house of commons justice committee · 62 national register of public service ... trained and...

Published on 6 February 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

House of Commons

Justice Committee

Interpreting and translation services and the Applied Language Solutions contract

Sixth Report of Session 2012–13

Volume II

Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 22 January 2013

The Justice Committee

The Justice Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the

expenditure, administration and policy of the Ministry of Justice and its associated public

bodies (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and

tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding

the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland);

and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury

Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but

excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law

Officers).

Current membership

Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Chair)

Steve Brine (Conservative, Winchester)

Mr Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Nick de Bois (Conservative, Enfield North)

Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Gillingham and Rainham)

Rt Hon Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough)

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

Robert Neill (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Bolton South East)

Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)

The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament:

Christopher Evans (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn); Mrs Helen Grant (Conservative,

Maidstone and The Weald); Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich); Mrs Siân C James

(Labour, Swansea East); Jessica Lee (Conservative, Erewash); Claire Perry (Conservative,

Devizes); Mrs Linda Riordan (Labour/Co-operative, Halifax), Anna Soubry (Conservative,

Broxtowe); Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk) and Karl Turner (Labour,

Kingston upon Hull East).

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by

Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the

internet at www.parliament.uk/justicecttee. A list of Reports of the Committee in the

present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.

Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Nick Walker (Clerk), Sarah Petit (Second Clerk),

Gemma Buckland (Senior Committee Specialist), Helen Kinghorn (Committee Legal

Specialist), Ana Ferreira (Senior Committee Assistant), Miguel Boo Fraga (Committee

Assistant), Holly Knowles (Committee Support Assistant), George Margereson (Sandwich

student), and Nick Davies (Committee Media Officer).

Contacts

Correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Justice Committee, House of

Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is

020 7219 8196 and the email address is [email protected]

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/justicecom)

1 Jeremy Lynn Ev w1

2 EULITA (European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association) Ev w1

3 Sarolta Melania Lillywhite Ev w3

4 Laura Orsini Ev w4

5 International Association of Conference Interpreters Ev w5

6 Matthew Scott Ev w9

7 Elder Rahimi Solicitors Ev w13

8 Colvin de Silva Ev w14

9 Susanna Garcia Ev w14

10 Zornista Stoyanova Ev w15

11 SE Suffolk Bench Ev w17

12 Yelena McCafferty Ev w17

13 Saadia Ahmad Ev w20

14 Orsolya Mance Ev w20

15 Eszter Fejes Ev w22

16 Dr Yvonne Fowler Ev w25

17 John McCarthy Ev w27

18 Magdalena Taylor Ev w28

19 Marketa Moskvikova Ev w31

20 Miguel Llorens Ev w32

21 Mrs Jennifer Hogg Ev w34

22 Marie Adamova Ev w36

23 Society of Official Metropolitan Interpreters UK Ltd Ev w39

24 Klasiena Slaney Ev w41

25 Ranjeeta Johnson Ev w43

26 Kasia Beresford Ev w44

27 Chartered Institute of Linguists Ev w51, w135

28 Sitta K. Sittambalam Ev w59

29 Elvana Moore Ev w62

30 Sense Ev w63

31 Ian McGarr Ev w65

32 Jennifer Smith Ev w66

33 Rekha Narula Ev w67

34 Amanda Clement Ev w69

35 Association of Sign Language Interpreters Ev w70

36 Dr Christopher Stone Ev w71

37 Mrs Thuy O’Shea Ev w72

38 Carita Thomas Ev w72

39 Emery Johnson Solicitors Ev w73

40 Prison Reform Trust Ev w74

41 Fair Trials International Ev w76

42 University Council of Modern Languages, Open University Ev w79

43 Peterborough Magistrates’ Court Ev w80

44 Irina Jefremova Ev w81

45 Yvonna Swanson Ev w82

46 Bogumila Kolbus Ev w83

47 Elena Irimia Ev w93

48 Association of Translation Companies Ev w93

49 Marc Starr Ev w95

50 Involvis Ltd Ev w98

51 Cintra Ltd Ev w108

52 Dennings LLP Ev w110

53 The Reverend Michael J Slade Ev w115

54 thebigworld Ev w115

55 Dr Zuzana Windle Ev w118, w123

56 Gonul Ekmekci Ev w119

57 Dev Rajasansi Ev w119

58 Pawel Nalewaj Ev w120

59 Ligia Xavier Ev w121

60 Amjad Parvez Ev w122

61 Brooke Townsley, Senior Lecturer Interpreting and Translation, Middlesex University Ev w122, w127

62 National Register of Public Service Interpreters Ltd Ev w123

63 Mateusz Kiecz Ev w123

64 National Audit Office Ev w124

65 Chartered Institute of Linguistics Ev w124

66 Geoffrey Buckingham Ev w125

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [04-02-2013 09:40] Job: 024767 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024767/024767_w068_024767_w069_024767_w070_odeth_CI 86 Supplementary written evidence from Brooke Townsley.xml

Justice Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence from Jeremy Lynn

1. I am a barrister of 29 years call specialising in criminal law. As such I have regular occasion to use theservices of interpreters during court hearings.

2. For the best part of my career the court has appointed an interpreter from an approved list. For the mostpart these interpreters were skilled linguists, fluent in English and another language. They were invariably well-trained and conversant with the vocabulary of the criminal courts; they knew what was required of them: whereto stand, how to address the judge, to speak in the first person, etc.

3. In recent months the contract for the provision of court interpreters has passed into the hands of an agency,Applied Language Solutions. The quality of interpreting has declined dramatically as a consequence.

4. I have found that the interpreters employed by ALS have but one qualification: they can speak the samelanguage as the defendant. Often their English is poor, sometimes barely comprehensible.

5. The interpreters employed by ALS typically have no experience or training as a professional interpreter.I have been told by more than one that she had “never done this before”.

6. I have witnessed myself the frustration of the defendant who can sense that what he is saying and whathis counsel is saying is not being correctly translated.

7. I have had to stop the interpreter from continuing what has been a private conversation between herselfand the defendant—interrupting to say to her, “Are you going to tell me what he said?”

8. I have seen the proceedings interrupted by an interpreter who entered the court whilst the judge wasaddressing the jury in an earlier case, has seated herself in counsels’ rows and then began a loud conversationwith counsel. Despite being told to be quiet, she continued talking loudly, until the judge asked who she wasand silenced her.

9. Only last week I attended court for a trial listed at 11 am. The defendant was in custody. I was unable tohave a conference with him in the hour before the start of his trial because the interpreter failed to attendbefore 11. During an adjournment in the case the interpreter asked me what should she do. I told her to waitoutside the courtroom and to listen for the tannoy. When the case was called on again, she was nowhere to befound. I discovered that she had left the building to buy a bar of chocolate. When I asked her name, sheheld up an identity card—signalling to me that she did not have any real confidence in communicating hername verbally.

10. I have found that the ALS appointed interpreters are unable to cope with the language of the court.Words such as “indictment”, “joint enterprise”, “conspiracy” and others that are the everyday fare of a criminalcourt leave this new breed of interpreter floundering.

11. I have myself already experienced cases being delayed through the failings of an interpreter. More seriousis the obvious risk that defendants are having their words misconstrued or are failing to understand what isbeing said—with potentially disastrous consequences.

12. The sooner the Court Service reverts to the use of an approved list of trained interpreters the better.

13. A final ironic note: an interpreter asked me help her fill in the form that ALS had sent her. At the bottomit asked for her “signature” [sic].

August 2012

Written evidence from EULITA (European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association)

Introduction

EULITA (European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association) was founded under an EU CriminalJustice Programme project and has been representing the interests of interpreters and translators working atcourts and other judicial settings since its inception in 2009. In the UK, APCI (Association of Police and CourtInterpreters) and ITI (Institute of Translation and Interpreting) are full members of EULITA (European LegalInterpreters and Translators Association), and CIoL (Chartered Institute of Linguists) is an associate memberof EULITA. Since October 2010 EULITA has followed developments concerning the Framework Agreementin the UK and expressed its opinion at various stages of the process. EULITA therefore wishes to respond tothe Justice Committee’s call for evidence in order to support the position of its UK members in connectionwith the inquiry.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [04-02-2013 09:40] Job: 024767 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024767/024767_w068_024767_w069_024767_w070_odeth_CI 86 Supplementary written evidence from Brooke Townsley.xml

Ev w2 Justice Committee: Evidence

The comments below especially address one specific area that the Justice Committee is seeking to explore:

1. The rationale for changing arrangements for the provision of interpreter services

1.1 In a letter to Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke dated 19 October 2010 (with a copy inter alia to theParliamentary Under-Secretary of State Crispin Blunt) EULITA expressed its concerns over the UK’soutsourcing plans, referred to the EU Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminalproceedings (EU Directive 2010/64/EU) and warned against premature steps to change the existing system ofproviding interpreting services to the judicial system. The reply by Richard Mason, Head of Better Trials Unit,of 13 December 2010 stated inter alia that “… the justice system in England and Wales needs high qualityinterpreters and translators—it is in no-one’s interest to deter highly qualified and experienced people fromthis role. But we also need more efficient and effective provision of these services. We believe that outsourcingcan deliver the service we require.”

1.2 In a letter to the Better Trials Unit dated 03 May 2011 EULITA commented on a paper by theaforementioned Unit dated 30 March 2011 entitled “Reforming the provision of interpretation and translationservices”. EULITA’s comments referred again to the EU Directive on the right to interpretation and translationin criminal proceedings (2010/64/EU) and expressed its concerns that the UK Government’s plans for reformingthe provision of interpretation and translation services across the justice sector would not serve the objectivesof the EU Directive, as expressed inter alia in

— Articles 2 and 3 (quality of interpreting and translation services sufficient to safeguard thefairness of proceedings),

— Article 5 (concrete steps by EU member states to ensure the quality of these services), and

— Article 5 (endeavours to establish a register or registers of independent translators andinterpreters who are appropriately qualified).

There was no reaction or follow-up on the part of the Better Trials Unit or any other UK judicial authorityor MoJ entity.

1.3 On 26 July 2011 EULITA commented on information by Martin Jones, Deputy Director for Crime(Crown), Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service dated 6 July 2011 about a Written Ministerial Statementof 5 July concerning “the new delivery model” for the provision of interpretation and translation services.EULITA especially expressed doubts

— about the savings which the Framework Agreement was to achieve,

— about the effectiveness of outsourcing the provision of interpreting and translation services toone large company, and

— about the quality of the services that would be obtained with the outsourcing agreement.

On that occasion, EULITA invited representatives of the UK Ministry of Justice to the first TRAFUT(Training for the Future) workshop in Ljubljana, Slovenia, in November 2011, organized with EU funding, onthe steps to be taken by EU member states for the transposition of the EU Directive on the right to interpretationand translation in criminal proceedings (2010/64/EU). Regrettably, there was no response to this invitation andno representative of any UK judicial authority attended the workshop. (A report about the workshop can besupplied on request.)

1.4 On 15 April 2012 EULITA wrote to Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke and Parliamentary Under-Secretaryof State Crispin Blunt deploring the situation that had emerged since the entry into force of the FrameworkAgreement, suggesting consultations with the UK professional associations of legal interpreters and translatorsin order to find a solution to the service-provision problems, and expressing the hope that the steps that theUK Ministry of Justice was taking in the course of implementing the EU Directive on the right to interpretationand translation in criminal proceedings would withstand any challenges under Article 8 of the EU Directive(2010/64/EU). No response has been received to date.

(Copies of the correspondence can be provided on request.)

Executive Summary

In EULITA’s opinion the only rationale for changing the arrangements for the provision of interpreter serviceswas to cut the costs of these services. It would have been sensible to involve the service providers, ie therepresentatives of the legal interpreting and translating professions, in the reform plans and to engage in an in-depth analysis of the UK service provision regime. A constructive dialogue, which EULITA and EULITA’sUK members have repeatedly offered to engage in, would certainly have led to arrangements that would havebeen in the interest of all parties concerned and would have been in compliance with the EU Directive on theright to interpretation and translation, which the UK needs to transpose before October 2013. Steps to rectifythe current service provision situation are urgently called for, so as to avoid any risk of being in violation of

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [04-02-2013 09:40] Job: 024767 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/024767/024767_w068_024767_w069_024767_w070_odeth_CI 86 Supplementary written evidence from Brooke Townsley.xml


Article 8 of the EU Directive1). After all, the European Court of Justice has issued clear rulings that an EUDirective takes precedence over local law upon publication of a Directive in the EU Journal.

EULITA will not comment on the other areas that the Justice Committee is seeking to explore as theinformation available to EULITA in these matters is derived from secondary sources and will certainly besubmitted in a more appropriate form by the UK’s professional associations of legal interpreters and translators.

August 2012

Written evidence from Sarolta Melania Lillywhite

I am an Hungarian interpreter and translator.

I have a Degree in Hungarian Language and Literature from Budapest University, and 20 years experienceas a teacher.

I have lived in England since 1957 and have been interpreting and translating unofficially and officiallysince 1964.

I am on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters—my number is 11104.

Since my registration I have worked in one Coroner’s Court, 14 different Crown Courts, one Family Court,37 different Magistrate’s Courts, for H.M. Customs and Excise at two different locations, the successor H.M.Revenue and Customs at two locations, H.M. Immigration Service, H.M. Inland Revenue, 24 separate PoliceConstabularies, five Health/Hospital Trusts, and three different Probation offices. I have been requested to workfor these various Courts, Constabularies, Departments, etc on many repeat occasions.

In all of my experience there was never any problem with Courts or other public service users makingcontact with qualified interpreters in my language up to the number available which—at the beginning—waslimited. This was usually done by reference to the National Register in the first instance, and then later bydirect contact. We could, and did, suggest a qualified substitute if we were unable to undertake a task ourselves.This caused no problem to the potential users, and often helped them. The system under the National Agreementof 2007 seemed to work smoothly with provision of interpreters in my language. I could, and can, see no goodreason for this agreement to have been abandoned.

Turning now to my experiences with Applied Language Solutions. It is true that these relate to times beforethe award of the Framework Agreement contract but demonstrate that even then, before pressure was broughtto bear on their systems, serious errors were made and should have been a warning before the contract wascontemplated by the business or awarded to them.

The first adverse report to make concerns a case in Grimsby. I was called upon to interpret for a defendantwho had been remanded in custody for one year. When, at the pre-trial conference with his legal representative,his earlier statement was translated back to him he said that the translation was wrong. He complained that the“interpreter”, who had apparently been provided by Applied Language Solutions, was a young secondgeneration English born Hungarian girl whose knowledge of the Hungarian language was poor. Very seriousmistakes occurred. These were made in translating words and expressing phrases. The whole document had tobe revised and rewritten. If the original translation had been read into Court as it stood there would have beena miscarriage of justice of which the defendant would have been unaware.

The second incident concerned an appearance at a major court. I was approached by Applied LanguageSolutions to attend. On arrival I found that an Hungarian colleague was also present and, naturally, we startedconversation. It soon became apparent that we had both been called to interpret in the same case. Wheninvestigation was carried out it was found that the person for whom we had been called was Spanish, and hadno other language. This error involved considerable costs for our attendance, our personal inconvenience, thatother proceedings could have been delayed through our unavailability, that the Court was inconvenienced, aswell as the person who had no interpreter.

The third incident to which I would refer is, admittedly, hearsay evidence but bears out that the businesswas not using properly qualified interpreters. The incident was related to me by another Hungarian interpretercolleague. A case was called in the north-west which involved an Hungarian defendant. A young man was sentto interpret by Applied Language Solutions. In conversation it came out that his knowledge of Hungarian waslimited to a few words, but he had been asked to do the work, could do with the fee, so went.

The same colleague also warned me that the business was not a good one with which to have any dealings,and advised me to avoid them.

I have read of many similar instances since the enforcement of the Framework Agreement and the attentionof my Member of Parliament has been drawn to several of them.1 Article 8 of EU Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings reads as follows:

“Non-regression—Nothing is this Directive shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the rights and proceduralsafeguards that are ensured under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, other relevant provisions of international law or the law of anyMember State which provides a higher level of protection.”



The facts which have become apparent are that Applied Language Solutions are still sending under qualified,under trained, so called “linguists” to interpret at Courts throughout the country. The basic requirement is thatthey should be NRPSI registered. It seems that many are not. Some, it seems, have not been Criminal RecordsBureau checked. Some, it seems, have been shown to fail in Court but have appeared at other hearings withoutany action being taken by Applied Language Solutions.

They, Applied Language Solutions, do not appear to take action to withdraw such failed interpreters, ensuretheir re-training, and/or re-assessment (even if an original one was done).

It also appears that their Continuous Professional Development courses are possibly led by persons who arescarcely to be described as qualified interpreters, and it is alleged have been basic lessons which should havebeen learnt before the students were enrolled upon them. Compare this with another agency which used veryexperienced police officers to give instruction and advice on how certain cases should be handled.

August 2012

Written evidence from Laura Orsini

Outsourcing of CJS interpreting services

Thank you for this opportunity to express my views in relation to the enquiry into the provision ofinterpreting and translation by Applied Language Solutions (ALS) under the Ministry of Justice FrameworkAgreement.

I am an Italian interpreter and translator with following qualifications:

— MA in Bilingual Translation, Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (English Law),

— MET Test for Interpreters, Higher Certificate in Legal Studies.

— I am security vetted and NRPSI registered and a member of APCI.

In my professional capacity, between 2004 and 2011 I have had the privilege to be of service to the criminaljustice agencies in England and Wales, but since February this year with the implementation of the Ministryof Justice Framework Agreement with Applied Language Solutions, I have refused to carry out any interpretingassignments for Her Majesty Court Service due to:

— the humiliating terms and conditions offered by ALS to interpreters;

— ALS flawed in-house assessment, akin to setting up a health clinic and self-assessing your ownmedical practitioners;

— the devaluation of the profession through the ALS tier system, allegedly an opportunity for under-qualified people to acquire experience. I acquired all of my experience only after obtaining fullqualifications. The DPSI qualification is a minimum requirement and only the first step on acontinuous professional development ladder;

— ALS promise by that the back to back allocation of job system would earn interpreters good wageswhilst saving the taxpayers’ money, showing such a poor understanding of the industry that, on itsown, is enough to prevent anyone from associating with this company.

In particular, 8 months into the implementation of the Ministry of Justice Framework Agreement withApplied Language Solutions, it is clear that the new provider has but disregard for justice and the qualitystandards of interpreting, a conduct that has led unqualified workers to hinder the administration of justice, hasblighted my profession and it is wasting public money.

I cannot help but feel that Applied Language Solutions is defrauding this government and by extension thepeople of Great Britain by neglecting their contractual provisions and forcing the courts to accept the servicesof unqualified unprepared and unvetted non-terpreters to whom it pays substandard wages.

I fully appreciate the need for the criminal justice agencies to ensure value for money whilst continuing toprovide a consistent and effective service to their communities and strongly believe that it is possible to achievethis, not by outsourcing the service to a profit-driven, incompetent and fraudulent agency or any other privateagency, but by talking with the interpreters and their organisations and by listening to their proposals thatwould enable a return to the smooth running of justice as well as savings by retaining the human resourcescurrently populating the National Register, that is qualified, competent, dedicated and security vettedinterpreters and translators.

August 2012

A plethora of press articles currently circulating, describing the total chaos caused to Courts/Tribunals byALS’ abject failure to service their contract is available on http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/news).

The Government has admitted that the controversial ALS interpreter contract will not save £12 million.http://www.lackuna.com/2012/07/12/government-admits-controversial-als-interpreter-contract-will-not-save-12m/



The Web site of the Professional Interpreters for Justice Campaign http://www.unitetheunion.org/sectors/community_youth_workers/unite_and_your_organisation/national_union_of_professional/professional_interpreters_for.aspx

Written evidence from the International Association of Conference Interpreters

Summary

— AIIC is a respected international interpreters’ association which acts as a regulatory body andnegotiator in the field of conference interpreting.

— Interpreting is a profession which, like any other, requires proficiency in specific skills, acquiredthrough training. Oral or sign language interpretation should not be confused with written translation.Since the profession is not legally recognised in the way that doctors, lawyers or architects are,anyone who speaks two languages may offer their services as an “interpreter”. The difference inresults according to the level of proficiency is, however, enormous.

— Court and legal interpreting requires specific skills which must be assessed properly beforeemployment on the basis of a system of accreditation approved by the profession. Adherence to acode of ethics is an absolute requirement in the sensitive area of justice where information learnedin private could be used for profit by unscrupulous individuals. Membership of a professionalassociation with stringent membership requirements is a guarantee of quality.

— Only professionals can provide a service which will guarantee compliance with European

Directive 2010/64 and ensure the proper administration of justice and the safeguarding of

human rights. Proper working conditions and due reward according to market rates are essential toensure professional services.

— It should not be assumed that outsourcing intellectual services is conducive to making

economies of scale. Tenderers will always pursue profit rather than the public good. Contracts cannotbe awarded according to the criterion of “lowest bid”. The qualifications of the actual serviceproviders (the interpreters) as well as of the tendering company must be verified. The latter shouldhave real knowledge of the sector.

— A centralised system of contracting through a single agency is not necessarily the answer to

the organisational problems of ensuring that the right interpreter with the right language

appears in the right place at the right time without needing to travel extensively to do so. Thisis essentially a localised market. The number of languages required, the uneven distribution ofinterpreters and their language combinations across the territory, the irregular schedules of courtsand police services, last-minute contracting and irregular language needs will inevitably make itnecessary to “import” interpreters from other regions or even from abroad on some occasions. Whilstan effort has to be made to better coordinate the use of available interpreters locally, and sometimesnationally, this cannot be done without the cooperation and advice of the local administrations andof the interpreters themselves.

— AIIC believes that in this case, outsourcing has created a monopoly of service where quality

control by the profession and the Ministry has been lost in a vital area, has created chaos in

what was a relatively well-functioning system and has alienated the quality service providers.

It has not solved the main logistical problem.

— AIIC firmly believes that the reputation of British justice is at stake when the quality of this

support service is judged in the light of EU Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and

translation in criminal proceedings, which must be implemented in October 2013. Moving

forward in the provision of a proper interpretation system based on professional services must

involve negotiation with representatives of the professional interpreters, the Ministry, the

administrative bodies concerned and, if its contract is continued, with Capita as the successor

to ALS.

Detailed Submission

I. Credentials of AIIC

1. The International Association of Conference Interpreters was created in 1953 to defend and promote theprofession of conference interpretation. It is a not-for-profit association created under the French law of 1901.AIIC is well-respected internationally since it was and still is the first international regulatory body for theprofession, with a Code of Professional Ethics, professional standards and stringent peer-review proceduresregulating membership.

2. AIIC negotiates Agreements covering working conditions and rates of pay for all freelance interpretersworking for major international organisations such as the UN, the EU, NATO and the Council of Europe, andinternational Trade Unions. It has its own Court and Legal Interpreting Committee, set up with the aim ofimproving the training of court and legal interpreters, especially in Europe, and is an associate member ofEULITA, which has also made a submission to this committee of enquiry.



II. Interpreting: A Profession

3. Whilst AIIC particularly defends the profession of conference interpreting, it wishes to stress thatinterpreting in any branch is a profession which, like any other, needs: specific skills, acquired through trainingand consolidated through practice and continuous professional development (CPD); recognition of those skillson the basis of a system of accreditation approved by the profession; adherence to an ethical code; properworking conditions which are vital to the provision of quality performance; and due reward according tomarket rates.

