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 they 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 today: '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.'
The deadline for submissions is Monday 3 September.
Comments
Previously interpreters DID NOT negotiate fees!!!!
Dear Gazette
There is one very serious and material inaccuracy in the article above, which warrants clarification!
Under previous arrangements interpreters NEVER negotiated fees and payments with Courts!
HMCTS had standard terms and conditions and pay rates for self employed interpreters engaged on an ad hoc basis, and we, the interpreters who worked under previous arrangements accepted those pay rates and T & C and went and worked in courts.
I repeat once again there was never any negotiating, the pay rates and T & C's were set by the Court Service and interpreters accepted them and worked for them.
I myself worked as court interpreter for 8 years under previous arrangements and carried out nearly 200 interpreting assignments in Magistrates and Crown courts and never had I encountered a situation where I was in position to "negotiate" with the Court service.
Every time I was engaged by Mag or Crown court, I would be posted an acknowledgement sheet with case details and a copy of standard T & C's with pay rates. The signing and return of booking confirmation sheet was an act of acceptance of the Court Service T & C's and pay rates.
Also I would like to add that the pay rates for interpreters were hardly ever adjusted for inflation.
I started in 2004 and I do not recall any raise in standard Court Service fees payable to interpreters.
Courts calculated how much interpreters were to be paid
In addition to the above I would like to say that the payment process for interpreters under previous arrangements worked as follows:
Upon the conclusion of the hearing that interpreter was booked for, interpreter would complete "Claim form", which was essentially a time sheet, where interpreter would put his or her attendance time in court, travel time to and from court, mileage, public transport or parking receipts and would pass it to courts listings office.
The listings office then calculated how much that interpreter was to be paid for attendance at that particular hearing, based on the Courts Service pay rates for interpreters set by the Court Service itself! process the payment and instruct for cheque to be issued and posted to the interpreter.
This is to dispel a myth that we "negotiated" or "charged" courts!!!
Not only did we not negotiate our pay rates (and weren't ever in position to do so), but we didn't even have the opportunity to "charge" for our services, as it was the court's listings staff who worked out what out precise pay for each attendance was to be!
And we never earned £100k a year either.
Mikhail,
You're almost right there. I also started out on the NRPSI in 2004 and it was only in 2007 that the courts made an alteration that was effectively like giving with one hand and taking away with another and it is too complicated to explain here. It made shorter journeys slightly better paid but for longer ones it represented a drop.
Also, you and I may have started in 2004 but the rate set was from a good few years earlier. For it to change once in 2007 and remain the same right up until this year when the MOJ decided to dump the NRPSI interpreters - the loyal spouse - and go for the filthy harlot that appeared offering its wares, is a joke.
One minor increase in ten years. And it's us who are labelled as money-grabbing by Crispin Blunt, who in Parliament earlier this year made similar comments about us "taking advantage" and earning six-figure "salaries" - and he has never really apologised despite a welter of criticism. My feelings of pity for Blunt battle with my contempt for him as the overrriding emotion at any moment I am unfortunate enough to suffer the thought of that utter buffoon.
"And another thing!"
I'll be writing a submission as caustic as anything I have posted on the many articles on this issue published by the LSG.
Some look forward to their day in court. I hope what I tell the committee gives me my day in Parliament.