whole court system went over to ALS? Again, use the legal tests used in some of those very courts, and never mind 'Beyond reasonable doubt', even 'On the balance of probability' is pretty damning.
The other key phrases which I find hilarious are the suggestion that National Agreement rates are to be paid - as if I'm going to be grateful for that!
Honey, you killed the National Agreement by withdrawing it and unless it is returned officially and on a permanent and binding basis, I am going to take you at your word on your precious 'market rates' and you can read into that what you will.
"Many of the interpreters signed up to the new arrangements are those that were previously serving the courts and tribunals..."
I'd strongly suggest this assertion requires closer scrutiny.
The part that says that many staff and judiciary are fond of the existing interpreters. Apart from the fact that this contract sees someone like me as a former interpreter (the letter from one of the Police forces that I believe served as a pilot scheme wished me luck in my future career if I did not sign up with ALS - bit of a 'Dear John' letter if you ask me), and my wild guess as to why the staff are fond of us is that when you compare the current arrangements with a claimed 3000 'interpreters' available to the one that offered 2300 people, there was no explosion in complaints of no-shows, incompetence and chaos, it is clear that just as interpreters knew what would happen, the staff/judiciary also knew and while they probably had to mind their Ps and Qs a bit due to being employed, we gave some predictions that have largely been borne out so far.
I will be turning down any public service interpreting from any public service signed up to ALS if asked to come in as a stop-gap because helping out now would be to assist my own termination in an even more crass way than if I had signed up in the first place.
OUR LIPS ARE SEALED.