4. Courts and police administrations need to be able to rely on professional interpreters working in a numberof language pairs (in this branch, interpreters work into and from English and one other language). In countrieslike the UK, with a very multi-ethnic population and high visitor influx, the number of languages required isenormous, but it is vital that interpreters should be able to work competently in both languages. Theirinterpreting skills must be properly attested.

5. Although often confused by the public, interpreters (oral or sign language translation) need a different setof skills to translators (written translation). Interpreters work in real time and must have an immediate graspof vocabulary, having researched their subject beforehand; they cannot hold up proceedings whilst they searchfor a term in a dictionary. Their clients may never have used their services before and may use slang or jargon(especially in the criminal world), which the interpreter must recognise. Members of the legal profession arealso generally untrained in the use of interpreters, often speaking too quickly or without pause.

6. The terminology and concepts of the English judicial system are not always immediately understood bynative English speakers, let alone non-English speakers. Interpretation may often require the transposition ofterms and practices used here into a recognisable form for the speaker of a language other than English whoseown country’s legal system may be quite different (e.g. the Napoleonic Code widely used on the continent ofEurope, or others used in more distant lands). The interpreters must therefore possess a broad legal vocabularywhich must be on the tip of their tongue in both languages, as well as familiarity with up-to-date street slang;they must be cognizant of court and police procedures as well as cultural differences between the parties forwhom they work; and of course they must possess the basic skills of interpretation: the power of concentrationeven in stressful circumstances, very often listening and simultaneously whispering to the client—a skill whichnot everyone can master, and certainly not if they have never done it before and have had no practice inthe art. In addition to passing Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, they must scrupulously observe anethical code.

7. Interpreters in this branch often work alone, are called out to work at odd hours and must often work indifficult or even distressing circumstances in courts, police stations and in prisons. Their contracts, and thereforetheir income, may be irregular and last-minute. They must therefore have a solid physical and mentalconstitution.

8. Since the profession does not enjoy a protected title, as is the case for medical doctors, lawyers orarchitects, anyone who speaks two languages may offer their services as an “interpreter”. The difference inresults according to the level of professionalism is, however, enormous.

9. Professional interpreters will generally have gone through years of training and must continually updatetheir knowledge in order to work. Proficiency is usually recognised through diplomas from recognised trainingestablishments, through impartial national accreditation bodies approved by the profession or throughmembership of associations applying criteria of proficiency, experience and adherence to a strict code ofconduct to membership.

10. Court and legal interpreting throughout Europe had often developed sui generis, without training orregulation, contrary to its sister practice of translating where many countries require certification. Very oftenlegal translators are called upon to act as interpreters. Their “certification” as translators is often confused withrecognition of their skills as interpreters, which may not, as stated above, be comparable. Although some dowork in both of these professions, translators may not be good interpreters and interpreters may not prove tobe good translators, especially if they have not been trained in the separate skillsets required.

11. In recent years a number of training facilities have been created in Europe for court and legalinterpretation where at least the basic skills of interpretation are taught. Associations have been created tofurther organise the profession, providing an exchange of information, encouraging further training and anethical approach: the UK associations are an example of this. They and the recently reformed National Registerof Public Service Interpreters, with its entrance criteria including proof of experience, its code of professionalconduct including the requirements of integrity, competence, confidentiality, impartiality, declaration in thecase of conflict of interest etc. provide the basis of a guarantee of quality in the service provided.

12. Professional interpreters are a vital link in the chain of persons required to deliver justice and humanrights, as is now recognised through European Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and translationin criminal proceedings.

13. The necessary skills, described above, have a price. The use of unqualified interpreters also has a price:misinterpretation, delays, retrials and generally the kind of chaos witnessed recently costs money and hasethical repercussions on the British justice system likely to taint its reputation. Reorganisation of services



cannot mean cost-cutting on the backs of skilled professionals whose fees have remained extremely modestand whose working conditions are often extremely poor.

14. The efforts of the interpreters themselves to organise their profession, to improve their skills and theservice they provide should be recognised and encouraged. They could be greatly helped by a more organisedapproach to training through government sponsorship of specific courses in this field devised by trainingestablishments with the help of professional associations and taught by practising interpreters. In order forHMCTS to derive the maximum advantage from foreign language and BSL interpretation, AIIC encouragesthe UK authorities to include a module on working with interpreters in all post-graduate legal training coursesas well as in CPD courses for legal professionals.

III. The Public Procurement Procedure

15. Whilst AIIC believes that there were good intentions behind the announced desire to improve the deliveryof interpretation services without loss of quality, it seems that the Ministry of Justice failed to recognisesignalled pitfalls during the competitive dialogue. It sought to limit expenditure through outsourcing to a singlesupplier without considering any other solution or properly considering how the supplier could make savingswhilst maintaining quality of service. It should not be assumed that outsourcing in the field of intellectualservices is conducive to making economies of scale.

16. The use of “intermediaries” rarely reduces the cost of services but may make contracting individualsuppliers easier for the end user. Intermediaries seek profit. Profit will often be made through a loss of quality.

17. The main area concerned by public tendering is the construction industry. There is less experience intendering for intellectual services, such as interpreting. Experts agree that there is little sense in accepting thelowest bid for such services.

18. Intermediaries should have at least basic notions about the service they supply and the managementshould preferably come from the sector or profession concerned, which AIIC does not consider to be the caseof the chosen company. It is vital to verify not only the qualifications of the tendering company itself, but alsothe qualifications of the actual service providers.

19. The 2000+ interpreters registered with the NRPSI had already signalled their unwillingness to work forALS before the signing of the Framework Agreement. With the refusal of the overwhelming majority ofprofessional interpreters to accept the terms offered, which had obviously not been previously negotiated withthem, ALS had to hurriedly seek to replace them with non-professionals. The resulting drop in quality hasbeen widely reported.

20. Discontent replaced a previously smooth employment relationship. For interpreters, who usually carryout their profession in the shadows, to feel the need to demonstrate for their rights on the streets is a sorrystate of affairs, a breakdown in the relations of mutual trust between employer and employee.

21. The logistical requirements of organising a nationwide system, the main reason for tendering, wereobviously underestimated. The failure of interpreters to appear at the right time, to remain in court until theend of a hearing or indeed to appear at all has also been widely reported.

22. Failure in so many critical areas points to the incompetence of the contractor and a failure in the tenderingprocedure. Warnings of respondents during the consultation procedure were overridden. These included fearsof creating a monopoly and the likelihood of a commercial company reducing quality in the pursuit of profit.(See the letter to stakeholders signed by Martin Jones on 6 July 2011). The letter implies that the professionalsector was not consulted early on for fear of its reaction. It was indeed only consulted “when it was clear whata final model might look like”. AIIC believes this was a fundamental mistake. Human resources cannot betreated in the same way as products. Their involvement in restructuring a service which they provide is vitalto its successful conclusion.

23. A monopoly of supply was given to one company which AIIC believes overreached itself and lackedthe competence required. The Ministry lost control of both the provision and quality of a vital service. Despitethe event being deemed “unlikely” in the letter to stakeholders quoted above, AIIC submits that the contractorfailed and the justice sector has been left without a proper language service.

24. It is very difficult to assess the cost of a mistake in awarding a public contract. The advertised savingshave been revised downwards and many believe that no savings at all will have been made if the costs ofdisruption are factored into the final equation.

25. This contract was a huge prize for a single company. The company was sold on to Capita for aconsiderable sum of money. Perhaps a more modest reorganisation would have brought better results at alower price.

IV. Organisation of an Interpretation Service

26. Whilst the Ministry of Justice must certainly seek to procure services as economically as possible, subjectto audit requirements and within budgetary constraints, AIIC believes that it would have been possible toachieve this without totally changing the manner of operation which had been working relatively well, or losing



the services of all those quality interpreters who had, over time, contributed to the professionalisation andreputation of the service and had created the first regulatory bodies: their professional associations and theNRPSI.

27. The service had been provided generally through direct contact between the interpreters and the courtsand police authorities, therefore making use of local and expert knowledge. The interpreters had appeared atthe requested times in court and worked very often at “unsociable” times for the police. Whilst workingconditions in court and legal interpreting probably remain some of the most taxing found in any branch of theinterpreting profession, rates of pay remained modest.

28. Where, therefore, did the problem lie? It is our belief that inherent problems of programming are themain reason why costs are “high”. Economies of scale are unlikely to be able to be made in these circumstances,since neither courts nor police can fundamentally change schedules to make possible the totally efficient useof available interpreters who will continue to have to wait for delayed or deferred court hearings or appear atpolice stations in the middle of the night. It is unreasonable to believe that an interpreter can be paid only forthe amount of time they spend interpreting, at very low rates for the knowledge and skills they have, whilstthey are also spending time preparing, travelling or waiting. As the courts have discovered because of theabsence of interpreters, time costs money. Wasted time costs more.

29. The irregularity of the work involving frequent last-minute recruitment in what is essentially a localisedmarket suggests that a centralised system of contracting through a single agency is not the answer to theorganisational problems of ensuring that the right interpreter with the right language appears in the right placeat the right time without needing to travel extensively to do so.

30. Any agency maintaining that it can always provide a “local” and therefore “cheaper” service in theinterpretation sector is unlikely to know much about the sector. Given the number of languages required, theuneven distribution of interpreters and their language combinations across the territory, irregular languageneeds and the irregular schedules of courts and police services, it will inevitably be necessary to “import”interpreters from other regions or even from abroad on some occasions.

31. Whilst all efforts should be made to better coordinate the use of available interpreters at local andnational level, this cannot be done without the cooperation and advice of the local administrations and of theinterpreters themselves. It would be quite possible, for instance, for interpreters to create local administrativegroups to facilitate contracting, which could be less expensive than bringing in intermediaries. A decentralisedapproach to organisation would in any case be better able to respond to requirements in this sector.

32. A targeted training drive together with incentives for interpreters to relocate to areas of local need couldredress the present imbalances in supply over the long term.

33. In some UK regions, courts and police authorities have worked closely with their local service providersto restructure the service to the mutual satisfaction of both sides, bringing more understanding of requirements,greater efficiency and cost savings. We believe that this is the basis for a way forward.

34. It is incredible that the accumulated experience of the NRPSI and the professional associations waseffectively ignored concerning an accreditation procedure, vital to quality control. Contrary to standard practice,a “new” accreditation procedure has been devised by a commercial supplier, which is also expected to carryout regulatory and disciplinary functions. This constitutes a clear conflict of interest, and it is against the publicgood (as predicted in responses to the consultation procedure during tendering).

35. The provision of quality interpreting services to the satisfaction of all parties concerned can only beensured if a proper analysis of existing and future requirements and resources is carried out and if direct talkstake place between those requiring the service (the Ministry of Justice, the courts, police services, and membersof the legal profession) and the interpreters themselves, via their representatives. Such contacts should laydown the requirements of both sides and reach an agreement on terms and conditions of contract before anyfurther restructuring of service provision management can be contemplated.

V. In Conclusion

36. In conclusion and in answer to four questions raised by the Select Committee which lie within its fieldof competence (two further questions have not been addressed), AIIC believes:

(i) That the rationale for changing arrangements for the provision of interpretation services to thecourts and police was flawed in that it was not based on a careful analysis of the existingsystem, its weaknesses and strengths, but allowed apparent financial savings to override thequality aspect of providing a service vital to the administration of justice and human rights.The service providers themselves were not valued as stakeholders in the process;

(ii). That the procurement process was inappropriate to the delivery of a service requiring skilledproviders. That insufficient regard was given to the experience of the tenderer in this field ofactivity and the manner in which the tenderer would be able to offer to reduce costs by offeringunacceptably low terms to their contracted interpreters, thus providing unskilled labour to asector where the outcome of their work could make a huge difference to the quality of Justice;



(iii) That for courts and prisons to receive interpretation services that meet their needs, it is above allnecessary to use professional, trained and properly accredited interpreters. Interpreters’ workingconditions must also satisfy a number of conditions. For instance, interpreters need to be ableto hear and see all of those involved in proceedings properly, counsel should speak at a pacewhich can be followed by an interpreter, the interpreter should be able to take the necessarybreaks in lengthy proceedings if working alone, the interpreter should be able to prepare forcertain particularly complicated cases through briefings. These are only some of the aspects ofinterpreting requirements that are still not understood in the average courtroom; and

(iv) That the steps taken to rectify under-performance by the supplier have not, in the opinion ofAIIC, been sufficient given the continuing number of cases of non-appearance of interpretersor use of unskilled interpreters widely reported in the media. Although adjusted rates have beenoffered to interpreters, the fact that many interpreters stand by their refusal to work under theFramework Agreement suggests that there is still disquiet about the terms and conditions onoffer, whilst some courts and police administrations have preferred to revert to the previousmethod of direct contracting under the terms of the National Agreement in order to be able toobtain the service they require.

37. Finally, AIIC believes that a proper dialogue should be opened between representatives of theprofessional interpreters, the Ministry of Justice, the administrative bodies concerned and, if the current servicecontract continues in force, with Capita/ALS as supplier, in order to move forward. AIIC therefore fullysupports the professional Associations’ request for a meeting, made in their letter to the Ministry of Justice on12 July 2012, which deserves a reply. This was an offer to discuss a way forward, to help make savings andto improve efficiency whilst upholding high standards of Justice. These were surely questions which theMinistry should first have addressed with the professionals before embarking on this ill-starred tenderprocedure.

August 2012

Written evidence from Matthew Scott

Summary

— I am a barrister practising in criminal law.

— I have had personal experience of ALS failing to provide interpreters for my cases

— I believe the Framework Agreement is damaging to the interests of justice. It will lead to a declinein interpreter quality, and has indeed already done so.

— It flies in the face of recommendations on interpreters in the criminal justice system made by twoRoyal Commissions. It may not meet the Government’s minimum obligations under domestic andinternational law.

— I also believe that the Agreement is likely to lead to an increase not a decrease in public expenditure.

— The Government should exercise its power to withdraw from the Agreement, either by giving thecontractual three month notice or immediately.

Inquiry into the provision of interpretation and translation services since Applied LanguageSolutions (ALS) began operating as the Ministry of Justice’s sole contractor for languageservices in February 2012

1. I am Matthew Scott, a barrister practising in criminal law from the chambers of Oba Nsugbe QC, 3 PumpCourt, Temple, London EC4. I prosecute and defend in roughly equal proportions. This submission is made ina purely personal capacity.

2. I work mainly in Crown Courts in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset. I have contributed two articles toThe Times on the subject of the ALS/Capita Framework Agreement on Language Services in the justicesystem.2 My wife is a professional interpreter and was, until August of this year, a member of the NationalRegister of Public Service Interpreters.

3. I have been practising at the bar for over 25 years and in that time I have had considerable experience ofusing interpreters. In cases where they are required the competency of an interpreter is central to a court’sability to do justice, whether to complainants, witnesses or defendants.

4. Two Royal Commissions on Criminal Justice, Lord Runciman’s in 1993 and Lord Justice Auld’s in 2001considered the role of court interpreters in criminal cases. Both stressed the importance of properly qualifiedand fairly remunerated interpreters to the criminal justice system. Following the recommendations made bythese Royal Commissions the courts and the police, save in exceptional cases, until the implementation of theFramework Agreement, obtained interpreters from the National Register of Public Service Interpreters(“NRPSI”). All members of the NRPSI are qualified, at the very least by long experience, and most possess at2 http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3185193.ece http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3351645.ece



least a Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI) or equivalent qualification. All are security vetted.Membership of the register is regarded as a mark of competence, and in many cases of excellence.

5. An incompetent interpreter can easily make a trial unfair. A single error can lead to a fundamentalmisunderstanding. Where the result may be that a person is wrongly convicted or wrongly acquitted theconsequences are very serious. Since in many cases there is no-one in court who can appreciate the interpreter’smistake it is very likely that such a misunderstanding will be overlooked. Even if it does not have that effect,an inaccurate interpreter will slow the trial process down leading to delay and expense.

6. For these and other reasons both the Runciman and Auld Royal Commissions into criminal justice maderecommendations which were designed to improve the professionalism, status and remuneration of courtinterpreters. The Auld report in particular stressed the importance of attracting well trained and qualified peopleinto the profession.

7. Given the considered recommendations of both Runciman and Auld it was surprising that the Governmentshould have entered into the Framework Agreement with ALS in 2011 in which a completely new andnationwide system for providing court interpreters was to be entrusted to a small untested company whichproposed to reduce both both the level of qualifications required and the level of remuneration paid to courtinterpreters. What is more (as far as I am aware) this was done without any consultation with the legalprofession or the judiciary, and without adequate consideration being given to the need to ensure—or betterstill improve—the quality of court interpreters.

8. As was predictable the effect of the changes has been to lower professional standards and reduce thestatus of professional interpreters.

9. I am aware that ALS claims to have systems in place to ensure the competency and honesty of those whowork for it. Competency is meant to be ensured by a computerised interpreting “assessment”, although as ALSthemselves say on their web-site www.linguistlounge.com “The assessment is not an exam and will not resultin a qualification. Moreover, it is also “not a pass or fail test”. There appears to be no element of independentscrutiny, the names and identities of the examiners are secret although ALS strongly implies that the examinersare not themselves professional interpreters. This does not inspire much confidence. In any event, anecdotalreports of interpreters registering and being given work without being put through even this highlyunsatisfactory assessment process are so widespread as to raise real doubts as to whether it is more than a figleaf to cover the fact that ALS are in fact willing to use virtually anybody prepared to sign up with them.

10. It is clear that the ALS strategy of using under-qualified interpreters was central to their business plan.Within their tender response they had indicated that they would be “increasing the pool of qualifiedinterpreters”. How would the “pool” be increased? ALS proposed to correct “structural flaws within theDiploma in Public Service Interpreting …. This will allow more than one thousand linguists who have failedonly the translation element of the DPSI, to be used on many interpreting assignments.”3 In other words, akey element of ALS strategy was to use over a thousand interpreters who had failed a key part of the mostwidely recognised interpreting qualification. Whilst ALS claimed that such failed interpreters would not beemployed on “tier 1” assignments, in practice no such quality control appears to have been put in place. Thealarming and well-publicised case of R v. Rajvinder Kaur4 at Winchester Crown Court in which an unqualifiedman, Mr Lone, stood in for his wife as an interpreter in a murder trial suggests at the very least that any suchcontrols are inadequate.

11. ALS also claimed that they “pay above the market rate … to attract the most highly qualifiedindividuals”5 Instead, under the Framework Agreement they are paying substantially below the going ratesand set out to recruit under-qualified individuals, specifically those who have failed the translation element ofthe DPSI, but in practice almost anyone who applies including, in one well-publicised case, a rabbit.6

12. In any case the idea that a court interpreter does not need competency in written translation isfundamentally misconceived. In any criminal trial a witness is likely to be cross-examined on the basis of awitness statement, or some document will form part of the exhibits in a case. At any time an interpreter maybe called upon to translate a written document. It is absurd to suppose that somebody unable to perform writtentranslation to the DPSI standard would be competent to act as an interpreter in a criminal case, at any stage ofthe proceedings.

13. I have personal experience of using an unqualified court interpreter to translate a routine document in acase at Winchester Crown Court heard in February of this year. I do not know whether the interpreter wassupplied by ALS, but I do know that she was not a member of the NRPSI. The case was a serious one involvingallegations of cruelty to a child and perverting the course of justice. I was representing one of the Nepalesespeaking defendants, Mr Dilli Lechharbo. Eventually I drafted a “basis of plea” which was agreed with theprosecution. Whenever such a document is drafted it is essential that the defendant understands it (I attach a3 Framework Agreement p.1314 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9829131.Interpreter_fiasco_at_murder_trial/

It is not even clear that his wife was adequately qualified. No-one with the name of “Lone” (the husband’s name) appears onthe National Register of Public Service Interpreters website.

5 Framework Agreement pp126–127.6 http://linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/490-i-registered-with-als-with-fake-details-and-got-12-job-

offers



copy of my draft as a Appendix 1 to this submission). It was not a long document. I asked the interpreter totranslate it into Nepalese. She took a very long time indeed to do so, making extensive use of a dictionary andappeared to make a number of telephone calls. It seemed that she was struggling with the task, althougheventually a Nepalese document was produced which Mr Lechharbo signed. I cannot say that the documentwas mistranslated—I have no idea—but the suggestion that anybody should be considered suitable to act as acourt interpreter when they are unable to translate routine yet important legal documents of this sortdemonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the court interpreter’s role.

14. I should perhaps mention that following Mr Lechharbo’s guilty plea the case was adjourned for sentence.On the first occasion ALS failed to supply any interpreter (despite having had three weeks notice of the hearing)and the judge had no option but to adjourn the case for a further couple of weeks. As a result I emailed LouisaCarrad the Ministry of Justice Interpretation Project Manager setting out my concerns. I attach a copy of thisemail as Appendix 2. I received no response from either Ms Carrad or anyone else at the Ministry of Justice.On the second occasion ALS again failed to supply any interpreter. Eventually the defendant’s son, who spokereasonable English but had no training or experience of any sort, was persuaded to act as the court interpreter.With the co-operation of prosecution counsel who supplied him with a written copy of his opening (which hewas allowed about 30 minutes to study) he was able to interpret most of the prosecution case. He was unableto interpret any of the Judge’s sentencing remarks.

15. This was a disgraceful state of affairs: that a system should have been set up that on two separateoccasions simply failed to supply any interpreter in a serious case in which one defendant spoke very limitedEnglish and one spoke none at all.

16. Both the European Convention on Human Rights7 and the October 2010/64 EU Directive oninterpretation and translation in criminal proceedings make it the duty of Government to ensure that properprovision is made to ensure that accused persons are provided with adequate interpretation and translationservices. Common law principles of fairness demand the same thing. My own experience demonstrates that asa direct result of the Framework Agreement this basic duty of government has been breached in ways that areunfair and very probably also unlawful.

17. The Framework Agreement may directly breach Article 5 of the EU Directive which provides:

(1) Member states shall take concrete measures to ensure that the interpretation and translationprovided meets the quality required under Article 2 (8) and 3 (9).

(2) In order to promote the adequacy of interpretation and translation and efficient access thereto,Member States shall endeavour to establish a register or register of independent translatorsand interpreters who are appropriately qualified. Once established, such register or registersshall, where appropriate, be made available to legal counsel and relevant authorities.

One effect of the Framework Agreement is that if ALS (or for that matter any other single provider) becomeestablished as the sole provider of interpretation services in the criminal courts there would no longer be anypurpose served by the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. Independent interpreters would nolonger have any reason to join and it would wither and die. There would then no longer be a register of“independent translators and interpreters who are appropriately qualified”.

18. It therefore seems to me that the highly probable result of continuing with the Framework Agreementwith ALS will be that the profession of court interpreting will be seriously damaged. Highly skilled andcompetent individuals will leave the profession and the criminal justice system will once again have to rely onunder-qualified, underpaid and inexperienced bilinguals. All the advances made since Runciman and Auld willbe reversed.

19. This would not be a price worth paying even if the savings in public money were as promised by thegovernment. In practice however I have little doubt that the cost to the public purse will actually be far greaterthan any notional savings that may have been envisaged when the Framework Agreement was signed.

20. It is important that in considering the financial implications of the Framework Agreement the SelectCommittee should not look at the interpreting budget in isolation. It is easy to reduce the interpreting budgetif no interpreter is supplied for a case, but this greatly increases the cost to the public. For example, in casessuch as that I have described in this submission, the actual cost to the interpreting budget will have been nilas no interpreter turned up at all on two hearings. In fact, however, the costs of four counsel, judge and courtwere wasted on an abortive sentencing hearing. The cost to the public under the old system would have beenan interpreter at £85 (plus modest travel expenses) and the case would have been disposed of in one hearing.

21. The Select Committee also needs to scrutinise any figures for such matters as “court cancelled”interpreters with great care. I know from speaking to court managers that on some occasions hearings have7 Art. 6 (3):

Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation againsthim;(b)...(c) ...(d) ...;(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.



been cancelled—sometimes at very short notice—simply because ALS has indicated that it has not been ableto supply any interpreters for a particular hearing. If this is categorised as a “court cancelled” assignment itmay conceal the fact that the only reason that the assignment was cancelled was because ALS could not supplyan interpreter.

22. There may have been a perception that costs of court interpreting were in some way out of control beforethe introduction of the Framework Agreement. But the Ministry of Justice’s own figures do not seem to bearthis out. The total spent by the Court Service on interpreters fell by 13% from £49.2 million in 2009–10 to£47.2 million in 2010–11.8

23. I note from the Paragraph 38 of the Framework Agreement that the Government has the option to cancelthe contract on three months notice. This is irrespective of any right to cancel on the basis of poor performanceby ALS. In my opinion the agreement has not worked and the effect on court interpreting services has been somalign that its continuance will be a running sore on the administration of justice. If the agreement remains inplace unqualified interpreters will make mistakes, non-English speaking witnesses and defendants will behandicapped and unfair trials will take place. The effects on the integrity of our criminal justice system areunquantifiable, as is the increased cost to the public purse of the delays, adjournments, appeals and retrials thatwill result. The existing well-qualified profession of court interpreters will cease to exist and be replaced by aless professional and less well-qualified body of casual workers.

24. I would therefore urge the Select Committee to invite the Government to exercise its power to cancelthe Framework Agreement before further public money is wasted and further injustice is caused.

August 2012

APPENDIX 1

R v. Dilli Jung Lechharbo

BASIS OF PLEA

I plead guilty to Counts 5 and 6 on the indictment on the following basis:

Count 6

1. Although I believe Bishwa did fall whilst playing football, I did not myself see any injuries on himafterwards. Nor had anyone else told me that he had been injured in this incident. I therefore do notknow whether he was injured or not by this fall. For this reason I accept that when I wrote in theletter at Exhibit Pages 72–74:

“tell them on Sunday 28th April (sic), while Bishwa was playing football with his male friendsoutside the house there had suffered a serious injury …”

I was asking my wife to say something that I did not know to be true, with the intention that thepolice would be misled.

Count 5

2. I accept that at Exhibit Pages 109 and 121 in the course of telephone conversations with my wife Iasked her to say that Bishwa had injured himself by falling over playing football, or while doingkung fu. I accept that this was speculation as I did not know that he had been injured in this way. Itherefore accept that again I was asking my wife to say something that I did not know to be true,with the intention that the police would be misled.

Signed ….

APPENDIX 2

From: Matthew Scott Sent: Fri 3/2/2012 12:23PM

To: [email protected]:Subject: Interpreter problems

Attachments:

Dear Ms Carrad

I have been given your email address as the person at the MoJ responsible for administering problems withthe company supposedly supplying interpreters to court.

Through no fault of Winchester Crown Court the sentencing hearing of three Nepalese speakers had to beadjourned for a month today because no interpreter was available. I was representing one of those due to be8 Ministry of Justice FOI 70507 June 2011.



sentenced today and understandably he was extremely upset. The case (R v. Dilli Lechharbo & others) involvedallegations of cruelty to a child and perverting the course of justice.

I thought perhaps you should be made aware as it appears that this has become a widespread problem sincethe introduction of new contractual arrangements for the hiring of court interpreters.

Yours sincerely

Matthew Scott

Rated as a “top ranked set” by Chambers and Partners Guide to the UK Legal Profession

GetRankingImage.jpg

LONDON3 Pump Court, Temple,London EC4Y 7AJDX: 362 London, Chancery Lane020 7353 0711Fax: 0845 259 3240

Written evidence from Elder Rahimi Solicitors

We are a Chambers ranked firm of solicitors specialising in immigration and asylum. The bulk of our clientsare legally aided. We have on average 10–20 appeal hearings listed each week before the Immigration andAsylum Chamber, mainly in London but also before the regional Courts.

Since the provision of interpreters at the Immigration and Asylum Chamber was taken over by ALS thequality of interpreters has dropped significantly and unacceptably given the serious issues being determined bythe IAC. In addition to the distress caused to our clients, the inconvenience to the Tribunal and our alreadyover stretched staff, the costs to the LSC are also higher. We have no option now but to obtain LSC fundingfor an independent interpreter to attend all hearings as the quality of the interpreters at the IAC cannot berelied on. Additionally a significant number of hearings adjourn due to problems with the interpreter becomingevident. This increases to the costs to the legal aid fund, in addition to the increased costs to the MOJ relatingto adjournment of hearings.

A simple and representative example is the case of appeal—AA/05798.2012. The full hearing of this asylumappeal was listed at the Taylor House hearing centre on 20 July 2012. A Lingala interpreter had been booked.Lingala is only spoken in the DRC. An asylum appeal is a stressful matter where the Appellant is likely tohave to give oral evidence of torture, mistreatment, loss of family members etc. Our clients are often extremelyvulnerable in the run up to hearings. As far as possible so as to minimise this stress we do what we can toensure that hearings are effective and that adjournments are not needed. Early on in the hearing the client madeclear that she was having problems with the interpreter who was using many French words. Not all DRCnationals speak French, in fact probably the majority do not. The interpreter was asked not to use Frenchwords. However shortly it became clear that the interpreter could not interpret adequately and the haring wasstopped. Investigation disclosed that the interpreter was in fact from Cameroon. Nowhere in Cameroon isLingala spoken. Clearly the view had been taken that an interpreter from any Francophone African countrywould do. The hearing was adjourned and has been re-listed for 6 August 2012.

This would not have happened in the past at the IAC. The quality of the Lingala interpreters was generallyhigh and we would not have routinely booked an independent interpreter to attend the hearing. Usually the feefor this is £80–£120 depending on how long the hearing lasts. The additional cost to the legal aid fund in thiscase due to the ALS contract is likely to be in the region of; two x independent interpreter fees estimated at£100—so £200, the additional hearing fee paid by the LSC due to the adjourned hearing £175—the additionaltravel of our advocate—say £10, so a total of roughly £400 on the basis that the next hearing of the appeal iseffective. There is of course the additional costs to this firm in organising the adjourned hearing and dealingwith the client and advocate in relation to it, to the IAC in organising the adjourned hearing, the cost to theNational Asylum Support Service of funding the Appellant’s travel to the IAC for the additional hearing andgenerally the stress to the client.

I could provide you with many other similar examples. The routine booking of Farsi interpreters when aDari interpreter is requested—these are not the same languages! Afghan Pashu interpreters for Baloch Pashtuspeakers—they can barely understand each other!

From the point of view of the interpreters effected by the ALS contract, many of the highly skilled andexperienced interpreters that this firm has worked with over the last decade are no longer able to make a living.They are asked to work for frankly insulting rates of pay by ALS. There is a complete lack of transparencyand fairness in the ALS procedures. Interpreters of similar levels of experience are being paid different rates,individual interpreters who have agreed to work with ALS have negotiated individual rates of pay above theadvertised ALS rates etc.



Years of effort went into trying to improve the quality of interpreters for this firm’s client group, at UKBAand at the Tribunal. Interpreters were encouraged to train and to register with professional bodies. Many paidlarge sums to obtain the necessary qualifications and registrations. All prisons now insist that registeredinterpreters are used on visits as do all best practice standards. These requirements did improve the quality ofthe interpreter pool and were positive. The move to the ASL contract reverses all these gains. The ALSrequirements for the interpreters they use are frankly laughable. We are returning to a situation of unskilledand inexperienced interpreters being used which is simply unacceptable and shameful in the context ofparticularly asylum and human rights protection cases.

July 2012

Written evidence from Colvin de Silva

As an Interpreter on the National Register, I would like to make the following observations to theParliamentary Committee that is appointed to go into the MOJ/ALS contract for interpreting and translationactivities in the Justice sector.

It is clear that the contractor ALS has miserably failed to honour the obligations to the Courts under thecontract and also failed to find qualified and tested interpreters to work for them due to low wages offered.This situation has undoubtedly affected the quality of such services and frustrated the smooth working of courts.

When similar conditions arose is two sectors, the government stepped in and took control and remedialaction was taken swiftly.

Case 1 concerning Immigration Advisors who worked without any regulation and control. The governmentcreated the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner and thus settled the fluid situation.

Case 2 concerning the Mortgage and Financial Services. In a situation that this sector was without anyregulation, the Government took steps to created the Financial Service Authority and brought about asatisfactory solution to all those in this sector.

My humble suggestion to the Parliamentary Committee is to bring Interpreters and Translators under thecontrol of an independent state controlled body who will be charged with responsibility of regulating the sector.

August 2012

Written evidence from Susanna Garcia

I am writing to you in my capacity as a freelance translator/interpreter. I am on the National Register ofPublic Service Interpreters and my registration number is 12973. I am registered for the provision of Italianlanguage services and have full status. I am a member of the Society for Public Service Interpreting Ltd andthe Professional Interpreters Alliance. I have a BA (Joint Honours) in Italian and French, an MA in Translationwith Language Technology (Italian and French) where I received Distinction for my interpreting module, andthe Metropolitan Police Test in Italian. I have over 30 years in translation and interpreting and therefore feelthat I am fully qualified to express my opinion regarding the outsourcing of provision.

Moreover, at the time of writing I am the only PSI registered for Italian in the whole of Wales. As thereis none registered for the Southwest, I have frequently travelled to this region to provide services at thehighest level.

In summary, the points I wish to cover are:

(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 havebeen effective.

(6) The appropriateness of arrangements for monitoring the management of the contract, includingthe quality and cost-effectiveness of the service delivered.

1. The rationale was driven by cost considerations rather than quality. This was apparent in the tariff offeredwhich was greatly below the previous arrangement. The interpreters on the national register were in no wayconsulted and it was presumptuous to assume without consultation that over 2000 highly qualified professionalswould just accept derisory rates. ALS stated that they would achieve savings in excess of £50 million over thefive year period of the FWA with savings of £12 million in the first year alone. This has clearly been shownnot to be the case.

2. N/A.



3. On a personal level, the system for allocating the nearest interpreter to the desired location has beenabused with interpreters accepting jobs in distant locations to take advantage of increased travel time andmileage. This will be documented by one of the professional organisations. In my own case, I refused twolocal court assignments which meant that ALS has had to provide an alternative interpreter thereby increasingcost. If ALS had respected my experience and that of my colleagues, this situation would be not be arising ona daily basis.

4. It is my understanding that ALS is responsible for dealing with complaints about its services, which issurely an inappropriate safety net. However, there have been instances of ALS being summoned to court toanswer insufficient provision of services. It is unacceptable that a company should police itself in this manner.

5. N/A.

6. There are most obviously doubts on this front otherwise this Commission would not be sitting nor wouldthe National Audit Office be investigating the situation. For myself, I can testify that the number of interpretersALS holds on its register is incorrect, as, despite the fact that I requested the removal of my name from theirbooks on three occasions, it is still there.

In conclusion, none of the six areas would even need to be considered if not for the lack of understandingand respect for the nature of interpreting at this level. All other qualified professionals working within theJustice system are recognised as such. Failure to afford the same courtesy to our skilled profession has resultedin what is now effectively a two tier system, where ALS by necessity is being propped up by those NRPSIinterpreters still accepting calls from the courts. It should be understood that being able to communicate in agiven language does not make someone an interpreter, any more than being able to express a view on a legalmatter in the popular press entitles that person to call themselves a judge.

Should you have any queries or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I havenot dwelt on any areas that have not impacted on myself directly as the professional organisations representinginterpreters will be submitting evidence of poor quality interpreting, false statistics and unqualified interpreterson our behalf.

August 2012

Written evidence from Zornitsa Stoyanova

New Inquiry: Interpretation and Translation services and the Applied Language Solutionscontract

My name is Zornitsa Stoyanova and as an interpreter for the Bulgarian language I would like to share mypersonal experience with Applied Language Solutions (ALS). What I will try to do in this submission is toshow the flaws (in my view) of the arrangement for the provision of interpreting services and the how itis operating.

I have been interpreting for few years; I do not hold any interpreting qualifications apart from taking coupleof induction courses on public service interpreting. At the moment I await results on my DPSI exam which Isat in June this year.

After I registered with ALS I was invited for an assessment but refused to pay to be assessed by them. Theintroduction of assessment of linguist by ALS was not welcomed by many linguists—at the end of the day weall know that if you want to be a professional legal interpreter there is only one proven qualification and thisis the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI) provided by the Chartered Institute of Linguists and theNational Register of Public Service Interpreters is a great source of qualified interpreters in many languages.

I did not attend an assessment, I registered on ALS’s website http://www.linguistlounge.com and detailedmy modest induction qualifications, experience and also stated that I do hold an enhanced CRB check datedAugust 2008.

To date I have not uploaded a copy of my CRB check, copies of qualifications of references—as far as ALSwere concerned at this point they did not have a clue if I could speak English, let alone interpreting for thelegal sector.

Since registering I have been “marked” as a Tier 1 interpreter which is the highest qualified Tier for holdersof qualifications as per the Framework Agreement. I stayed as a Tier 1 for at least two months. I was then“demoted” to Tier 3 interpreter and at this present moment I am with Tier status as N/A for reasons unclearto me.

Since registering with ALS in December 2011 up until the present date I have been offered work by ALS.The work offered to me by ALS varies between Magistrate Courts, Crown Courts, Employment Tribunal. I amnot qualified to carry out any of those assignments. The work was offered to me via telephone calls, textmessages and e-mails. I have been contacted probably hundreds of times by ALS offering me work. I do havea phone call logs from my mobile as well as text messages and e-mails to prove it.



Apart from that there was one other thing worth mentioning with regards to how they operate—at least fivetimes the assignments offered to me were for the same day, sometimes I would receive a text message at 10:00am for a court hearing that starts on the same day at 10:00?!

On 8 March 2012 I accepted an assignment from ALS for Plea and Case Management Hearing at GuildfordCrown Court for 23 March 2012, reference 45EL0378410STOYANOV Dimitar T. The assignment wasconfirmed as mine by ALS one hour after my acceptance. On the morning of the assignment I had a realitycheck and sent an email letter to ALS stating that I am not going to go because although I would really liketo do court work I am not qualified I shouldn’t be there. Below is the content of my e-mail:

“Dear colleagues,

I am writing regarding the above job that was assigned to me some time ago. Although I waspleasantly surprised to be receiving offers for court work I have to say that after a reality check thismorning I realised that I am neither qualified nor experienced to carry out such interpreting taskwhich bears a high level of responsibility.

I do not have:

Qualification in legal interpreting

Experience in court

If I don’t do this job properly this can easily lead to miscarriage of justice and this is not aresponsibility that I am prepared to take. I do not have a professional qualification to “fall” back on.

I sincerely hope you understand.

Zornitsa Stoyanova”

Minutes later I received a standard cancelation email from ALS stating that I am no longer required to attendthe booking. There was no follow up call, no discussion, nothing. After that ALS kept offering me court jobs.To me this is outrageous professional behaviour which is purely unacceptable. ALS made it absolutely clearto me that they are not concerned about the quality of the service provided and are prepared to “send” justanybody to interpret in court.

1. From my personal experience and view ALS did offer me plenty of work within the criminaljustice system without seeing a copy of my CRB (which is three years old), without checkingany of the information I have provided to them, without asking me for references, and mostimportantly without making sure I am qualified for these jobs. At no point I have provided anyof my references, CRB check or qualifications to ALS.

2. ALS qualified me as Tier 1, Tier 3 and Tier: n/a without any grounds or proof and mostimportantly they kept offering me Tier 1 work throughout. Clearly breaching the FrameworkAgreement.

3. All of the above happened because of the general flaw in ALS’s concept for providinginterpreting services in the legal sector. Here is the view that many of my colleagues and meshare on the rationale for changing arrangements for the provision of interpreter services Theattempt to introduce a three-tier system of interpreter “competence”. There is simply no soundbasis for this model in the field or indeed in applied linguistics research into interpretingactivities. It is analogous to saying you need a fully trained surgeon to perform open heartsurgery, but you can manage with a untrained nurse for having your appendix out, or somethingelse considered to be “less serious”. In short, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding ofthe processes involved.

4. The attempt unilaterally to slash professional rates of pay and conditions. The rates payablebefore were after all designed and agreed by the MoJ Civil Servants themselves in 2002, sothey did not just get inflated to that level by time or some other irrational process. It does notrequire great insight into economics to see that, in a market place, if you unilaterally reducethe amount you will pay for a product, providers of that product will stop supplying you. Andthis is not an area where you can simply replace the original product by a cheaper one of alower standard (see 3 above).

As you can see my first two points cover my personal experience with ALS and the Framework Agreementshowing fundamental breaches of the latter.

Points 3 and 4 cover two very obvious flaws in the arrangement for the provision of interpreting serviceswhich I hope the Committee will take into account if making any recommendations.

I do have factual information and proof to all statements I have made in this submission. These can beprovided if so requested.

August 2012



Written evidence from SE Suffolk Bench

Interpreters 2012

1. This paper will be rather briefer than originally intended since; the lengthy reorganisation of theadministrative team for Suffolk has led to a situation whereby, no historical record has been maintained offailures to provide interpreters, despite notifications from the benches who experienced problems during theirsittings.

2. Historically the Bench had received a good service from locally booked interpreters, which were arrangedby the court office. I cannot recall a single occurrence, over the 12 years prior to the new contract, when abench was not provided with an interpreter.

3. Upon the introduction of the new contract we all felt that we had no control and that there was littleconcept of customer service; complaints were fobbed off for months by the centre with promises ofimprovements in the future. Despite asking we still have no information about the operation of the contract orof the performance indicators by which it is measured.

4. From the outset I was forwarded regular complaints from colleagues who were unable to progress mattersfor the lack of an interpreter, something that was only brought to their attention at the start of the day’sbusiness. In addition to the wasted court time, caused by unnecessary adjournments, a number of defendantswho appeared in custody had to be remanded in custody for lack of information. From personal experience I amaware that this caused emotional distress since it was impossible to communicate our reasons to the defendant.

5. My initial perception was that problems occurred every few days; unhappily I am unable to substantiatethis due to the lack of local records mentioned above.

6. We continue to have problems, albeit not of the same magnitude, the most recent being a fortnight ago.Remaining issues for us are:

(a) Difficulty in providing Eastern European interpreters e.g. Polish, Lithuanian, resulting in ushaving to rely on the linguistic skills of magistrates or “Google Translator”.

(b) A lack of confidence in the quality of some interpreters, there are instances where the defendantgive the impression that they do not understand what is being said to them,

(c) The cost (and delay to the court) of having interpreters sent from as far away as Newcastleupon Tyne to Ipswich,

(d) Despite the recent improvements they have been insufficient to give the Bench full confidencein either the service provider or the contact management team—does one actually exist andwill they ever communicate with their “customers”?

7. Sadly this note lacks the detailed substance that it deserves, as with many things caused by the recentupheaval in HMCTS. I am unable to effectively convey the anger expressed by colleagues at the Bench ½-year meeting but suffice to say that there have been few issues over the past few years which have so galvanisedthe membership. I hope that these few lines are of assistance to you?

August 2012

Written evidence from Yelena McCafferty

I am one of the interpreters who started running a website to monitor ALS’s under-performance and failureto provide a quality and efficient service under the contract, by publishing evidence submitted to us by courtobservers, courts users, such as solicitors, and anyone else who witnessed incidents of poor service in courtsacross England and Wales. The website address is www.linguistlounge.org.

I have been astounded by the sheer number of submissions we received through the website and I alsorealise it’s only a fraction of what has been going on in courts and tribunals up and down the country. It’s clearfrom the evidence submitted to us that the contract has been an utter failure. To date we have collected 137reports of unacceptable performance at courts pointing at the contractor’s inability to provide interpreters forthe time slots as booked by the court staff (1), [here and thereafter the number points to a source referencegiven in the Appendix at the end of the submission]), to supply interpreters at all (2) or to ensure the serviceof the expected quality, eg correct interpreting during court proceedings (3). Such stories exposing the appallinglevel of service maintained by ALS also reveal the extent of consequences it has for justice in the UK aswitnesses have heard verdicts mistranslated (4), evidence distorted (5) and bail conditions misinterpreted oromitted all together (6). Whole trials also halted as no interpreters attended (7).

Witness reports also demonstrate the negative impact the new contract has had on people who have had touse the court service. Defendants have had to attend court hearings which didn’t go ahead after severaladjournments in a row because ALS failed to provide an interpreter (8), which meant such people’s cases wereleft unresolved, they lost daily incomes by taking time off work to attend court in vain on numerous occasions;some criminals walked out of courts unpunished and potentially posing a threat to the society at large, others



were remanded into custody at the tax-payer’s expense (9), often for “simple” offences such as shop thefts asthe justices were concerned about them re-offending if allowed out of court until the next adjourned hearing.

Another frightening point observers make in their submissions is the absence of vetting, previous interpretingexperience or proper qualifications (10). We have even had a report from an ALS insider, commenting on ALSjob tiers, ALS “colleagues” and assessment (11).

Court observers and newspaper reporters speak of ALS sending wrong language interpreters too (12), whichindicates either system incompetence or a deliberate attempt to improve statistics by all available means.

The news section on our website contains 178 news stories on the issue of ALS’s underperformance (13),as reported by national and local newspapers, TV and radio stations. They highlight the extent of thecontractor’s failure to rectify the service (14), as interpreters fail to attend or make mistakes (15), lack ofappropriate monitoring when unqualified relatives of ALS interpreters attend court as substitutes (16), as wellas total disregard to making the promised savings when ALS linguists are sent to courts hundreds of milesaway (17). Special attention is drawn to an investigation carried out by the BBC which revealed that securityvetting of ALS interpreters didn’t exist (18).

The Comment and Analysis section of the site presents analytical articles exposing the faults of theFramework Agreement with ALS. A good example is our Framework Fantasies series run by regularcontributors, which until today has looked into such items of the Framework Agreement as key performanceindicators (19), geo location software and use of modern technology (20), availability of all languages withina 25 mile radius (21), back to back assignments (22), continuous professional development (23), securityvetting (24) and number of interpreters working for ALS under the contract (25). The last point, ie refusal ofthe majority of professional interpreters to work under the Framework Agreement, is reinforced by the Videossection (26) of our website, with four videos focused on the demonstrations qualified interpreters held in springthis year.

Some of the letters published and responses received demonstrate the Ministry of Justice’s refusal to discloseany details of the way the service is implemented. A good illustration of this is the Ministry’s refusal to answersimple questions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In one instance the Ministry refused to answeronly one question about the total number of cases which were adjourned by only one court where no interpreterwas provided, since the ALS contract went live (27). The reason for refusing to provide the answer was thatit would cost more than 600 pounds and take more than 3.5 working days to do a file search. Last year, beforethe Ministry entered into the contract with the new supplier for court interpreting services (ALS), a request forinformation with three (3) questions across the whole Tribunal Service received a detailed answer (28). Theinformation requested concerns Year 2011, before ALS started the contract. Even a request with five (5!)questions on court interpreting statistics before ALS took over was honoured by the Ministry’s Data Accessand Compliance Unit (29). Considering the fact that there has been a lot of negative publicity about thecontractor failing to deliver the service under the Framework Agreement it appears that the Ministry isdeliberately trying to withhold any details they can to prevent the situation from looking even worse andpresenting them in an unfavourable light.

However hard the Ministry of Justice may try to turn a blind to this evidence and hope for the contractor toimprove, the improvement is highly unlikely as courts continue calling interpreters direct at the “old” rates(30) and through other agencies (31). Although the fulfilment rates may look better, the quality remainsunacceptable as our numerous stories demonstrate (32). The majority of professional and qualified interpreterswill not work for ALS (25).

I hope you will take the time to browse through the website www.linguistlounge.org and read some of theevidence we have collected from trustworthy sources and published in the public domain. I would be delightedto answer any queries you may have.

August 2012

APPENDIX

SOURCES QUOTED IN THE MAIN DOCUMENT

1. Distressed Vulnerable Adult and Wasted Costs as ALS Interpreter Fails to Attend on Timehttp://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/486

2. No interpreter at Taunton Magistrates’ Court this morning http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/393

3. ALS interpreter sent home by Crown Court Judge for being incompetent http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/372

4. ALS linguist fails to interpret a 15-year prison sentence http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/338

5. Tier 3 linguist in action, Skegness Magistrates’ Court http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/207



6. Observation of performance of Polish ALS interpreters in a Magistrates Courthttp://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/213

7. Trial Halted at Leeds Crown Court as No Interpreter Present http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/86

8. More relatives act as interpreters in courts http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/282

9. Judge Orders Another Adjournment http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/158

10. ALS/Capita subcontractor sent to court after admitting he had no qualifications or experiencehttp://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/447

11. Applied Language Solutions Exposed by an Insider http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/88

12. Why does Applied Language Solutions send wrong language interpreters? http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/442

13. “Self-serving” interpreter figures slammed http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/news/425

14. Court cases hampered by translation failures http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/news/408

15. Trial collapses at Snaresbrook court after interpreter error http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/news/317

16. Daily Mail: Trial stopped as murder case translator was only there because his wife—the realinterpreter—was “too busy to show up” http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/news/509

17. Interpreter travels 560 miles for Ipswich court case http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/news/257

18. BBC News: Court interpreter checks “non-existent” http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/news/534

19. Framework Fantasies: Unachievable Promises Made to be Broken http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/437

20. Framework Fantasies: modern technology which doesn’t work http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/448

21. Framework Fantasies: availability of all languages within a 25 mile radius http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/460

22. Framework Fantasies: back-to-back assignments http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/484

23. Framework Fantasies: Continuous Professional Development http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/491

24. Framework Fantasies: security vetting http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/517

25. Framework Fantasies: number of interpreters working under FWA http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/528

26. http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/videos

27. MOJ refuses to answer an FoI request with one question about one court as it costs over £600!http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/the-letters-page/441

28. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/information-access-rights/foi-disclosure-log/courts-tribunals/foi-74533-interpreting-for-tribunal-service-30–09–11.doc

29. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/information-access-rights/foi-disclosure-log/courts-tribunals/foi-74506-interpreting-for-tribunal-service-equality-standards.doc

30. Direct court interpreting requests continue http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/468

31. Courts Receive Help from Other Agencies as ALS Fails—Is this what the Framework Agreement isAbout? http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/234

32. Defendant found not guilty, ALS/Capita interpreter says nothing http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/489



Written evidence from Saadia Ahmad

I am a freelance qualified and experienced interpreter and translator with 13 years of experience. I haveworked in the Court service for a long time.

1. I successfully applied to register with Applied Language Solutions in October 2011.

I have various Diplomas from Institute of Linguists and passed police tests as well.

2. I sat all their oral and written tests in October, December and in January 2012 but to this day they havenot checked my assessments and they have not given me my results. In spite of repeated written requests theyhave not replied to my requests. The fact is they never had these assessments checked.

Therefore all the other interpreter’s assessments have not been checked either. So the new interpreters/or thepeople who recently registered with ALS but do not have interpreting qualifications are being sent to courtswithout any assessments and not knowing who has passed and who has not.

This is a deception for the Criminal Court system. This is also breach of their contract in which they saidthat only qualified interpreters will be sent to courts:

(a) The new interpreters do not have any qualifications.

(b) Even if they sat the tests the tests have not been checked.

(c) I have been charged £120 for tests but tests not marked.

3. In the recent case of an interpreter Mubarak Lone sent to court at Winchester where the trial was halted,it was not the interpreters fault that he attended court as he believed that he had sat the tests so he is qualifiedthat is why he was on their list.

4. There is no fair system of vetting or CRB checks. Some interpreters are being scrutinized beyond CRB(Criminal bureau Checks) and most interpreters do not have any vetting at all.

5. When I went for assessments they asked me to fill in vetting forms. To this day they have not providedme with my vetting results in spite of repeated requests. I have made these requests under the Freedom ofInformation Act but still not received any reply.

6. They treat interpreters as worthless commodities. They are rude. When we, the interpreters ask forinformation they don’t reply to us. They don’t reply to our phone calls, e mails.

If we ask them more than once they threaten us with police action .Interpreters have no rights with thiscompany .there are no rules or fair procedures. When we complain about something they don’t respond to anyof our complains. They tell the court that an interpreter has been sent but actually they have not found anyinterpreter for that job so no one has actually been asked .

7. This contract has been obtained by lying and they keep covering up their lies by not providing informationto interpreters.

8. The accounting system is flawed. Once we finish a job the system does not let us close the job for 24hours and when we do close the job it gives us EXTRA money for the 24 hours although we have not workedfor those hours. If interpreters are not honest they can accept that payment without raising the enquiry.

9. They have control to our jobs details they can change as they like. There is no fair, honest invoicingsystem which will lead to losses to the Public and Ministry of Justice.

10. There is no system what so ever. Left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. What ever theytell to interpreters turns out to be a lie. Then they say that the last person who told you something has left theCompany so we are not responsible. No matter who is working for the company is responsible for their actions,i.e. the actions of their employees.

11. They tell lies after lies.

I wish to attend the enquiry in person so I can bring proofs with me.

August 2012

Written evidence from Orsolya Mance

I was very pleased to hear that a new inquiry is being conducted regarding the Applied Language SolutionsContract and the provision of Interpretation and Translation services.

I am writing in a personal capacity as a Registered Public Service Interpreter (RPSI), and I would like tomake the following submission regarding some of the questions raised by the inquiry.

In my view, the MoJ’s Framework Agreement with ALS turns back the clock on decades of policydevelopment. The scrapped National Agreement on Arrangements for the use of Interpreters, Translators andLanguage Service Professionals in Investigations and Proceedings within the Criminal Justice System, as



revised 2007 was introduced to address concerns raised by Lord Runciman about the difficulty of obtaininggood quality interpreters in his report on the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in July 1993, and LordJustice Auld’s Review of Criminal Justice in 2001. In 2006 a Home Office Circular (17/2006) reinforced theimportance of the National Agreement and the quality of interpreting services, and subsequent amendmentswere made to strengthen the National Agreement, ensuring only registered and qualified interpreters couldpractise in the Criminal Justice System.

The Rationale for Changing Arrangements for the Provision of Interpreter Services

1. The MoJ informed stakeholders on 6 July 2011 that “collaborative authorities” had “concerns that NRPSIregistration does not necessarily guarantee quality. The evidence is anecdotal, but consistent enough to warrantaction”. The monumental and costly changes to interpreting provision were made on the basis of “anecdotalevidence”, not facts or an actual assessment of the situation and problems.

2. Mr Blunt himself made the following statement in Parliament on 13 March 2012: “Some of the problems,strangely enough, came from the interpreters who, on finding that under the new payment regime they couldno longer earn six-figure salaries, as they could under the previous administration.”—demonstrating that monthsinto the new Framework Agreement he had no idea how the previous system had worked. Interpreters neverearned salaries (we are all freelance, without pension provisions, holiday entitlement or any other benefits thatcome with employment), let alone six-figure ones.

The Nature and Appropriateness of the Procurement Process

3. Interpreters repeatedly expressed their concern that, as was apparent from the annual financial accountsof ALS Ltd, the company was not sufficiently large or financially secure to handle a contract of this magnitude.ALS’s highest turnover was £6 million, with which the company booked a profit of only £76,000. The companyalso had significant loans and charges.

4. ALS seems to have been awarded the FWA based on the lowest promised cost—but I believe that theCompany’s ability to deliver at this cost was never scrutinised. It seems that ALS was aware from the outsetof its inability to deliver a contract this size at the prices promised—this is why Mr Wheeldon sold ALS toCapita as soon as the FWA was in place (and subsequently left the Company).

5. On 15 March 2012 Mr Blunt stated on the Radio 4 Today programme that ALS was “the best” companyto apply for the contract and that it had since been taken over by professional services firm Capita and so had“substantial resources behind them to make sure this works”. This suggests either that Mr Blunt was aware ofthe takeover plan before the FWA was awarded, in which case it would not have been a fair process, or thathe admitted that ALS needed substantially more resources than were at its disposal, which should have beentaken into consideration before it was awarded the FWA.

The Appropriateness of Arrangements for Monitoring the Management of the Contract,including the Quality and Cost-effectiveness of the Service Delivered

6. ALS allows unqualified and inexperienced bilinguals to practise in the CJS. The lowering of minimumstandards for CJS interpreters is the consequence of introducing a system that places interpreters andinterpreting assignments into different Tiers according to the score given in ALS’ compulsory assessment. Theflawed design of the Tier system does not reflect the realities of the work, and in practice the provider, ALS,will be supplying unqualified persons drawn from the lowest Tiers.

7. It seems that no data is being collated about the overall cost of adjournments and retrials where this wasa result of a failure to provide an appropriate interpreter, nor the cost of interpreters that were booked directlyby the courts or other agencies. Without this data it is impossible to assess the overall cost-effectiveness ofthe service.

Both as an interpreter and as a UK taxpayer, I am convinced that the MoJ’s Framework Agreement withApplied Language Solutions Ltd does not serve the interests of justice and that the procurement process wasseriously flawed.

September 2012



Written evidence from Eszter Fejes

I am a DPSI qualified Hungarian interpreter and translator, member of the National Register of PublicService Interpreters and the Chartered Institute of Linguists.

The profession has always been opposing the decision to outsource the interpreting services within thecriminal justice system. The majority of the interpreters on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters(NRPSI) have refused to join Applied Language Solutions as the working conditions ALS are offering areunacceptable. As you are aware, under the previous arrangements (National Agreement), all police and courtinterpreters had to be registered on the NRPSI, with a recognised qualification and proven extensive experience.However, since the new contract with ALS has been introduced, absolutely inexperienced, un-vetted andunqualified people, many without valid CRB clearance, are sent to interpret at police stations and courts.

I have personally witnessed some ALS “interpreters” at work and also spoken to many police officers andcourt staff and I have to admit I am rather disturbed at such a drastic drop in the standards that are nowrequired to work as a police and court interpreter. In fact, it looks like there are no longer any standards. SinceALS is in charge of supplying interpreters, suspects get bailed without having been interviewed, defendantsare remanded in custody and several cases are adjourned every day because of lack of interpreter. Thousandsof pounds of public money are being wasted every week and on several occasions human rights are beingcompromised.

1. 6 March 2012—Bradford Crown Court T20117270

R v. Naquash, Balogova, Danihel, Lakatos, Cicuova

Initially this case involved six defendants: three Hungarian-speaking defendants, one who speaks Hungarianas well as Slovak and he requested a Slovak interpreter, and also two Asian defendants who spoke the Urdulanguage. The trial was due to start on Monday 5 March, and was proposed to run for three weeks. Just before5 o’clock on Friday 2 March the trial was rescheduled to start one day later on 6 March as ALS informed thecourt that they were unable to supply interpreters for Monday.

On Day Two on Tuesday all defendants arrived at court but there were only two Hungarian interpreters—one of which has not got any interpreting qualification—and as ALS struggled to find a Slovak interpreter theysent a Czech interpreter instead! The Slovak-speaking defendant could not understand the Czech interpreter soby the end of the day his barrister made the decision to send the interpreter home and they requested that hetoo would get a Hungarian interpreter instead. This defendant complained that he did not understand anythingfrom the proceedings on the first day because of the language problem.

For Day Three ALS managed to find one more Hungarian interpreter so there were three interpreters nowfor four defendants. Not ideal but the court agreed to proceed anyway as they could not delay the trial for anylonger. This third interpreter was a young girl who did not seem to have any experience in court interpreting.The defendants complained that she just sat in silence and hardly translated anything whilst they were in thedock and when they asked her to translate she turned to her colleagues and asked them about what was goingon because she said she could not understand what the barristers were saying. This was the first and last timethis girl attended this trial. She did not come back the following day, I can only assume that she realised thatshe was unsuitable for the job.

On Day Four another Hungarian interpreter turned up and he carried on working on this case with the othertwo Hungarian interpreters until the end of the trial. He has no interpreting qualification and was travelling toBradford from Corby every day (270 miles round trip). One of the other interpreters was from Reading andshe stayed in a hotel for the duration of the trial (for three weeks) because it would have been too long for herto commute every day. I would like to add here that there are four qualified Hungarian interpreters on theNational Register of Public Service Interpreters within one hour travel distance from Bradford.

On Day Four the Prosecution still could not proceed because they had a new witness who only spoke Urdu.They needed to take a written statement from him and it turns out his interpreter cannot read or write Urdu! Ifnothing else, this is proof that this person has no relevant interpreting qualification because both DPSI andMET tests have a written part too. Even ALS assessments have a written test which means ALS supplied thecourt with an interpreter that they have never vetted. So the whole court had to stand by whilst they could findanother Urdu interpreter who could actually read and write too. Again I would like to add that there are 18qualified Urdu interpreters on the National Register who live within four miles of the court. Most of them mostlikely will not have registered with ALS.

I cannot comment on the quality of interpreting whilst the ALS interpreters were in the dock as I could nothear them, however, I did listen to one of these interpreters interpret for a defendant in the witness box. Hisinterpretation was very vague, to say the least. He was inaccurate. He did not translate everything word forword but instead he summarised the sentences and sometimes he also added some extra explanation to thequestions. Sometimes he translated a question in three different ways. His English grammar was rather poor.When he really struggled he also added words like “basically”, “actually”, “accordingly”. To give you someexamples of all of the above:



Exact translation of words said by the Hungariandefendant Translation of ALS interpreter

“I get hot flashes” “I have a problem…I have a warm feeling”“I convince myself that I am ill” “I imagine those kind of things…I have this problem

inside my head”“I said all sorts of lies” “I was lie.”“paramedic” “ambulance people”“they were holding hands like people in love” “they grabbed each other like a love couple”“I do not speak English” “I do not understand anything”“I have never been in a situation like this before” “I never had problem before”“Do you take any medication for depression?” “Did you take any medication because of

depression?”“Sibling” “Brother”“I do not want the wedding to happen” “I do not want to take part in this”

As an interpreter it is not our job to explain a question or summarise an answer or to judge what wasimportant and what was not. We are just there to translate everything word for word as accurately as possible.

I brought these issues to the attention of the barristers but by this time the trial was so behind schedule theydid not really want to delay it any further so they decided not to take any actions.

2. Leeds Crown Court 4 May 2012—T20117270

R v. Naquash, Balogova, Danihel, Lakatos, Cicuova

I have been asked by a solicitor to attend Leeds Crown Court on the day above to assist them and theirHungarian-speaking client who was due to be sentenced on this day after a long trial in March (please seedetails above).

There were four Hungarian defendants in this case but ALS only sent two Hungarian interpreters for thosefour defendants. Hungarian linguist No. 1 (HL1) was wearing her NRPSI badge despite the fact that she is noton the National Register anymore. I guess wearing an expired NRPSI badge is still less embarrassing thanwearing an ALS badge. When she swore in, she went into the dock and sat down in the back between two ofthe defendants.

And then came Hungarian Linguist No. 2. (HL2) She was asked to take the oath but first she did notunderstand what she was asked to do. Then she started reading out the oath in broken English and with a verystrong accent. She could not pronounce some words and generally really struggled. So the judge asked her:“Madam Interpreter, how good is your English?” She was just staring blankly. So the judge asked again, slowly,loudly and clearly: “Madam Interpreter, do you understand me?” Obviously she still didn’t because then shewas trying to hand over her ALS Claim Form to him. Then the usher went over and asked if she understoodthe judge. This time she said yes, she just could not hear him first. She said something like “I think my Englishis good.” The judge promised he would speak up. She went into the dock and sat in the first row between theother two defendants.

The hearing started, HL1 was simultaneously interpreting more or less everything for the two defendants inthe back, but HL2 was just sitting in silence. After about five minutes the judge asked her why she had notbeen translating the proceedings. Again, it felt that she did not understand the judge because she did not say aword. The judge explained that she should have been translating everything because so far the two defendantsnext to her did not have a clue about what had been discussed in the court room. She was very nervous andthen suddenly HL1 stood up and told the judge that it did not matter if HL2 was not translating because shewas and the other two defendants could just listen to her! The two barristers of these defendants stood upimmediately and demanded that their clients should have a competent interpreter, too. Then HL2 suddenly said(still sitting) “But I have understood everything that has been said so far”. The judge got really mad and askedHL2 to leave the court! He explained that her role was not to “understand” but to “translate” the proceedings.

Then the barrister who had booked me told the judge that there was another Hungarian Interpreter in thecourt room (me). He told him that I was a qualified and competent interpreter but do not work for the newagency (Applied Language Solutions). The barrister asked the judge if I could go in the dock and interpret forhis client. I stood up and told the judge that I was a qualified interpreter who used to work in the “old system”but refuse to work for ALS. I explained the reasons briefly but he seemed to have heard all about it anyway.He was very understanding and sympathetic. He described the new system as a “disgrace”. I told him that Idid not just boycott ALS but also all direct bookings and would normally refuse a request like this. However,I appreciate the seriousness of the situation and I am happy to help. In return I asked that he lodged a complaintabout this incident. He assured me that he would have done that anyway and he was very grateful that I helped.So I stepped inside the dock and we carried on.

When we finished, the judge thanked me again and left the court room. After this all solicitors and barristersapproached me and they all had lots of stories to tell me about ALS, how bad they are, how many problemsthey are having every day with ALS interpreters, etc.



After the hearing even HL1 disappeared very quickly so it was me who stayed for another 1.5 hour to helpall barristers one by one to consult with their clients who were now in custody.

I have no information as to whether the judge did lodge a complaint and if he did what actions were taken.Unfortunately, having heard about ALS’s vague complaints procedure, it is very likely that this interpreter isstill working today unless she herself realised that she is not competent and stopped working as an interpreter.

3. 11 June 2012—Bolton Police Station, Greater Manchester Police

I was called by GMP in the morning of 11 June 2011 and asked to attend Bolton Police Station to interviewa suspect who had been arrested on suspicion of rape. I understand that a colleague of mine (who also refusesto work for ALS) was also called to interpret for the victim in this case. ALS was unable to provide interpretersfor a serious case like this. I do not normally accept such assignments and the majority of my colleagues refusenot only to work for ALS but also to take direct bookings from those organisations who are signed up withALS. Professional interpreters stand united and do not wish to help ALS by filling in gaps and that way helpingto give that false impression that the new system works. However in this instant I was left in a very difficultsituation as the consequences of me refusing this request could have been very serious for the victim. Withthis in mind I decided to make an exception and accepted the assignment.

4. 3 August 2012—Leeds/Bradford, West Yorkshire Police

I had a call from a DC from West Yorkshire Police around 4.30pm on 3 August 2012. The officer asked ifI was available to take an urgent assignment with them. I refused the assignment and when I started explainingmy reasons the officer interrupted me and said he fully understood my reasons however if I did not help them“someone could die”. He explained that a Hungarian girl was kidnapped and they needed my help immediately.I was in a similar position to the previous example—regarding the circumstances and the fact that someone’slife was in danger I felt I had no choice but to accept the job.

5. 16 August 2012—Dewsbury Police Station, West Yorkshire

Three Hungarian suspects had to be bailed on Thursday 16 August 2012 at Dewsbury Police Station becauseALS was unable to send an interpreter to assist in their interviews. They were arrested on suspicion of theft.They were kept in custody overnight and the police requested an interpreter to come to the police station for9.00 am. At 9.00 am ALS called and told the police that the earliest they could send an interpreter would be11.00 am. At 11.00 am ALS rang again and said that the interpreter will not get there until 1.00 pm. By thistime the police decided to bail the suspects because even if the interpreter had arrived at 1:00 pm they wouldnot have had sufficient time to interview them all before their custody time ran out.

Summary

According to an officer who works at one of these police forces, this is now common practice—it happensregularly that ALS cannot provide interpreters and the officers then bail the suspects and ask them to attendthe police station at another time for the interviews.

The consequences of this are potentially more serious than it first seems. In the case above in Dewsbury, thethree suspects were bailed—there were no conditions attached to their bail. They were free to go, free to re-offend. Furthermore, they can freely discuss the incident they were arrested for and fabricate a version ofevents that will save all three of them from prosecution. Cases like this are also sending the wrong message toforeign criminals—they will learn quickly that the police and courts are having difficulties finding interpretersand therefore get interviewed at a later time, days after their arrest. These few days will give them enoughtime to prepare for the interview and come up with an alibi.

And last but not least let’s not forget about the extra costs incurred by keeping three suspects in custody forclose to 24 hours just so that they can bail them the following day, only for them to come back at anothertime. And also the man-hours of the officers, wasted by being on standby waiting for interpreters who neverarrive, and having to process the suspects twice in custody, etc. Not to mention the likelihood of the suspectsnot answering bail and a warrant having to be issued for their arrest.

It is also a very dangerous and unsustainable solution that every time ALS fails to provide an interpreterpolice call someone from the National Register. Interpreters on the National Register should not be put in asituation where we get told that if we do not take an assignment (i.e. refuse to help out the failing system ofALS) “someone could die”. The life of these foreign victims is not the interpreter’s responsibility. It is theresponsibility and duty of the police and therefore the police should make sure that their interpreter systemworks effectively 24/7. Furthermore please do not forget that those qualified and experienced interpreters whohave not signed up with ALS are now looking for a career move or have already changed career. It is sad tosee so many experienced colleagues leave the profession and soon there will be no National Register to fallback on when ALS fails to supply.



I am struggling to understand how such a seemingly unreliable language services provider is allowed toenter into further contracts in the public sector. This unprofessional, unfair and unreliable system has to bechanged before it is too late.

September 2012

Written evidence from Dr Yvonne Fowler

I have practised as a legal interpreter trainer for over 20 years and have trained over 250 interpreters for theDiploma in Public Service Interpreting (Law Option).9 I also provide Continuous Professional Developmentcourses for interpreters and also for police officers, magistrates and others in the judicial system in how towork through interpreters over the last 16 years. I hold an MA in English Language Teaching (with Distinction)from Warwick University, and a PhD in Interpreting Studies/Forensic Linguistics from Aston University. I havepublished articles on legal interpreting10 and give academic papers at conferences on my latest research in theinterpreting field.

1. Summary of Submission

I submit that the Framework Agreement has failed because the Ministry of Justice and Applied LanguageSolutions mistakenly believe that running an interpreting agency is just a matter of logistics. They believe thatall that is required is to identify a group of people with some ability to speak two languages, submit them to ashort assessment process, and send them to specified police stations and courts to act as “interpreters”. Despitethe fact that neither party has any idea of the complexity of interpreting, no professional interpreter wasconsulted in the drawing up of the contract. Because of this a great deal of public money has been wasted.Worse still, suspects, witnesses and defendants with limited English have been gravely disadvantaged by ourjudicial system through no fault of their own because of the incompetence of those assigned to “interpret” forthem by an agency with no understanding of interpreting. This has wasted countless hours of court and policetime and is unacceptable. The points below are designed to provide basic information to the committee aboutwhat public service interpreting actually is and the skills that qualified interpreting professionals contracted bythe state must possess in order to do their job competently. It seems too obvious to mention (for the reasons Iwill discuss below) that interpreters contracted by the state should be qualified and that as such, they shouldbe remunerated appropriately. Unfortunately this is not the case with most of those who have signed up toApplied Language Solutions.

2. Confusion about Terminology: The Difference between Interpreting and Translating

Lay people often confuse the two terms interpreting and translation. Interpreting means converting spokenlanguage to another spoken language, or in the case of Deaf or deafened people, sign language to spokenlanguage and vice versa; translation means converting a written text in one language to another writtenlanguage. It is therefore inaccurate to refer to court or police translators. They are interpreters. However, inthe course of their work, interpreters may have to undertake some written translation tasks, such as translatingwitness statements, etc. They may also have to undertake sight translation: see 3(i) below.

3. Misconceptions about Public Service Interpreting and Interpreters

It is a common misconception amongst members of the lay public, service providers, decision makers andgovernment ministers that interpreters are machines and that interpreting simply consists of listening to whatsomeone says in one language and repeating it in another. They also believe that the ability to function at thislevel in two languages is somehow inherent rather than acquired through intensive study. These attitudes areparticularly prevalent towards interpreters who are themselves migrants. They are also commonly encounteredamongst monolingual people. People also wrongly believe that conference interpreters, who are comparativelywell-remunerated, should be accorded a higher status than public service interpreters because the work is moredifficult and demanding. In fact, the opposite is the case. Not only are all the above perceptions dangerouslyerroneous, they lie at the root of all problems associated with the status, working conditions, treatment,deployment and monitoring of public service interpreter.9 This was the professional examination required for entry on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters prior to the

Framework Agreement that commenced on 1 February 2012. Details of the examination can be found at the Chartered Instituteof Linguists website at www.iol.org

10 Fowler, Y. 1997. The courtroom interpreter: paragon and intruder? The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community.Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Fowler, Y. 2003. Taking an interpreted witness statement at the Police station: what did the witness actually say? The CriticalLink 3: Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Fowler, Y. 2007. Formative Assessment: using Peer and Self-Assessment in Interpreter Training. The Critical Link 4: Interpretersin the Community. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Fowler. Y. 2012. Interpreting into the Ether: a study of video link and court interpreters. The Critical Link 6: Interpreters in theCommunity. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.



4. Competences needed by Qualified Interpreters

Below is a list of competences which all qualified public service interpreters must possess if they are toprovide quality interpreting services to those who are disadvantaged because of their lack of familiarity withthe language of an institution (whether it be a court, a job centre, a GP surgery, or any other public service).The competences below are not in any particular order of priority, and have long been generally agreed byacademics, universities, training institutions and practitioners all over the world as necessary elements in allinterpreter training.11

(i) Interpreters must have the ability to perform short consecutive mode of interpreting (one personspeaks, and pauses for the interpreter to render the utterance into the other language, and soon). They must also have the ability to perform simultaneous interpreting (one person speaks,and continues to speak whilst the interpreter renders what s/he is saying in a low voice to theforeign language speaking person). Interpreters must also have developed the ability to performlong consecutive interpreting (when a person speaks uninterrupted for up to five minutes whilstthe interpreter listens, takes notes and renders the speech when the speaker has stoppedspeaking). Finally, interpreters must have the ability to make an accurate oral rendition of anyrelevant written document at sight (sight translation), with very little or no preparation time,and make instant decisions about which interpreting mode is appropriate for which situation.Since interpreters do not know in advance what people are going to say, they must also beskilled at thinking quickly and be able to deliver a coherent and accurate rendition the first timeround without asking for repetition.

(ii) In order to do the above, interpreters must have advanced mastery of both languages in terms ofgrammar, meaning and speaker intention, including competence in formal and informal styles,familiarity with regional accents and dialects, familiarity with slang and idioms, a wide masteryof general and specialised vocabularies of medicine, law, social services or any other institution,as well as the knowledge of the equivalent terms, and good pronunciation.

(iii) Interpreters require advanced, active and analytical listening and comprehension skills as wellas excellent short and long-term memory skills. These skills are of a much higher order thanthose required by non-interpreters, other linguists or indeed other professionals.

(iv) Interpreters must have the specialised note-taking skills which have been developed specificallyfor interpreters in order to aid their memory and ensure completeness.

(v) Occasionally interpreters may need to intervene to clarify something that someone has said, ormanage the interpreted situation when, inevitably, communication problems occur. This is aspecialised skill which requires assertiveness, sensitivity, tact and a profound knowledge of theinterpreting context.

(vi) Interpreters must have a good knowledge of the subject matter being discussed, as well as anunderstanding of the goals of the specific institution within which they are working. They mustalso be aware of how officials within that institution communicate with the lay public and toeach other in both written and spoken form.

(vii) Interpreters must have a clear knowledge of the limits of their role, be alert to possible conflictsof interest, have a profound understanding of professional interpreter ethics and the interpreters’code of practice, and be able to apply the code at a moment’s notice.

(viii) Finally, interpreters must have a sound working knowledge of theories of linguistics,sociolinguistics, pragmatics, discourse analysis and translation theory.

5. Monitoring Interpreters’ Work

Only another trained interpreting professional or academic with the same language combination has theexpertise to know whether another interpreter is performing at the above level or not. Most interpreters thusremain largely unmonitored in the course of their work. Proper monitoring costs money and this has financialimplications for agencies (see 6 below).

6. Interpreting Agencies

Only experienced, trained and qualified interpreters have the skills to manage the complex communicativesituations described at 4 above. Agencies who send untrained so-called “interpreters” to jobs in the belief thatthe particular procedure in question is “straightforward” or “not complicated” do not understand the science oflanguage nor the ethics of situations in which interpreters find themselves, which can be as unpredictable asthe people for whom they interpret. A seemingly “straightforward” matter such as bailing a defendant to appearin court at a future date may be simple procedurally, but difficult linguistically. Defendants may have a regionalaccent or dialect which is difficult to understand, may use slang or an idiom with which the interpreter is11 Duenas Gonzales et al.,(1991); de Jongh (1992); Wadensjö (1992); Giovannini (1993); Laster and Taylor (1994); Edwards

(1995); Dunnigan and Downing (1995); Ginori and Scimone (1995); Gentile et al.(1996); Emerson Crooker (1996); Mikkelson(1996); Colin and Morris (1996); Hale (1996); Fowler (1997); Benmaman (1997); Nimrod and Fu (1997); Roy et al. (1998);Hertog and Reunbrouck (1999); Hale and Gibbons (1999); Petersen (2000); Sandrelli (2001); Berk Seligson (1990/2002);Jacobsen (2002). Chesher et al (2003); Hale (2004, 2007).



unfamiliar and which requires clarification, may have speech impairment, have mental health problems, or bedistressed; s/he may thus speak in a confused way such as not finishing sentences, or speak very rapidly andincoherently. Added to this is the difficulty of understanding the institutional language of the court or the policestation; despite their specialised language study, interpreters remain outsiders to the system and must clarifysuch institutional language for themselves before they can interpret it. Ethical problems may also arisespontaneously and unpredictably, and such problems can compromise the integrity of the interpreter.

7. The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

The KPIs in the Framework Agreement (FWA) are based upon numbers, percentages and logistics, and donot contain any references to quality assurance mechanisms or monitoring. For example, Applied LanguageSolutions has to show evidence to the Ministry of Justice that interpreters come from within a 25 mile radius(J4), that 98% of all assignments were fulfilled (J5), that complaints were acknowledged within an hour (J6),that feedback was provided within 24 hours (J7), that complaints were resolved within three days (J8), that98% of assignments were delivered on time (J9), etc. etc. The agency can thus ostensibly claim that theseconditions are being fulfilled, since there is a complete absence of any reference to quality interpreting in theFWA, which is based upon ignorance of what is involved in public service interpreting (see section 1 above).

8. The Lack of Expertise in Interpreting Agencies

Those who run and manage interpreting agencies must have a thorough understanding of the field ofinterpreting, and must have some experience of interpreting themselves. Running an interpreting agency is notsimply a matter of sending out a person who wants to earn a little money to interpret in a court or a policestation. Agency managers and their staff must have the knowledge and expertise to be able to recruit and selectinterpreters according to the strict criteria outlined in 1 above and must devise a system for their monitoringand deployment that closely matches the needs of the institution requesting the service. It is obvious frommedia reports and from the dossier of evidence12 compiled by professional registered interpreters that thosemanaging and running the agency in question do not have such expertise.

9. The Disadvantages Suffered by those with Limited English

Suspects, defendants or witnesses in a police station or appearing in court and who are unfamiliar with thelanguage of the court (ie the English language), are already severely disadvantaged by comparison with theirnative English-speaking peers, regardless of interpreter competence. Using untrained, unqualified people as“interpreters” has disadvantaged these groups, and will continue to do so. In the end, this costs the state moremoney and can lead to miscarriages of justice.

10. Remuneration and Working Conditions for Interpreters

The remuneration and working conditions for interpreters must take into account the sensitive and extremelycomplex nature of their work, and must provide sufficient motivation and incentive to register for (often)expensive courses, to undertake intensive study, to pass challenging and expensive examinations, and toundertake continuous professional development. The working conditions and pay offered by ALS offer noincentive at all for aspiring interpreters to undertake such professional training and development.

September 2012

Written evidence from John McCarthy

The contract given to ALS to provide all interpreting services to the courts in UK has had some veryunfortunate consequences. It was no doubt intended as a measure to save millions of pounds from the annualcosts of providing interpreters for defendants and other users of the CJS. However, reports from all over theUK indicate that these savings have not only not been achieved but that the implementation of the FrameworkAgreement has, in fact, resulted in increased expenditure within the CJS. These extra costs are, it is said,difficult to calculate, though it is greatly to be hoped that there are accountable people investigating thismatter thoroughly.

What is clear is that the costs resulting from the many adjournments, abandoned trials and, possibly, futureappeals that have been the result of the ALS failing to provide interpreters, or of the incompetence ofinterpreters where they have been provided, will far outweigh any savings that might have been made, evenhad the ALS been able to provide the levels of service they were contracted for and which they assured thegovernment they were capable of providing. Of course, ALS were never going to be able to fulfill theirobligations. They were asking well-qualified and experienced court interpreters to take a huge cut inremuneration overnight. This despite the fact that interpreters’ fees had remained at the same level for 10 yearsor so. The fees interpreters had commanded before the FWA were just about commensurate with the importanceand difficulty of the work they were doing, but by no means excessive or even generous. Imagine announcing12 See Dossier of Evidence: ALS Failings, updated July 2012. Retrieved from Interpreters for Justice at www.dossier of evidence_

Evidence_AlsFailings_July2012



tomorrow that henceforth all doctors are to be paid less than half of their current salary, while expecting tomaintain a high level of competence and commitment within the medical profession. Not even the craziestadvocate of public service cutbacks would suggest so ludicrous a measure.

The ALS have, it seems, misguided the government/CJS on several accounts in order first to acquire thecontract and then, in the face of criticism, to retain it. The agency was meant to ensure that all their interpreterswere properly qualified. This is demonstrably not the case. They promised to be able to provide interpreters atvery short notice in any language, at any court. There have been hundreds of failures to do this. It is even saidthat the ALS has been sending so-called interpreters to assignments at court, when not only are they lamentablyill-qualified for the work but even not legally permitted to take up employment in this country.

One of the reasons given by those who championed and promoted the new arrangements for the sourcing ofinterpreters to the CJS was that the previous system, whereby interpreters were sourced by the individual courtsdirectly from the National Register (NRPSI), was that the system was wasteful and unfit for purpose. It ispossible that it was not 100% perfect. What system is? There is little doubt though that it worked very wellfor the most part and was a hundred times better than what it has been replaced with.

To conclude, the FWA agreement has been a disaster on several levels:

1. It has made no savings, nor is likely to make any savings in the future.

2. It has resulted in defendants and others requiring the assistance of an interpreter receiving asecond-rate service.

3. It risks cheapening the reputation of the UK’s hitherto much envied CJS.

4. It is grossly unfair to hard-working, well qualified and committed interpreters who now feelthat their skills and qualifications are not valued.

I and most other professional interpreters hope that your committee will help to uncover the inadequacies ofthe ALS and recommend that the contract be revoked and the previous system reverted to as soon as possible.Only in this way can we maintain a fair and effective interpreting service to the CJS.

September 2012

Written evidence from Magdalena Taylor

Summary

— The Framework Agreement creates a monopoly for interpreting within the Criminal Justice Sector.

— Creation of a Monopoly compromises any interpreter called upon to act as a Professional Witnessand review the work of another interpreter. If the reviewing interpreter is dependent for work on theagency that engaged the interpreter whose work is being reviewed, this could place pressure on thereviewing interpreter not to provide a negative report.

— The Framework Agreement was awarded to ALS despite evidence from a terminated contract thatALS had not been able to meet the requirements of a consortium of Police forces. If ALS wereexperiencing difficulties with a smaller contract, it can be anticipated that difficulties would beexperienced with a larger, national contract.

— The size of ALS, valued at £7 million with the Framework Agreement, presumably much less whenthe contract was awarded, suggests that the company did not have the infrastructure and capabilityto satisfy the terms of the contract.

— The emphasis appears to have been on potential savings within the MoJ budget, without anyconsideration of the wider picture and potential additional costs elsewhere, such as delayed trialsand the costs of detaining persons in custody for longer than necessary. Additionally, the potentialfor reduced tax revenues was not referenced.

— Consultation with Interpreters and their representative bodies appears to have been a public relationsactivity not a true consultation. The concerns raise appear to have been discounted in reachingthe decision.

— With the majority of the Registered Public Service Interpreters declining to work with ASL, it shouldhave been obvious that qualified interpreters would not be available to the courts.

— The complaint of qualified interpreters is one of quality, the lower fees paid are a symptom of thedesire to recruit less qualified persons for whom the fees are potentially a significant increase ontheir earning capacity elsewhere.

— The situation in the UK is presenting a bad picture overseas, particularly to countries where the UKis critical of their Human Rights record.

— Solicitors are advising clients on the assumption that ALS will not be able to provide an interpreterin court, and advising clients to inform the court that they speak English, to avoid being remandedin custody for several days, waiting for an interpreter to be engaged.



Submission

1. The Ministry of Justice asserts that the Framework Agreement does not create a monopoly in interpreting.Such statements have been made, inter alia, in a letter from Mr Kenneth Clarke to my MP, Ms Dawn Primarolo.Whilst it is true that the agreement does not create a monopoly in the total UK market for Language Servicesand that interpreters are at liberty to work in the wider market, it does create a monopoly in the specialistCriminal Justice sector. Interpreters working in the courts and for other CJS bodies under the previousarrangements have knowledge and qualifications (e.g. the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting) specific tothis are of work.

2. A monopoly supplier of Criminal Justice Interpreting, particularly if the framework agreement is extendedto Police, CPS and other agencies, as is happening, places interpreters in a compromised position if calledupon to act as a Professional Witness. I write as one who has, on several occasions, been requested to reviewinterpreting when the quality or accuracy has been questioned.

3. Where the reviewing interpreter is reliant for work on the same agency that engaged the interpreter whosework is being reviewed, this can place pressure on the reviewing or Professional Witness interpreter, for themnot to provide a negative report. A negative report could result in the Professional Witness/ReviewingInterpreter being penalised with respect to future work.

4. Even if there is no such pressure, and I am certain that the MoJ will claim that procedures are in place toavoid such issues, there will always be a suspicion that undue pressure could be placed on the reviewinginterpreter. And interpreters will always fear that at a local level, procedures could be circumvented and thatthey could come under pressure. It is a case where “justice must be seen to be done”, and if it is not, therewill always be scope for a belief that all is not above board.

5. During the consultation period, interpreters and their representative bodies provided ample evidence thatALS was not capable of providing the service required. A previous contract between a consortium of Policeforces and ALS was terminated before a judicial review was heard.

6. During the course of the contract that was terminated, there were numerous examples given in the pressthat ALS were not providing adequately competent interpreters in a timely manner and the comment that theALS contract was “hampering investigations” was quoted in press articles.

7. Shortly after the signing of the Framework Agreement, ALS was sold for a reported £7 million. It thecompany was only worth £7 million with the £60 million Framework Agreement, it was arguably worth muchless before the agreement was signed. One has to wonder why a company with such a low value and withnumerous illustrations of poor performance was awarded the contract.

8. If ALS was having difficulty satisfying the needs of a consortium of Police forces, it can be assumed thateven greater difficulties would be experienced with a national contract.

9. In all publications prior to the Framework Agreement being signed, great emphasis was placed onestimated savings of £18 million p.a. Recently, in the House of Lords, it was stated that the FrameworkAgreement was unlikely to achieve the anticipated first year savings of £12 million, a reduction of £6 millionwithin the first half year of the contract. More recently it has been suggested that no savings will be achieved.

10. The anticipated savings were only against the Ministry of Justice budget and did not take account ofpotential increased costs elsewhere or lack of revenue, inter alia:

(a) If a person is detained in Police Custody for longer than otherwise necessary due to theunavailability of an interpreter, there is a cost to the Police and ultimately the Local Authoritybudget

(b) Similarly, if a person is remanded in custody by court due to the lack of an interpreter, there isa cost on the Prison Service Budget

(c) If qualified interpreters are forced to move from the profession, and those who are engaged asinterpreters are paid significantly less, there is a reduction in tax revenue

11. In addition to additional costs on CJS budgets, if a hearing is delayed, there are costs for solicitors andwitnesses who attended court. The judicial process depends, in part, on those who are willing to attend courtas a witness. Adjournment of a case is a frustrating experience for witnesses and could be a discouragementfor witnesses to come forward.

12. Consultation with interpreters and their representative bodies had the appearance of a public relationsexercise, with the decision already taken.

13. Interpreters and their representative bodies repeatedly made the points that quality would suffer, NationalRegister Interpreters would not work with ALS due to concerns over quality and that ALS had demonstratedan inability to deliver on a much smaller contract. To my knowledge, no adequate response was given tothese points.

14. When, in the first few weeks of the Framework Agreement, there were significant issues, the Ministryof Justice responded that it was monitoring the situation, and that it was working with the supplier to overcomewhat were described as “teething problems”.



15. An alternative view is that the problems were not “teething” ones, but an illustration that the FrameworkAgreement is unworkable, that ALS is not capable of attracting, retaining and deploying adequate numbers ofqualified and competent interpreters to meet requirements of the courts, let alone Police and other CJS agencies.

16. Interpreters were dissuaded from working for ALS not for financial reasons but due to the total disregardfor quality being shown by both the MoJ and ALS.

17. Within weeks of the commencement of the Framework Agreement, courts were permitted to revert tothe previous arrangements for the engagement of interpreters. This, effectively, was asking professionalinterpreters to support, via the back door, a system that was unworkable.

18. As the majority of Registered Public Service Interpreters declined to work with ALS, it should havebeen obvious that ALS would not be able to provide either the numbers or quality of interpreters as had beenavailable to the courts under the previous arrangements.

19. The issue over rates of pay, whilst presented by the Ministry of Justice as the main issue, is in fact, asymptom of the issue. This is not, as the MoJ would wish all to believe, a trade dispute over rates of pay, butone over the quality of justice.

20. The rates of pay offered by ALS illustrate, to my mind, that the intention is to recruit persons who speak,to a degree, English and another language, and ask them to act as interpreters, regardless of qualifications heldor not held, or their experience and competence as an interpreter.

21. For those who have come to the UK in recent years and gained a knowledge of English, the rates offeredcan be a significant improvement on rates offered elsewhere. But those who have been working within the UKeconomy for several years, whilst they might have a good knowledge of English for social and their immediatework purposes, do not have broad and detailed knowledge of the legal processes in their own country, let alonethe UK.

22. Whilst discussing rates of pay, the MoJ advised that the part of the problem was interpreters earning inexcess of £100,000 p.a. It should be noted that under the National Agreement, the rates for court interpretingwere set by the MoJ and under their control, without the need to engage an agency. The previous rates were£85 for the first three hours or part thereof, and £7.50 per 15 minutes for attendance greater than three hours,with slightly higher rates paid on a Saturday. My estimation is that if an interpreter attended a case on everyweekday, and every Saturday, their earnings would be in the region of £30,000 to £40,000 p.a. Police ratesvary, with higher rates paid for weekends, overnight work and public holidays, but similar earnings could beachievable for Police work. Interpreters earnings, therefore, would typically be in the region of£60,000–£80,000 p.a., comparable with other professional employment requiring post graduate qualifications,and less than the figure presented by the MoJ. I have asked my MP to obtain clarification of the earningsestimates from the MoJ, but have not yet received a reply.

23. Many from the European Union have experience of a Civil Law not a Common Law system. There aresignificant differences in legal structures and terminology. Summarising rather than interpreting all that is saidis inadequate if a person is to have fair access to the legal system, whether as defendant, witness or victim.

24. It is easy for some to argue that those who come to the UK should learn English, but court interpretinghas to address the situation as it exists, and that temporary visitors to the UK have no need to learn English.

25. It is also easy to argue against good interpreting standards on the grounds of “foreign criminals”.However, a good deal of the interpreter’s work is with victims and witnesses who do not speak English.

26. As an example, a road accident where witnesses were foreign tourists would require an interpreter.

27. To quote from a case for which I interpreted, the immediate witnesses to a fatal industrial accident wereforeign labourers. I am confident that the family of the deceased British Engineer had no complaints aboutmoney spent on interpreters to ascertain how their loved one died.

28. When British nationals abroad are believed to receive unfair treatment in a foreign court, due to poorinterpreting, this can be headline news in the British press. But when foreign nationals receive less thanadequate service in British courts, it is not such an important story.

29. The situation is being noted abroad, with, for example representations from the United States and theagency Kontax—HTT, who provide interpreting and translation services for the French Bureau of Enquiry andAnalysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA) , who it can be argued, have a good knowledge of qualityrequirements for interpreters.

(a) “Kontax—HTT—Bihorel—France—To someone who has lived in a country where there is norule of law, to sacrifice justice to monetary concerns is the greatest crime of all. Yet that isexactly what Britain’s Ministry of Justice has done in contracting its court interpreting servicesnationwide to a single, inexperienced company—which then sought to pay interpreters sub-standard wages in order to keep to budget, and make further profit.” (http://kontax.com/Interpreting_the_rule_of_law-667-en.html)

30. If the UK is seen to be downgrading legal interpreting provisions, this is not a good example for countrieswhere the UK is critical of the Human Rights record.



31. To illustrate quality issues, in my work as a Professional Witness, I was asked to review the videorecordings from a Police station. I found that the person interpreting (not a registered interpreter) omitted tointerpret significant points made by both Police officers and the person being interviewed, and was also advisingthe person being interviewed of the answers to provide. I should advise that this case did not involve ALS, butis an example of the problems that can be encountered when persons who are not qualified and vettedinterpreters are used in CJS situations. I should also advise that following my review, the CPS discontinuedthe prosecution.

32. With regard to persons provided to the courts by ALS, whilst interpreting for the Crown ProsecutionService and Defence Solicitors, I have witnessed a number at work. A few were of reasonable quality, althoughobviously not comfortable interpreting some of the more complex legal issues. Many, however, onlysummarised what was being said in court, interpreting perhaps only 20% of what was being said, and oftennot accurately. In one case, when probation reports and the antecedent history were being presented to thecourt, the ALS interpreter advised the defendant that the court was discussing technical matters, and saidno more.

33. Summarising proceedings does not give the defendant opportunity to understand the court process andadequately instruct their defence team.

34. I have noted a trend for Solicitors to advise clients on an assumption that ALS will not be able to providean interpreter for court, the solicitor attending at the Police station giving advice to their client that they shouldinform the court that they spoke English and could understand the proceedings. The alternative presented totheir client is that they might otherwise be remanded in custody for several days before an interpreter wasarranged for the court. The solicitor had no confidence, based on previous experience, that an interpreter wouldbe provided for the first few hearings. It cannot be good for justice if such advice is being given on a pragmaticrather than legal basis.

35. The lowering of standards is already producing a reaction in the way that professionals (Solicitors,Prosecutors, Police Officers, etc.) approach the person engaged to interpret. I have worked as an interpreter forsome 20 years, and almost exclusively in the criminal justice system since 2005. I and my colleaguesincreasingly find that the Professional person asks if the interpreter has interpreted previously, or starts to givea detailed briefing of the interpreting process, such as “I will say something in English, you repeat it in theother language, and then say in English what the person says in response”. If some find it necessary to givesuch advice, it speaks volumes about some of their experiences of persons engaged to interpret.

August 2012

Written evidence from Marketa Moskvikova

I am writing to you as a qualified and experience Czech interpreter. I am appalled by the current interpretingsituation in the Criminal Justice sector. The outsourcing of the CJS interpreting by the Ministry of Justice toApplied Language Solution/Capita has led to a dramatic decrease in my workload as I refuse to be associatedwith ALS/Capita in any shape or form. I find the company and its practices unethical and the whole Frameworkagreement flawed and opened to abuse. The outsourcing was meant to be to a single agency, yet we haveinformation from all over the country that various agencies of different sizes supply courts with interpreters.The payment conditions by ALS/Capita can only attract unqualified and inexperienced interpreters. I have afirst hand experience in meeting one of the ALS/Capita interpreters at a Crown Court trial in Leeds. Please see:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/judge-lost-for-words-as-trial-halted-over-lack-of-interpreter-1–4275486

On the first day of the trial a Slovak “interpreter” turned up, instead of a Czech one. He was had nointerpreting qualification whatsoever. He was very nervous as he has never interpreted at a Crown Court before.His clothing was inappropriate—very casual. He expected the trial to last very short time, those wereinstructions from ALS/Capita and therefore he accepted a further booking on the day in Birmingham to take astatement at police station. Due to the Crown Court case not proceeding immediately he had to postpone thestatement taking in Birmingham knowing that the custody clock is ticking and police desperately need to takea statement. Luckily for the defendant and the non interpreter, the trial did not proceed on the day and he wasasked to return the following day, when for a change no interpreter turned up, wasting thousands of pounds.

I can understand that the government is trying to save money, but money could have been saved in manydifferent ways rather then by outsourcing and seriously compromising quality of interpreting. Variousinterpreting organisations attempted to have a dialog with the Ministry of Justice prior to the Frameworkagreement, unfortunately to no avail.

Having interpreted in the CJS environment for three years I have noted that interpreters have not been usedas efficiently as they could have been and lots of money could have been saved by effective communicationbetween police (also within the police) and courts. That way it could have been ensured a sufficient numberof interpreters arriving in court. Equally, cases with interpreters could have been prioritised avoidingunnecessary waiting of interpreters and incurring extra cost. There are many more alternatives that would havelet to cost saving unlike the infamous Framework Agreement, which simply cannot be a cost saving solution.



I have many doubts as to the appropriateness of the procurement process and the very intention to outsourceto a single language provider. As mentioned earlier, ALS/Capita have lot been the only supplier for a very longtime. There are serious questions of quality and security checks.

As far as I know there is not any effective complaint process in place. It is all in hands of ALS/Capita. Theyare not being closely monitored and even their latest survey results are utterly biased. No one ever checks theirperformance closely.

In my opinion, there is very little that is being done in rectifying under-performance as ALS/Capita stillmainly recruits unqualified and inexperienced and there is no one checking this and raising concerns unlesscases hit the headlines. The matter is serious as grave miscarriages of justice could be happening. Every personin the UK has right to a fair trial and without being able to communicate effectively, make themselvesunderstood and understand the process violates this basic right.

I would urge you to investigate the Framework Agreement and the language service provision by AppliedLanguage Solutions/Capita as a matter of urgency to enable victims of crime, witnesses and perpetrators tohave access to qualified and experienced interpreters from the National Register of Public Service interpreters.

August 2012

Written evidence from Miguel Llorens

Executive summary— The Potemkin Village problem in the language services industry: It is very difficult to assess the

quality of language service providers because even very large companies are fronts for databases oftranslators whose qualifications are dubious.

— This problem means that extensive due diligence must be carried out by large clients to determinewhether a potential translation provider is suited to the task at hand.

— Despite this difficulty, the fact that ALS’s total revenues were far smaller than the total size ofthe Ministry of Justice contract should have been an indication that it was not qualified to fulfilits obligations.

1. I am a Spanish-English translator who published several posts discussing the Applied Language Solutions(ALS)-Ministry of Justice (MoJ) contract on the Financial Translation Blog.13 The blog posts I wrote onformer ALS head Gavin Wheeldon achieved relatively extensive circulation via the Web and I have been urgedby several colleagues to contribute to your inquiry. Not being an interpreter myself or even a British resident,I was hesitant, but ultimately I decided that a brief submission to your committee might be helpful. I feel I canprovide some context regarding point two of your task (“nature and appropriateness of the procurementprocess”) by transmitting a couple of points on the state of the translation/interpreting industry in 2012 whichpartly explain the current situation of court interpreting services in England and Wales.

2. In my view, the entire ALS-MoJ problem is a rather massive instance of what I would call the PotemkinVillage problem in sourcing translations. On the Internet, it is very difficult to assess the true nature of thecompanies that advertise translation services. This problem will be familiar to anyone who has had to sourceany sort of service online, from finding a nanny or a builder to hiring a reliable accountant or solicitor. Intranslation, almost all agencies—from the smallest to the largest—claim to specialise in every single subjectmatter and to possess a database of thousands of highly qualified translators.

3. Therein lies the challenge for the company or government that seeks to source translation services: eventhe largest companies are lying to some extent. Translation is a small and fragmented industry burdened byunappetising revenues and disappointing profit margins. The largest companies scarcely qualify as small-capson the stock exchanges of Europe and America. They are basically winners in a tallest dwarf competition.These larger companies are relatively recent creations, the product of the needs of a handful of IT companiesthat have significant translation needs but also want to keep these providers on an outsourced basis. The largesttranslation agency in the world is an American company that claims to have a database of 25,000 professionals.However, diverse embarrassing incidents have proved this to be at best an exaggeration and at worst afabrication, as I can personally attest. The maintenance of such a large database requires spending a lot ofmoney to ensure that contact details are accurate and that, at a minimum, the people listed in it are not dead.The problem is that the bigger a company is, the more committed it is to providing translations as quickly andcheaply as possible. This maintenance expenditure is kept at a minimum and, as far as possible, shifted ontothe database members themselves by obliging them to update their details periodically.

4. This creates a thorny problem for the larger sort of client, such as a government or a multinational: thelarger your outsourced translation provider is, the poorer the quality it delivers. However, the smaller youroutsourced provider is, the more you have to spend internal resources on managing a microcosm of smallproviders. Neither solution is satisfactory. A delicate balance must be forged, between bigness and efficiency.Computerisation has promised to bridge that gap, but that promise is far from being fulfilled. It remains to be13 http://traductor-financiero.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/alss-gavin-wheeldon-case-study-in-cheap.html

http://traductor-financiero.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/alss-gavin-wheeldon-case-study-in-cheap.html



seen whether databases will streamline that problem in the future, but, for the moment, that Utopia is stillrelatively far off. My suspicion is that the system that ALS replaced successfully struck that delicate balance(improvements could have been made, but a series of tweaks is a far cry from the clumsy overhaul organisedby the ministry).

5. What happens when a client blunders into one of our online Potemkin Villages that specialise in everythingand have thousands of professionals that speak all the languages in the world? If this unsuspecting client haswandered into one of the fake villages built by a relatively large company, the agency fires off thousands of e-mails (also known as cattle calls) to the database members—dead or alive—and within seconds the job isassigned to the translator with the itchiest trigger finger. The job will be done, more or less quickly, more orless badly. If the Potemkin Village was built by a front company that consists of a single owner with a laptopin his bedroom, the owner quickly scrambles to online databases such as ProZ.com where unemployedtranslators advertise their services. Using a process similar to the large company, he or she will quickly find awarm body to which the job will be assigned. Both cases are transparently far from the ideal. Translation andinterpretation are not commodities that can be bought or sold in such an anonymous manner. Even if one thinksthat any bilingual can do the job, anyone who has hired a builder or a nanny knows that not all builders andnannies are equally reliable, efficient or qualified.

6. Interpreting, however, is not amenable to this “cheap-as-dirt” translation model. First of all, there is thegeographical constraint: any valuable database will not contain thousands of names because all the crediblecandidates are located in a relatively small area, which reduces the shortlist drastically, to five or six names orat most seven names. There is an added constraint: the court system needs professionals who are fluent in so-called “exotic” languages, which reduces the client’s shortlist even further, to one or two names, or at mostthree. As mentioned previously, ALS was not large enough to actually have a real database of thousands ofinterpreters (to my knowledge, ALS was not actually specialised in the provision of interpreting services).However, the company was not small enough to be just a sleazy façade that could easily be discarded by theofficials doing due diligence. In other words, it was large enough to just barely pretend to be a bona fide suitorbut small enough to struggle to cope with such a massive undertaking. The reality, however, was that ALSdidn’t have a clue as to how it was going to meet such a daunting task, but they boldly decided to press aheadand solve problems as they cropped up. The multiple reports about the alleged theft of contact details from apublicly available database point in this direction. The reports of haphazard recruitment of inexperiencedbilinguals are further confirmation of this suspicion. This is compounded by Mr Wheeldon’s description of hisown modus operandi in building his company. His attitude seems to have always been to get the deal first andthen, as a secondary exercise, scramble to see how to fulfil the order. Some people see this as proof of MrWheeldon’s entrepreneurial spirit. However, a more sober analysis would more accurately view it as a high-stakes game of brinkmanship. Eventually, as your bets get bigger and bigger, the odds grow that your bluffwill be called. And that is precisely what has occurred: ALS’s bluff has finally been called by reality, andthe company are now hurtling to the bottom of the canyon after tiptoeing in a vacuum for a few secondswithout wings.

7. Mr Wheeldon ran a small company with total revenue of less than 8 million pounds. The opportunityarose of multiplying that revenue several times by securing a very large (and recurring) government contract.Despite the lack of a database that was large enough to assume a task as hefty as providing court interpretersfor an entire country, ALS charged into the breach with all the gung-ho attitude of the modern businessman.The Potemkin Village dreamt for one golden moment of becoming a Potemkin Megalopolis. But, tragically, itsflimsy façade was knocked to the ground by a slight breeze.

8. This could easily have been predicted a priori by anyone familiar with the world of translation. In themonths that have elapsed since ALS reaped the current whirlwind of negative publicity, we have learned a lotabout the everyday life of the court interpreter. It is a difficult job. It is far from glamorous. It is frequentlyunpleasant. It must be very depressing at times. To this one must add that the British judicial system has verysui generis requirements because of the diversity of the origins of the people that pass through it. The Englishand Welsh courts regularly require languages that are very difficult to source properly. Interpreters who canhandle the languages of small African and Asian communities should be highly prized as the rare and valuableassets that they are. To think that the value stored in these professionals’ brains can be easily replaced byanyone hired off the street who claims to speak these languages is ludicrous. The delicate balance of skills,character and availability possessed by the men and women that worked for the pre-ALS system is not aresource that could simply be replaced at the drop of a hat. They belonged to a very complex ecosystem thatwas uprooted root and branch without proper planning. Ministers criticise the previous system’s inefficiency,to which one must ask whether it was replaced because of its shortcomings or because it was mistakenlyidentified as a target for easy spending cuts.

9. ALS’s lack of qualifications to fulfil the contract should also have been identified readily and early by thepublic sector employees carrying out the due diligence. The company should have been compelled to providea complete database prior to the entrance into force of the MoJ contract. The ministry’s civil servants shouldthen have proceeded to analyse a statistically representative, random sample of the database to verify itsaccuracy. I am relatively sure that a simple inspection of the database along such lines would have led to theconclusion that ALS were completely unprepared to provide interpreting services on a countrywide scale.



10. To conclude, I understand the pressures to find cost efficiencies in government, but these are probablynot readily available in the area of court interpreting. As a former resident of the United Kingdom and as asincere admirer of its democracy and institutions, I humbly urge you to spare no efforts to restore some versionof the system that was in place before the contract was awarded to Capita-ALS. Nothing less than yourcountry’s reputation as a beacon for human rights and as the creator of modern democracy is at stake.

August 2012

Written evidence from Mrs Jennifer Hogg

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Select Committee’s inquiry. I wish to respond only on therationale for changing arrangements. I offer my personal case study as a court interpreter before the upheavalsof early 2012—some insights from my grass-roots experience.

1. My Qualifications

I graduated from the University of Salford in Modern Languages (French and Italian) in 1983, when publicservice interpreting was unheard-of. After some years abroad, then working in the UK, I became a freelancetranslator and interpreter. I worked hard to take the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (Law) in Italian in2000, then French in 2001. The DPSI is a very exacting test requiring postgraduate language skills and superbEnglish. Having successfully passed both my language DPSIs at the first attempt, I joined the National Registerin 2000 and have worked regularly as an NRPSI interpreter ever since. I have Full status on the Register andover 12 years’ experience.

2. Pattern of Work

(a) Geographical spread

Based in low-crime Surrey, with two mainstream European languages, my assignments are mostly in theHome Counties, rarely in London. I have travelled as far afield as Plymouth, Bristol, Canterbury and Essex.

(b) Frequency and timing

I have averaged about one engagement per week. An average engagement is three hours. The longestengagement I ever had was a 14-week Crown Court trial. The average trial length (regarding my involvement)is one day. So the pattern is of erratic, intermittent and short “bites” of work. Police work usually requires meto drop everything and go immediately, whereas court assignments may come with advance notice.

(c) Type of Work

Initially, I was often called to police custody suites to interpret rights and entitlements, and breath tests.These are now generally handled by telephone interpreting. Eventually, gaining experience, I developed aroughly 50:50 split of police and court assignments.

(d) Subject Matter

I have interpreted in almost every legal field, from shoplifting to rape and murder. I am very familiar withcustody suite procedures. Assault and domestic violence are the most common subject matters in my languages.I have assisted officers taking dozens of witness statements, including vulnerable child/adult victims of sexualassaults, where interviewing takes place on video in special witness suites. Regarding court work, I haveinterpreted at all levels, from civil family hearings to routine magistrates’ hearings and Crown Court trials.Last year I interpreted in the Old Bailey for defendants in a double rape case, and again for a defendant in afour-week murder trial. I would not have accepted such challenging engagements if I had not had over tenyears’ experience then.

I have also been engaged by probation offices regarding offenders, and local government officers pursuingcriminal cases of benefit fraud.

(e) Highs and Lows

Highs: I have an enormous sense of privilege, in sitting alongside people at an extreme point of need andacting as their only mouthpiece. It is very satisfying to know that when you have done a good job, you havegiven witnesses and defendants a voice—people who would be silenced and unable to put their case crediblyif they had to struggle in (at best) poor English. There is also the intellectual challenge and satisfaction of“nailing” a tricky word or phrase and finding just the right equivalent. It is rewarding to be warmly thankedby a judge, barrister or police officer at the end of a case.

Lows: sitting alongside difficult or emotional people, and having to reproduce faithfully and impartially thewords of people who are aggressive or unpleasant. Some cases are highly distressing, on anyone’s view. Thehardest aspect is stress, often caused by poor working conditions, such as videolink technology; poor sight



lines; and problems with speaker audibility when stuck at the back of the dock. There are always times whenan interpreter goes home wishing they had coped better, or remembering a better phrase they could have used.Interpreting for long stretches (i.e. any more than 40 minutes without a break) is mentally exhausting. Aninterpreter sometimes stumbles home numb from the neck up!

(f) Financial Aspects

I have always viewed this as public sector work which brings its own reward. Private sector rates cannot beexpected. Over the years, the amount of face-to-face work has reduced thanks to the use of telephonetechnology. Remuneration has dropped because of reductions in travel time rates. Over the last six years, myannual earnings averaged no more than £ 9,000. I am available full-time and would love to have enoughengagements to work full-time.

(g) Using agencies

My local police forces now subcontract the finding of interpreters to agencies. This is disappointing, as itprevents me from having any professional relationship with my ultimate clients. There is much less flexibilityin the system. I believe that detained persons are probably kept waiting longer in cells when agencies are usedbecause of the added complication of the system. It isn’t any quicker!

I do not object in principle to the use of agencies, as some can be efficient and helpful, especially if theyhave professional standards using NRPSI interpreters.

3. The New Arrangements

Along with most of my profession, I was incredulous at the lack of professionalism shown by AppliedLanguage Services. Last autumn ALS texted me instructing me to sit their assessment test at a cost of over£100 per language, before the list for court work closed on 1 December 2011. They were charging qualified,experienced people to be re-assessed to a much lower standard than that which they had already achieved!And this was in order to join an agency offering to pay a third of the rates we were receiving (taking thedisappearance of travel time and expenses into account). How was that ever going to work? I could see noconnection to the professional associations such as the Institute of Linguists at all, and no understanding of thenature of our profession. What would become of professional behaviour, ethics and confidentiality? Out ofprofessional self-respect, I refused to become a casual worker in a shoddy outfit. My court work thereforedisappeared overnight in February 2012.

I repeat that I have no objection in principle to working via agencies providing they are professional, usingNRPSI interpreters appropriately remunerated.

4. My Current Position

Police work trickles on, as long as my local forces continue with agencies other than ALS. However thispolice work from March to 31 August 2012 totalled a princely 11 assignments.

I worry that I will lose my professional edge, as good interpreting is hugely a matter of practice. I am reallysorry to have lost the interesting challenges of court work after so many years’ experience.

I am currently pursuing other avenues and re-training for conference interpreting work, where native Englishspeaking interpreters are in short supply.

5. The Rationale for Change

I accept the need for government economies. However, I believe that the whole system is inherently untidy:

— Despite the few foreign language speakers who ask for an interpreter even if they could managewithout, most detained persons have no clue about legal English, however long they have livedor worked here. Police officers and court staff use a huge amount of in-house jargon withoutrealising it.

— Foreign language speakers pitch up in the criminal justice system randomly anywhere, andinterpreters live where they live;

— Interpreter time is often spent waiting. In custody suites, waiting for investigating officers to beready to interview, or for the CPS to give police an answer on charging versus bail. Incourtrooms, waiting for witnesses to attend, or for the prison van to arrive, or for the legalprofession to finish their negotiations, or for the jury to return …

— In busy court buildings, it is just not possible for one interpreter to cover language needs inmore than one case without keeping the other courtroom waiting, at vast expense.

No amount of rationalising by consultants or clever software can wholly eradicate the element of randomnessand some inefficiencies.



6. Personal Recommendations

Improvements can be made:

— Separate sourcing of interpreters by prosecution and the defence should be brought under oneroof, provided that the same interpreter is not engaged to interpret for opposing parties.

— I have found the National Register to be strong regarding tough entry standards, but weakregarding Continuing Professional Development and personal support/accountability forregistrants.

— The professional interpreting associations (who have been treated with disdain by the Ministryof Justice throughout) should be taken seriously by this Inquiry, especially as regards theCambridge model for cost reduction.

— The use of new technologies can continue to be explored as long as interpreters’ views arerespected.

7. Conclusion

This can be a demanding and lonely profession. An astonishingly high proportion of our public sector clientshave no understanding at all of what it means to use another language, let alone the mental gymnastics goingon inside an interpreter’s head.

The criminal justice system rightly expects the highest possible standard of service even if interpreters arecalled upon rarely. It seems to me that court life resembles politics. The words are the evidence. Ultimately,that is all there is. There is no point in having interpreters if they are not of a high standard. Getting by withcheaper people who are not capable of delivering the right words is bad practice and a waste of time. It iscertainly not justice.

I thank the Committee for this opportunity, and am happy to be contacted further if required.

Written evidence from Marie Adamova

My written evidence includes the following:

— Evidence about inappropriate quality of ALS linguists and their services.

— Evidence about failures in vetting procedures.

— Evidence about the dishonesty of ALS linguists.

— Evidence about the dishonesty of ALS.

— Evidence about failures to make any savings in interpreting services.

— Evidence about failures in complaints procedure.

— Evidence that the FWA is not fit for purpose.

— There has only been one winner in all this mess. His name is Gavin Wheeldon.

1. All evidence written bellow is backed up by documents or emails and can be send to Committee uponrequest.

2. It is generally known that “old” qualified interpreters do not work for ALS. Enquiries made to MoJ haverevealed that only 301 of the ALS linguists are also on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters(register of professional and vetted interpreters). ALS’ force is therefore built up of unprofessionalinexperienced and undereducated workers e.g. ex hospital cleaners, kebab houses staff or care assistants.

3. I would like to introduce you one of ALS new linguist Mrs Nadia Tabler as a typical ALS linguist. Shewrites her own blog publicly available on the internet. The blog is also linked to her Facebook profile andTwitter account. She is a native Russian and work for ALS as a Lithuanian linguist. Please note, that Russianand Lithuanian are different languages and most Lithuanians do not speak or understand Russian at all. Theblog is written in Russian and it is translated by professional interpreters (NRPSI registered).

ALS linguist Mrs Nadia Tabler wrote:

“With regards to my interpreting, it is going alright. I have now sat the assessment. I wouldn’t givemyself even a ‘D-minus’, in either language.”The agency is called ‘Applied Language Solutions’. Google them and send your application form.<...> With regards to the Lithuanian language, it’s not that difficult to understand them. It is difficult,however, to produce an adequate translation of the complicated legal terminology.”—6 Mayhttp://notabler.livejournal.com/158603.html

“I work for courts now, mostly with “our own” Lithuanians. They don’t look like they read anybooks, not a single one of them. They work, sleep, and drink. And when they are drunk they behaveoutrageously, and for that they get imprisoned. I have not dealt with major criminals yet, still needto study. I myself avoid the serious cases; those are heard at Crown Court. Everybody wears a wig



there and they speak the highest level of English. The average Englishman would not understandand neither would I.”—15 June http://notabler.livejournal.com/165833.html

“I was thrown out of one court with shame—there was a female Lithuanian lawyer there who hasseveral interpreter friends belonging to the enemy’s party. I was recently told that in Norwich thereis another woman, who hates new interpreters with every fibre of her skin, thanks to her prayers Iam no longer asked to go there. But the country has more than 400 magistrates’ courts; I will beOK without those.”—25 August http://notabler.livejournal.com/179348.html

On 25 August Mrs Nadia Tabler received a note from one reader:

“Such an interesting job—so many stories!”

Her answer was:

“Yes, but so far my qualification is rotten to brave myself for big court cases.”

Another extract: http://notabler.livejournal.com/170024.html#cutid1

“Since 25 March to today I made 85 interpreting outings to different towns and cities in Britainland.Each such trip (I try to use a train, but I lie that I drive, then they pay more) takes up to 3 to 13hours, sometimes I drive for 8 hours. I visited plenty of towns I had never seen before, we went withthe whole family to some places, visited the sights before or after my work.As for the title, the job is not always a delight. I only work in courts, with criminals, minor ones,fortunately. I lack knowledge sometimes and I still suffer from yet undeveloped skills from time totime. But generally, I manage to find a good way round. I got into unpleasant situations a few times.A couple of times clients (Lithuanians) were unhappy with my interpreting, one even made astatement to the court demanding that they find another interpreter for the next hearing. One courtbanished me forever, they said my English wasn’t good enough. I couldn’t interpret one word withfour attempts. I don’t go there now. On the contrary, they love me and are happy with me in otherplaces. Once I came across a Lithuanian lawyer who stitched me up and refused to use my servicesbecause of bad interpreting. She must have needed to adjourn the case for some reasons so she usedthis. So stress does happen.”—http://notabler.livejournal.com/155777.html?thread=1575809“Most importantly, I am at the crossroads. I’m seriously considering giving up my night shifts. Ihave signed up with a new interpreting agency (well, for me it is new, but it’s an old, powerful andrich company). They have been offering me loads of bookings—each day I receive tens ofassignments. To be honest, they need a Lithuanian interpreter and all the bookings are for courts,and my Lithuanian has somewhat rusted without being used. But I did accept one booking and wentalong. It was alright. So I’ve accepted three more bookings, one of them scheduled for the wholeday with an anticipated fee of around £700. It’s in London. If I do pull this deal off and actuallyreceive that much money in one day, normally my monthly earnings at the madhouse (translator’snote—nursing home), I am going to give up my job.I don’t think it makes sense for me to try taking the exam in Lithuanian at this stage, I will focus onmy Russian for now. And mostly, on my English. If I fail it in May, I’ll carry on swotting up until Imake it. And I will continue travelling every day to courts, teaching myself by “sink or swim”. I’llbe struggling, but becoming more experienced and learning from my mistakes. This is now my life’splan.”—2 April http://notabler.livejournal.com/156484.html

4. As you can see Mrs Nadia Tabler has worked as ALS linguist since 25 March 2012 while she sat herassessment test in May 2012. She has been sent to courts without anyone questioning her language skills andknowledge. As she wrote: “she would give herself ‘D minus’ in either language”. As she also wrote herknowledge of Lithuanian is “weak” and her knowledge of legal terms is “minimal”. And she is going to travelto courts every day teaching herself by “sink or swim”. I truly believe this is not a level of service MOJexpected and signed up for. It is also breaching the conditions of FWA where all ALS linguists are supposedto be assessed. There are many publicly known cases where linguists were sent to work without any checks.They registered one day and were sent to work the next day or in a day or two.

5. Nadia Tabler lives in Colchester in Essex. As you can see she got one day booking in London for £700.Please note that in “the old system” the qualified NRPSI registered and vetted interpreter would be fromLondon and would cost less than £300 (£235 for eight hours of interpreting, plus travel time and travelexpenses). In such case there is no way to make any savings. As you know one condition in FWA was to havelocal linguists available within 25 miles.

6. Mrs Nadia Tabler was on one occasion “thrown out of one court with shame”. In another occasion theclient complained and in another occasion she was banned from one court as her English was not sufficient. Itmeans the cases had to be adjourned. I believe the costs of new hearings are much higher than to employprofessional interpreters. As we can see she has huge gaps in her language knowledge and there had beencomplaints but she still works in courts. I assume that the complaints process requested at FWA does not work.

7. Mrs Nadia Tabler also lies to ALS regarding her means of transport as “she will get more money”. It iswell known practice of ALS linguists. As we can see from the evidence she also lied about her ability to speakLithuanian which is not sufficient for legal or any kind of assignment.



8. Mrs Nadia Tabler also shows inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour towards clients (eg calling one“asshole”), judges and solicitors, writes openly about cases she witnessed with many names of courts anddates. This shows a lack of professionalism, breaching confidentiality or even criminal offence.

9. Finally Mrs Nadia Tabler drove her car in the UK for two years without driving licence what she describesas her “adventurous nature”. It is a criminal offence to drive without driving licence and a valid insurance.

10. In August 2011 I registered in ALS database my rabbit pet Jajo (read YaYo). Jajo the Rabbit was happyin ALS database as a potential linguist. He received numerous emails as he was recognised as a linguist. Hiscase became known in media nationwide in January 2012. Even Jajo was surprised that he was still on ALSdatabase in March 2012. Jajo has proved that ALS does not check anything. They do not check IDs of theirlinguist. They send people without security vetting and people without proper language knowledge to courtand police stations. Shocking!!! The UK has been known for the best justice system in the world now it hasbecome an international embarrassment and known as “cheap justice”.

11. Condition set in FWA is to have all linguists security vetted by Warwickshire Police. According to FOI-2012–00320 there were following numbers of linguists:

720 applications had been received by their vetting unit from ALS since January 2012 of which 574had passed the vetting process

2011 = Nil

2012: Jan = 182 Feb = 164 Mar = 6 Apr = 30 May = 134 June = 39

It is clear that at the beginning of February 2012 ALS had only 346 linguists vetted and there were 574ALS linguists vetted by the end of June 2012.

From the number of assignments in courts it is clear that ALS:

(a) Have sent linguists to courts without vetting which is in breach of FWA Agreement.

(b) Have lied to MoJ about numbers of their linguists available to take bookings. I truly believethat even Jajo the Rabbit (together with his friends Masha the Cat, Meercat Sergei and latedog) was included in their numbers of linguists.

12. As a qualified and professional interpreter, I can see the dangers of using amateurs in such sensitivetypes of work within the CJS. It is not easy to master any foreign language to such a level so as to be able tofully understand all the fine details in court hearings in a foreign language—and it takes years of hard study.Interpreting also has its own techniques and processes which are unknown to amateurs and which need manyhours of learning and practise. The Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI) is a nationally-recognisedLevel 6 qualification and to believe that ANY PERSON (or even my pet-rabbit!) can become a professionallegal interpreter without any proper training/qualifications is both foolish and dangerous—after all, it istantamount to playing with other people lives. I believe that no member of the government or Member ofParliament would ever put himself at such risk by appointing an ALS linguist for his/her own court proceedings,whilst abroad—in case he/she could not speak the local language. By “risk,” I mean, for example, that youwould hardly be able to get the message across, or your linguist could be a criminal or a terrorist—or yourcase could be then end up being published on the internet. The best scenario would be that the linguist wouldfail to turn up.

13. There are huge gaps in the monitoring of the FWA Agreement. In fact it appears as if no-one in MoJ isinterested in monitoring this Contract properly. The expenditures spent so far do not appear to be quantified orquantifiable. Most seriously, costs incurred as a result of adjournments and delays caused by poor interpretingare unknown. Bearing in mind all those professionals involved in court proceedings, even a professionalinterpreter would actually turn out to be the cheapest person in a courtroom. It is undoubtedly a great wastethat such huge sums of money are wasted due to the imposition of a Contract which does not fit the needs ofthe CJS.

14. The Parties involved in this Contract are, so far, facing the following:

— MOJ and the CJS are having their services delivered in an inferior manner—they are simplynot fit for purpose. Furthermore, both also have to deal with significant criticism and are seeinga considerable waste of public money.

— Professional interpreters have lost their livelihoods and are being forced into finding newcareers elsewhere.

— With ALS being absorbed by Capita, the acquisition of an unprofessional workforce willinevitably bring Capita huge problems in the near future, such as adjournments of several courthearings due to unacceptably poor levels of service, a not inconsiderable barrage of criticismand a significant waste of money.



— Mr Gavin Wheeldon is the only winner in this case as he successfully off-loaded an unprofitablecompany (as it was such even prior to him being awarded the FWA) for quite a huge amountof capital and has left ALS—with a smile! Quite clearly, he had lied to the MOJ and, personally,I cannot believe he is not yet behind bars.

August 2012

Written evidence from the Society of Official Metropolitan Interpreters UK Ltd

I am writing on behalf of the Society of Official Metropolitan Interpreters UK Ltd (SOMI UK). Pleaseconsider our submissions below in conjunction with the Joint Submissions of which we are a party.

All our members are official Metropolitan Police interpreters. Under the National Agreement on the use ofInterpreters in the Criminal Justice System (NA)1, we are required to be on the National Register of PublicService Interpreters (NRPSI)2 or the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People(CACDP)3. We are vetted to CTC level or above by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). We are allprofessional interpreters with academic qualifications and proven experience of interpreting within the criminaland civil justice systems.


1. The Rationale for Changing Arrangements for the Provision of Interpreter Services

1. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has signed a contract under a Framework Agreement (FWA) with AppliedLanguage Services (ALS). The new system came into effect on 30 January 2012 and is now being used in allthe courts in England and Wales (criminal, civil and family courts, tribunals and prisons) and in someConstabularies.

2. The Society of Official Metropolitan Interpreters UK Ltd made submissions4 regarding the MoJ’sproposals for the provision of interpretation and translation services across the justice sector dated 30 March2011, in a letter to Richard Mason, Head of Better Trials Unit of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) dated 4May 2011.

3. Our main contention was that quality standards, achieved over the past two decades, and the interests ofjustice would be compromised. We made it clear that we were extremely concerned about the implications andthe impact the outsourcing to a single self-regulating commercial agency would have on the future of PublicService Interpreting and emphasised that the existing recognised qualifications and independent regulation wereessential elements of the profession. It now appears that our concerns were fully justified.

4. Certainly, the MoJ’s considerations and advice to the Minister have ignored the interpreting profession’swidespread concerns and opposition to the Framework Agreement from the very beginning, and the result ofits implementation has been the ensuing chaos in the Courts and some Constabularies as ALS has continuouslystruggled to supply reliable interpreters for assignments across the country.

5. This is evidenced in the stream of national and international articles published in the media since 30January 2012 (see RPSI Linguist Lounge and Collected News Reports 5). Even Justice Minister Crispin Blunthas been forced to admit from the outset that implementation of the contract has caused “unacceptabledisruption” (The Times, 24 February 20126) and Justice Minister Lord McNally has recently confirmed that “itis unlikely to achieve any savings in its first year” (House of Lords, 9 July 20127).

6. In the debate in the House of Lords on 9 July Lady Butler-Sloss, a retired judge, asked Lord McNally:“Are you aware of the extent of disruption and delay to criminal trials as a result of serious inaccuracies ofcourt interpreting, which is not only leading to very considerable cost but also concerns have been raised byjudges across the country, particularly in London, in Birmingham and in Leeds?” Lord McNally did notdeny this.

7. ALS has been unable to recruit qualified and experienced interpreters in sufficient numbers, leading toinadequate quality of the service offered, added to poor management and accountability. This resulted innumerous hearings being adjourned or severely delayed, with some defendants being returned into custody ata great cost. In other hearings poor quality interpreting was in evidence leading to delays and collapsed trials,again at great expense to the taxpayer.

8. The National Agreement (NA)1 was introduced to address concerns raised by Lord Runciman with regardsto the difficulty of obtaining good quality interpreters in his Report to the Royal Commission on CriminalJustice in July 1993, and Lord Justice Auld’s Review of Criminal Justice in 20018. The NA is a safeguard tobasic human rights and was put in place following the recommendations of Lord Justice Auld in order toensure the right to a fair trial. In 2006 a Home Office Circular reinforced the importance of the NA and thequality of interpreting services, and subsequent amendments were made to strengthen it, ensuringonly registered and qualified interpreters could practise in the Criminal Justice System.



9. The MoJ intends to withdraw the NA. This is counterproductive and not in the interest of justice. Anessential pre-requisite to achieving justice is reliable communication provided by qualified legal interpretersand translators.

10. Under the previous arrangements, interpreters used in criminal proceedings were primarily drawn fromthe NRPSI2 and the CACDP3, which ensured interpreters’ competence, reliability, accountability and securityvetting by independently verifying their credentials and qualifications. These interpreters are bound by morestringent and robust codes of practice and conduct than those proposed in the Framework Agreement.

11. Re-combining the regulatory function with commercial provision has been a retrograde step, effectivelyreversing the progress achieved over the past two decades. This is particularly so given that the NRPSI hasrecently re-organised itself as an independent body to regulate the profession in the public interest and can beaccessed free of charge.

12. Under the FWA, a professional qualification (which includes both oral interpreting and writtentranslation) is no longer an essential requirement to interpret at court and in the CJS. This may have legalimplications or consequences if the interpreting or translation is ever used as evidence or called into questionin legal proceedings.

13. ALS introduced a system of unaccredited assessments and a tier system of qualifications and payment,which constitute a lowering of the quality and standard required for interpreting in the Criminal Justice System.The “ALS assessment”9 designed at Middlesex University was explicitly NOT intended to mimic or replacethe DPSI examination, but delivered solely as an in-service performance check, providing only a diagnosticcheck (not a pass or fail result).

14. The requirement for fully qualified interpreters to undertake an additional unaccredited assessment oftheir skills constitutes a de facto de-recognition of the existing qualifications and the experience and expertiseof interpreters. Many interpreters on the NRPSI hold MA degrees in interpreting and translation, a Diploma inPublic Service Interpreting qualification (accredited at NVQ level 6 by the Qualifications and CurriculumAuthority and equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree with honours), a Diploma in Translation (accredited at level7 and equivalent to a Masters degree) and also the Met Test, designed especially for police work. Learning atthis level involves the achievement of a high level of professional knowledge. Further, most are activepractising interpreters and have years of proven experience behind us (with many working over 1000 hoursper year in public service), which cannot be undervalued.

15. The vast majority of our qualified public service colleagues have not and will not register with ALS andthey are also refusing requests from court officials who have been given permission by the MoJ to revert tothe NRPSI, as this is only a temporary measure designed to prop up the FWA and its contractor.

16. A significant reduction in terms and conditions is also a major disincentive and is not by any meanssufficient to attract and retain qualified, experienced interpreters. Contrary to unfounded claims from JusticeMinister Crispin Blunt that interpreters earned six figure salaries, a recent survey10 conducted in 2010 by theChartered Institute of Linguists (CIoL) and the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI) found that theaverage public service interpreter earnings are £15,700. When one adds in the additional disincentives of nopension, holiday pay or sick pay, as well as no job security, it is unthinkable to assume that the rates of payand costs are suitable. It is implicit that the service is going to deteriorate because of the quality of interpreterswho will work at these rates.

17. Professional interpreters are simply not prepared to work for the terms and conditions on offer. There isa strong movement within the legal interpreting community to keep the NA and the NRPSI to maintain qualityand standards, against the cut-price employment terms imposed by the FWA.

18. Other interpreters are simply moving away from public service interpreting, which means a furtherreduction in the pool of qualified interpreters. They have lost all confidence in the continued recognition andprotection of the interpreter in this outsourcing to a commercial agency whose main aim will always be toincrease their own profits.

19. Interpreters, the organisations representing them, and other professionals in Criminal Justice are alsofearful of the consequences for Equal Access to Justice and Fair Trial for non-English speakers11, which maybe put at risk if quality legal interpreting or translation is not provided. There are inherent dangers tothe delivery of justice that can arise out of inadequate interpreting or complete failure to supply an interpreterat all. The potential cost due to failed prosecutions and appeals also cannot be underestimated.

20. It is often the victims that are overlooked in this and they too will suffer if the standards are droppedand quality is sacrificed for profit.

21. The Ministry of Justice should seek to provide services efficiently and effectively, but trying to improvea functioning service requires continuous consultation with the service providers involved; namely theprofessional legal interpreters and their representative bodies. The system worked well before, with problemsonly seldom occurring.

22. We maintain that there could be more savings in the long term by investing in the establishment of acentral government agency, which is “not for profit” and therefore does not seek to gain a pecuniary advantage



from interpreters’ work. This may achieve a streamlining of the system and thereby utilise interpreter servicesin a more organised and efficient way—dealing with the process of identifying and booking individualinterpreters, as well as with the payment process. For example, the Metropolitan Police has achieved savings12

by reorganising the way they use their own interpreters’ list without the need to resort to outsourcing.

23. Qualified professional interpreters are an essential resource which ensures that justice and human rightsare upheld. The introduction of outsourcing and the tier system by the Ministry of Justice has compromisedthe quality of service provided, which is resulting in costly delays, collapsed trials and may lead to miscarriagesof justice.

24. We, public service interpreters and representative organisations, are the only practitioners and experts inour field and by not engaging with us the MoJ is depriving itself from the expertise and professional advicewe interpreters can give. It is therefore in the interest of justice that the MoJ sets up an Interpreters WorkingGroup involving the Criminal Justice System and interpreters in order to address all matters of concern.

25. We wish to engage directly with the Ministry of Justice in order to find solutions to improve efficiencyand cost, whilst still maintaining standards of service.

26. Seven professional interpreters’ organisations, representing 2,350 registered public service interpretersin 101 languages, and the profession’s regulatory body NRPSI are united in the Professional Interpreters forJustice Campaign13. We have written a joint letter to Crispin Blunt MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Statefor Justice which was not replied to. The MoJ has thus far chosen to ignore our requests for engagementand dialogue14.

27. Legal interpreters and translators require protection of title and the status; the obligations and rights oflegal interpreters and translators should be defined in law to ensure the highest standards of service.

August 2012

Specific Links for Further Information

1. National Agreement on the Use of Interpreters (NA).

2. National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI).

3. Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP).

4. The Society of Official Metropolitan Interpreters UK Ltd submissions re MoJ’s proposals for the provisionof interpretation and translation services across the justice sector dated 30 March 2011.

5. RPSI Linguist Lounge and Collected News Reports.

6. The Times, Friday 24 February 2012, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/article3330180.ece

7. Parliament, 9 July 2012 House of Lords debate EU: Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.

8. In 2001 Lord Justice Auld made recommendations in respect of interpreting provisions. AuldRecommendations (paras 276–286, pages 63–64).

9. The “ALS assessment” designed at Middlesex University.

10. Interpreter Rates and Salaries Survey carried out by the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIoL) and theInstitute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI).

11. Equal Access to Justice and Fair Trial for non-English speakers.

12. MPS FOI, September 2011, Expenditure on Interpreters and Translators for the past seven years.Metropolitan Police Service opted out of the Framework Agreement.

13. Professional Interpreters for Justice Campaign.

14. Interpreter bodies’ joint letter to Crispin Blunt, MP.

Written evidence from Klasiena Slaney

I am a Registered Public Service Interpreter (RPSI) living in London. I am fully qualified to interpret in thePortuguese language having passed both DPSI(Law)IoL and a Diploma in Translation, I am vetted to a highstandard (SC and CTC) and I have worked for the Metropolitan Police and the CJS since 1989.



1. The MoJ’s decision to outsource was based on its perception that costs will be saved by using thisFramework Agreement (FWA) and contracting it out to ALS whilst maintaining quality.



2. This has not been the case, as was recently admitted by the government. Its implementation has in factbrought chaos in the courts of this country and a large number of lawyers and judges have reported instanceswhere interpreters were late, under-qualified or failed to turn up at all, causing increasing costs due to adjournedhearings and collapsed trials. If a defendant is unable to give instructions or understand the proceedings, he is,to all intent and purposes “absent from the proceedings” and trial in absentia is not permitted under English law.

3. I am particularly concerned about the quality of service provided under the new arrangements and believethat outsourcing interpreting services to a commercial agency is rapidly destroying all that had been achievedso far to raise the standard of interpreters who work in the public service sector. This has taken considerableeffort and investments over a long period of time (see page 13 of Equal Access to Justice and Fair Trial fornon-English speakers).

4. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice noted in 1993 that “Clearly, in the court setting, the higheststandards of interpretation are called for.” The Royal Commission recommended that only trained and qualifiedinterpreters be used in court, and the recommendation was accepted by the Government. In response, a NationalRegister of Public Service Interpreters (“NRPSI”) was established in 1994, which offers a minimum andmeasurable standard of training and quality assurance, followed by the National Agreement on the Use ofInterpreters (NA) which requires legal interpreters to be, “whenever possible”, sourced from the NRPSI.

5. However, the FWA has brought in a tiered system which lowered the minimum required quality standardsof interpreters working in the Criminal Justice System, and ALS introduced a system ofunaccredited assessments which interpreters undertake in order to register with them and to be placed in theirrespective tier.

6. When ALS was awarded the MoJ language contract, they stated the following: By using Applied LanguageSolutions’ national network of vetted and qualified freelance linguists who are approved, where appropriate,through an assessment process developed and delivered by independent institutions including MiddlesexUniversity, justice sector organisations will benefit from an all-encompassing coherent system that will delivergreater consistency and a higher quality of skilled linguists required for the job.

7. I also received a letter from Justice Minister Crispin Blunt dated 23 May 2012, via my MP, in whichhe stated:

“I understand that your constituent has concerns about the continued quality of foreign languageinterpreters. While it is true that the Framework Agreement opens up the market by allowing for anincreased range of acceptable qualifications and experience than was previously the case, it alsoadditionally requires all foreign language interpreters to pass an assessment, thus ensuring thatstandards are maintained.

I remain satisfied that under the Framework Agreement the Ministry of Justice will continue to haveaccess to interpreters of an appropriate quality while ensuring value for money for the public.”

8. Whilst both the MoJ and ALS consider this to be an “assessment” ensuring quality and standards, BrookeTownsley of Middlesex University makes it clear in his Law Gazette comment that “what was designed atMiddlesex University was explicitly NOT intended to mimic or replace the DPSI examination, nor indeedwas it designed to serve the same purposes. It was delivered solely as an in-service performance check,providing a diagnostic check (not a pass or fail result)”.

9. This assessment it is NOT an externally accredited and objective examination and by definition it cannotbe considered an objective assessment exercise, because it is set up as part of private commercial arrangementbetween ALS Ltd and Middlesex University. Initially ALS charged the linguists for the assessment costs £100+VAT (£120 total) claiming to be collecting this payment on behalf of Middlesex University, which isresponsible for designing and running the Assessments Centres nationally. They later reversed this policy andreimbursed the payments that had been made. This raises the question as to who now subsidises this assessment,which effectively allows ALS to pass unqualified bilinguals for capable interpreters under the pretence of themundergoing “independent assessment carried out by a leading university”.

10. Once registered, the majority of linguists of any tier are offered immediate assignments, for which theymay or not be qualified. Particularly embarrassing incidents include a Crown Court murder trial being adjournedwhen an interpreter sent her unqualified husband to work in her place, and owners of a cat that had beensigned up as a prank as a “feline language specialist”, being asked by ALS to bring their pet along for alanguage assessment.

11. The standard of interpretation is fundamental to a fair trial and to justice. Since the implementation ofthe contract with ALS, there have been well over 2,000 official complaints and there have been numerousconcerns expressed about the quality of some of the interpreters used by HMCTS. The concerns have includedinsufficient knowledge of the witness’s language, inadequate standard of English, and an inability to interpretproperly (which is not the same as speaking both languages). For recent examples, see “Court interpreter farcehalts murder trial”.



12. In a debate in the House of Lords on 9 July Lady Butler-Sloss, a retired judge, asked Lord McNally:“Are you aware of the extent of disruption and delay to criminal trials as a result of serious inaccuracies ofcourt interpreting, which is not only leading to very considerable cost but also concerns have been raised byjudges across the country, particularly in London, in Birmingham and in Leeds?” Lord McNally did notdeny this.

13. It is clear from the numerous articles published in the press that ALS has failed to deliver both interms of linguistic competence and in supplying sufficient number of interpreters to meet the needs of thelegal system.

14. This outsourcing has proven to be detrimental to the sustainability and development of the public serviceprofession, to the supply of qualified interpreters and translators, and to the delivery of justice.

15. The disregard shown by the MoJ and ALS for standards and quality, added to the slashing of the ratesof pay to interpreters, means that professionals are no longer be able to afford to carry out this vital work inthe public sector, and are seeking to earn a better living in other sectors.

16. The majority of professional legal interpreters have not and will not register with ALS, which meansthat courts no longer have access to the majority of fully qualified, experienced, trusted and vetted legalinterpreters. In fact, a letter from Crispin Blunt MP to John Leech MP, dated 13 July 2012, confirms that 87%of NRPSI interpreters have not signed up to ALS . Unless remedial action is taken soon, it will take severalyears to restore the quality of interpreting services for the courts in the UK.

17. Both as an interpreter and as a UK taxpayer, I am convinced that the Ministry of Justice’s FrameworkAgreement (FWA) with Applied Language Solutions Ltd (ALS) does not serve the interests of justice. It hasclearly failed its purpose.

18. In line with the aims of the Professional Interpreters for Justice Campaign, my colleagues and I feelthat the only options viable to us are to:

(1) Reverse the outsourcing to ALS or other commercial agencies, and the reintroduction of directemployment of freelance interpreters by the courts and police services.

(2) Establish regular dialogue between interpreter organisations and government.

(3) Persuade government to provide statutory regulation of the interpreting profession andprotection of the title of Legal Interpreter.

August 2012

Written evidence from Ranjeeta Johnson

I am a fully qualified and vetted interpreter and translator in Nepalese language. I have worked in CriminalJustice System for last 14 years. I will not register or work for ALS.

I as a tax payer do not think that we can afford pay a private company who makes profit to run the languageprovision in public sector and deliver quality. Profit will always be their fist target, which will compromisequality. I am appalled at the attitude of MoJ towards our profession and complete disregard to the to the rightsof the defendants, victims and the witnesses.

I am registered with NRPSI and I am also a member of ITI, CIoL, APCI, SOMI, SPSI and PIA. They areall submitting evidence to your committee both individually and collectively. I have had the opportunity toread them and I agree with its contents.

I fully support the submissions made by the above organizations and I sincerely hope that the unfairimplementation of the Frame Work Agreement is abandoned.

In my personal and professional opinion this mess created by outsourcing has made UK a laughing stock inEurope and the rest of the world in the Justice sector.

If the independent judiciary in the UK is to have any kudos then this Frame Work Agreement has to besuspended and withdrawn with immediate effect and a proper consultation with the membership organizationshas to take place to achieve the savings in this sector.

There have been numerous media coverage over this issue and interpreters have repeatedly written to theirMPs with evidence of incompetence and flawed system. It has all fallen to deaf ears so far. In the meantimeTax Payers are being deceived. This burden on us should be removed.

If the legal system in the UK requires its Judges, QCs, Barristers and Clerks to be qualified to carry outtheir duties, why then the interpreters who are vital mouthpiece to the cases need no qualifications? Surely,interpreters should be fully qualified and fully vetted in order to carry out their functions.



No one seems to be accountable to this shambles and the Coalition Government seems to be hell bent onthis idea. Who is profiting from this contract and who has vested interest in it to keeping it on?

I sincerely hope that this Committee will explore all avenues and look at all the evidence provided by theorganizations before it comes to its conclusion.

August 2012

Written evidence from Kasia Beresford

1. Introduction

This submission is being made in a personal capacity. I am a practicing interpreter and have broad experienceof management, finance and IT in large British corporates from my previous career.

I am going to address each of the six areas specified by the Justice Committee in turn. I am attaching twoarticles I have written, which explore in detail the statistics released by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and themisleading information provided to the Justice Committee about the number of interpreters currently workingunder the Framework Agreement (FWA). I will summarise the key points, but please refer to the articles for afuller explanation.


The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Crispin Blunt, said repeatedly that the rationalefor the changes was “to cut the cost and make more efficient provision while safeguarding quality”. In fact theimplementation has focused solely on cutting costs and convenience for the MOJ, with no real overall efficiencygain and no regard for quality.

Another reason given for the changes was “anecdotal evidence” regarding the professionalism and qualityof certain interpreters. As well as booking individual interpreters from the National Register of Public ServiceInterpreters (NRPSI), certain courts were regularly using various agencies which sent unqualified andunregistered persons to interpret in court. So, I agree change was required—but changes to check thatinterpreters were registered on the NRPSI or otherwise qualified and security-vetted, ie strengthening theregulatory function, not passing it to a commercial agency, which benefits financially by ignoring quality andsending the cheapest person available.

Lack of compulsory Continuing Professional Development was also quoted. If this is a real concern, itshould be addressed through professional and regulatory bodies i.e. the NRPSI, or by direct provision by HerMajesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), it is not a reason to make wholesale changes to theframework.

A perception that interpreters were overpaid. The discussion around this subject has been characterised byignorance of the practical realities of a career as an interpreter and by blatant misinformation. Crispin Blunttold both the House of Commons (13 March 2012) and Radio 4 Today programme listeners that interpreterswere earning six-figure salaries. It was impossible to earn a six-figure salary as a public service interpreter,other than by fraudulent means. In my experience the real remuneration an interpreter working full time in anin-demand language and available 24 x 7 could earn was at the £15,000–£30,000 p.a. level. That is notattractive remuneration for graduates with additional specialist qualifications, taking on all the risks of self-employment and working unsociable hours. It is certainly not excessive.

An assumption that low-level language skills are sufficient for court interpreting and that there are“untapped” interpreting skills in the UK’s immigrant communities—a local and unskilled labour force to beexploited. The two interrelated elements of this cheap and cheerful proposition are the assumption that courtinterpreting is low-skill and that, as the FWA stipulates, interpreters will be available within 25 miles of alllocations for all languages. The first assumption is false, as the ALS debacle has shown, and the second iscompletely impractical as there is not the workload to justify that many individuals training to be interpreters.Clearly demand and supply for interpreting varies by language and location and for many professionalinterpreters a significant element of travel is inevitable.

A view that telephoning individual interpreters to arrange attendance is somehow “inefficient”. This argumentis completely specious. There is not a sufficiently regular workload to justify employing interpreters on full-time contracts, so it is cost-effective to employ individuals on an as and when basis and therefore someonesomewhere in the chain has to contact the individual interpreters to make bookings. ALS’s idea that interpreterswould just pick up bookings from a website without human intervention proved to be a disaster. It is just aquestion of whether the individual court undertakes the activity, or a booking centre such as the TribunalsService had at Loughborough, or an agency or an interpreter-run call centre. Claims of enhanced efficiencybecause the courts do not have to ring individual interpreters are completely spurious—the costs of that processhave to be covered.



Reluctance to deal with individual freelancers and a view that the administrative burden of invoice processingetc is best handled by a commercial intermediary. In my experience the court administration was generally notimpressive (e.g. payment only by cheque, which is an expensive method), although it was improving: in GreaterManchester a regional payment centre was introduced and the Tribunals Service had a more organised systemthan most individual courts. However, there is a clear line to be drawn between the outsourcing of theadministrative function and outsourcing both the selection and remuneration of interpreters.

Finally, I believe there were issues in working with the NRPSI in the past. Firstly, the NRPSI becameindependent of the Institute of Linguists in April 2011 and has strengthened its disciplinary activity and isbecoming more responsive to feedback from its stakeholders. Secondly, the function of the NRPSI is sometimesmisunderstood: it is a voluntary regulator, not a service provider. Its function includes providing access to thedetails of registrants and ensuring they are qualified, experienced, security-vetted and subject to a code ofconduct and a disciplinary framework. Applied Language Solutions clearly pays only lip-service to theregulatory duties given to it in the FWA. It is highly inappropriate for a commercial entity with a direct conflictof interest to be the creator and keeper of a register of interpreters for the justice sector. Any such registershould be publicly available and transparent.

3. The Nature and Appropriateness of the Procurement Process

I am a qualified accountant and I find it shocking that the MOJ can claim to have followed “a rigorous androbust procurement process” in the light of ALS’s poor financial track record (a £20,000 loss in 2010 and a£331,000 loss in 2011) and their inadequate size and experience in relation to the size and value of the FWAcontract. They should have been rejected at an early stage of the selection process on that basis.

Any person with an ounce of common sense would have been alerted to the warning signs about the typeof outfit ALS is, when its bid came in significantly lower than that of the next closest bidder. ALS’s pricingstrategy clearly needed investigation and the MOJ showed no financial or business acumen in this respect.

In the long term paying decent rates is not financially sustainable for ALS and the absence of reasonable,guaranteed rates is unsustainable for qualified interpreters, who are being forced to leave this market. Putsimply, the FWA has been completely mispriced both by ALS and the MOJ, so that ALS is not capable ofdelivering it fully even at additional cost in the short term, let alone the medium or long term.

The extensive input from the interpreting profession was ignored. Cost and convenience for the MOJ werethe only criteria actually applied to the decision. The MOJ seemed to forget that although it could delegateexecution of a contract, it cannot delegate ultimate responsibility.

4. The Experience of Courts and Prisons in Receiving Interpretation Services that meet theirneeds

The overall quality of the interpreters working in courts has plummeted:

(i) The FWA dilutes the qualification requirements for interpreting in court as compared to thestandards for a full status listing in Law on the NRPSI. The tier system is a façade for de-professionalisation.

(ii) ALS has been caught out in relation to its assessment process, security vetting and verificationof the qualifications of its “interpreters”. Many of them lack even the most basic interpretingtraining and sit silently in court when they should be interpreting, as they are not even awarethat they are required to interpret in whispered mode when the defendant is not beingcommunicated with directly. The token CPD course offered to some did not even amount tobasic training, which should be a pre-requisite for working as an interpreter.

(iii) The rates of pay offered by ALS on which it based its FWA bid are so appalling that theycannot attract a significant number of real professionals. For example, the remuneration for atypical Magistrates’ Court job in Greater Manchester would be as follows:

National Agreement:3 hours minimum £85.001 hr 15 minutes travel time £18.75Mileage £5Parking £5Total paid £113.75Income net of travel expenses £103.75

Income/hour £24.41

ALS:

Job lasts 1 hourTotal paid £20Income net of travel expenses £10

Income/hour £4.44



Job lasts 3 hoursTotal paid £60Income net of travel expenses £50

Income/hour £11.76

These figures speak for themselves. ALS rates do not even guarantee a rate equal to the NationalMinimum Wage! At best the net payment to the interpreter is reduced by 52%, even though thestarting point is that the rates currently paid are barely sustainable and wholly incommensuratewith the skills and abilities of a professional interpreter. Clearly ALS never intended to attractgraduates with additional specialist qualifications such as the Diploma in Public ServiceInterpreting (DPSI).

(iv) Indeed ALS has attracted very few qualified, experienced and vetted interpreters, despite havinggradually increased some elements of its offer and despite being open to paying higher ratesfor certain languages and areas to limit adverse damage to its reputation. ALS and the MOJhave been loath to release figures about the number of NRPSI interpreters working for themunder the FWA, but recently Crispin Blunt claimed in a letter to my MP, John Leech, that theyhave 301 interpreters who are on the NRPSI i.e. 87% of NRPSI interpreters reject outright anyassociation with ALS and the FWA, despite the financial hardship it may entail.

It has become evident that the FWA theory that interpreters can make a living at lower pay rates by fullerutilisation of their time, ie by accepting back-to-back assignments, has caused great inconvenience to courts.Courts need to have interpreters available in situ for significantly longer than the actual interpreting time inthe court room. Firstly, due to the unpredictability of court room scheduling and secondly, because solicitorsand barristers require the interpreters’ assistance outside the court room in consultations. By working toinadequate fixed time slots for interpreters the courts are wasting other more expensive court resources egjudges’ and lawyers’ time. It is very easy to blame the interpreter, but unless HMCTS pays the interpreter forthe full time booked and books an adequate time slot to cover its requirements, it has only itself to blame.Expecting interpreters to be available for as long as required and not paying for the full time booked is notreasonable. This was less of a problem in the past with a three hour minimum guaranteed, but still a problemnevertheless. I personally would accept a lower minimum time if the assignment were guaranteed to finish andthere was no expectation that I would stay beyond the booked time. This could be feasible for more predictablecourt hearings such as Social Security Tribunal hearings. However expecting a full day to be kept free forCrown Court but not paying for it, so that the interpreter cannot book work for the afternoon, but may well befree yet not paid for the reserved time, is not reasonable and has at times led to problems.

I believe it might yield interesting information to look at the experience before and after implementation ofthe new arrangements for criminal courts and for the Tribunals Service separately. Each criminal court had itsown interpreter booking process, whereas the Tribunals Service had a central booking centre in Loughborough,which has now been largely dismantled. The Tribunals Service had an efficient regional booking system andits own Panel of Interpreters, which included NRPSI interpreters and DPSI holders but with wider criteria forrare languages. It appeared to match interpreters to jobs fairly efficiently and provided a reasonable work flowfor its regular interpreters. Why was this well functioning system dismantled for the sake of an unproven,politically driven mantra?

5. The Nature and Effectiveness of the Complaints Process

How can a complaints process be effective when the only route for complaints is to the Contractor who isthe subject of the complaint? ALS has been designated judge and jury as well as being a party to thecomplaint—entirely absurd. Also there is no avenue for interpreters working for ALS to complain.

6. The Steps that have been taken to Rectify Under-performance and the Extent to which theyhave been Effective

ALS is paying certain individuals much higher rates than usual to fill the gaps that are most visible andembarrassing to it. A certain Russian lady reports being offered £700 for a day’s interpreting in Lithuanian incentral London on her blog, while admitting she is not qualified for Lithuanian! Paying over the odds in sucha way is not sustainable for the ALS long term.

Payment of travel time by ALS in order to reduce the problem of its under-provision of interpreters has hadperverse results. I know interpreters on the NRPSI who do work for ALS and they travel far further tointerpreting assignments than they ever did under the old arrangements. As only a one hour minimum is paidunder the FWA, these interpreters do not accept any local bookings. It is unreasonable to expect a qualifiedinterpreter to commit to a full day in court and face a high probability of earning only £20.00 gross for theday. This would also explain some previously unpopular remote locations getting an improved service.

The MOJ and ALS have been very reticent and evasive about the actual number of interpreters workingunder the FWA. I attach an article I have written on this subject entitled “Framework Fantasies: the number ofinterpreters working under the FWA”. The key points are:

(i) The Justice Committee was given misleading information by Peter Handcock in his letter dated31 May regarding the number of interpreters working under the FWA.



(ii) Anyone aware of the realities of legal interpreting in the UK will know that the vast majorityof professionals only work in one language pair. Figures provided by the NRPSI show thatthere currently are 17% more language pairs offered than physical interpreters, not a 100%more, as claimed by Mr Handcock.

(iii) I believe the figures presented are either inaccurate or an indication that people being allowedto interpret in court for language pairs for which they do not have the appropriate skills.

7. The Appropriateness of Arrangements for Monitoring the Management of the Contract,including the Quality and the Cost-effectiveness of the Service Delivered

The FWA has not been effectively monitored at all. The contract could easily have been terminated for non-performance. The MOJ has chosen not to do so thus far. It has also not used the penalties available to it underthe FWA contract. An inflexible mindset has led the MOJ to continue to rack up costs and turn a blind eye toinadequate justice for non-English speakers, rather than limiting the damage, which would entail losing face.

The attached article, “Lies, damned lies and statistics”, explains the major flaws in the statistics released bythe MOJ for the first quarter of operation of the FWA. Please see the explanations in the article, but in brief:

(i) The statistics do not cover a significant proportion of interpreting jobs being handled outsidethe FWA, so they do not give a true picture of the use of language services in courts andtribunals as a whole. This conveniently obscures ALS’s underperformance on its nationwidecontract.

(ii) The performance data has been manipulated to provide improved headline figures e.g. overall“success rate” (c.f. article for explanation).

(iii) The base level data by individual language has been suppressed on spurious grounds,presumably to conceal an almost total lack of provision by ALS for certain languages egLithuanian.

(iv) The omissions are revealing: no data is presented for the majority of the Key PerformanceIndicators specified in the contract eg tiers, numbers of available interpreters, gaps inavailability of languages by region. These are all conspicuous by their absence: perhaps becausethere is no quality to speak of, an inadequate number of interpreters, gaps in language provisionand interpreters no longer work locally anyway.

The MOJ has decided not to release statistics for Q2 of the FWA! The next publication is scheduled for 13December to cover the first nine months of the FWA.

The MOJ seems to want to brush any inadequacies and additional costs under the carpet. It shows no signsof wanting to look at the real overall costs of its flawed policy, including those incurred by other public servicebudget holders eg the police for increased custody costs due to non-availability of interpreters. One hopes thatthe National Audit Office will prove more capable of reviewing the wider picture and calculating all theunnecessary costs being incurred due to the FWA.

The FWA is also building up liabilities for future costs, such as those of appeals where inadequateinterpreting was provided. Similarly if the FWA is not reversed there will be significant legal costs incurred inexplaining to the EU why the UK is non-compliant and took regressive action in the light of Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings.

August 2012

Annex A

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

The Ministry of Justice has recently released a report called “Statistics on the use of language services incourts and tribunals” (http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/courts-and-sentencing/language-services-in-use). Thisis the first set of statistics relating to the controversial Framework Agreement (FWA) between the Ministry ofJustice (MOJ) and its contractor Applied Language Solutions (ALS), part of Capita Group plc. It covers thefirst three-month period during which ALS was charged with providing interpreting services for all courts andtribunals nationwide.

An Incomplete Picture

Despite the fact that nationwide implementation was made easier for the contractor by the Tribunals Servicebooking its own interpreters in advance for most jobs in February (only 1,711 service requests were made toALS by Tribunals in February, as opposed to 4,711 in March), it failed to deliver so spectacularly that aftertwo weeks the MOJ changed its initial stance of not allowing any bookings other than via the FWA.

The new guidance issued in mid-February stated: “With immediate effect HMCTS will revert to the previousarrangements for all bookings due within 24 hours at the Magistrates’ Courts. Magistrates’ Courts bookingsshould be made direct with the interpreter under the terms of the National Agreement. It has also been decidedthat 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 AsylumSupport Tribunal.”

Clearly a significant proportion of the total workload is not being handled under the FWA, yet the MOJ haspresented a report based solely on the data in ALS’s web-based portal as at 8 May (p9 of the report). Thisreport does not reflect the use of language services in courts and tribunals as a whole, only those requestsprocessed by ALS.

Not revealing the total number of cases requiring interpreters makes a mockery of any claim to openness andtransparency, as without figures for the courts’ total requirement the true picture of ALS’s underperformance onits nationwide contract is conveniently obscured.

Performance Well Below Target

The report includes findings, supporting tables and base data focusing on two sets of information:

— Language service requests by outcome, by type of court, by month and by language andgeographical region.

— Complaints by reason for complaint, by type of court, analysed by region and separately bymonth (no base data provided).

Even within the limited parameters set by this report the contractor’s performance does not meet the criteriaset out in the FWA.

The target for fulfilment of all assignments in the FWA is 98%. ALS’s “success rate” (more later) is 81%over the quarter. The actual fulfilment rate is only 72%… and neither of those percentages is actually basedon the total requirement.

There were 2,232 complaints over the quarter of which 177 had not been resolved by 8 May (p7). The KeyPerformance Indicator in the FWA states that complaints should be resolved within three working days. Clearlythe contractor clocked up another abject failure in terms of both the number of complaints and speed ofresolution.

Interestingly there is no table showing total complaints. If you aggregate the tables provided you will findthe total is 177 short of the quoted figure of 2,232. The figures given in the tables would be about 9% worsehad they been included… so how valid are the rates shown?

One other obvious anomaly is that only 3% of the complaints actually included in the tables are categorisedas relating to “Interpreter Quality”. Interestingly the MOJ’s Chief Statistician distances himself from thecategorisations used in the report by saying (p9): “The classifications used in this bulletin… are taken directlyfrom the management system [ie ALS’s system], and are decided according to the rules laid down by thecontractor.” Perhaps that is why issues relating to the tier of interpreter are classified as “Operational issues”,which make up 21% of the complaints reported in the tables. This is rather convenient for the governmentminister Mr Crispin Blunt, who has recently quoted the 3% figure as evidence of lack of problems with quality.

Manipulation

The statistics have been manipulated to provide “improved” headline figures for the press and all those whomay not have the time or inclination to examine them in detail. Let us examine one of the key statistics—theoverall “success rate” of 81%.

The fulfilment rate is shown as 72%, so how does that become 81%? Well, you add 0.1% of requests whenthe ALS interpreter was present but the “Customer Did Not Attend” and then you take the 11% so-called“Customer Cancellations” out of the calculation. Well it’s not the contractor’s fault if the customer cancelled,is it? So, it wouldn’t be fair to include them in the total requests, would it?

The clue is on page 10 of the report: “Requests may also fail because… the supplier… does not attend (orarrives so late that the job is cancelled).” If the interpreter arrives so late that the court can no longer proceed,that is by any normal person’s standards a failure, hence those requests should be included in the total numberof requests for interpreters when calculating the “success rate”.

I suspect that a large number of ALS failures are hidden in these so-called “Customer cancellations” becausethe rate of cancellation seems very high at 11%. In my experience the only type of court with a very highinterpreter cancellation rate is an Employment Tribunal, as the parties often settle prior to a hearing. However,Employment Tribunal cancellations are only 3% of the total cancellations, so how does one explain the rest?Sometimes postponement of a hearing will lead to an interpreter cancellation in advance, but it does not happenthat frequently. Certainly the cancellation rate of 17%, or 863 Immigration & Asylum Tribunals (IAT), appearsextremely high. I have interpreted at quite a number of IAT cases and I can’t recall a single booking beingcancelled in four years.

Clearly the real “success rate” should be closer to 72% than the 81% headline ie 26 percentage points shortof the 98% target!



Obfuscation

There is a file of record-level data accompanying the report, which contains the data for the 26,059 languageservice requests on which all the tables and statistics are based… well, not quite.

The base data has been doctored to make independent analysis difficult: 4,446 records (17% of the total)have had the actual “Language” replaced by “Not disclosed”.

The notes provided state that this has been done “to protect the privacy of individuals” for any instanceswhere there is only one interpreting request for a single combination of court, month and language.

This “justification” doesn’t bear examination. First and foremost there is no data relating to individualsincluded in the data set. How does the fact that a specific court (or group of courts) had a language servicerequest which was fulfilled, not fulfilled or cancelled in a particular month impact on any individual’s privacy?It should be borne in mind that the data is being provided from one to three months after the event. In anycase, the interpreter’s identity in any specific case is not secret: the vast majority of court hearings are open tothe public and the interpreter will commonly give his or her name to the judge in open court.

So what does this restriction achieve? It makes many additional analyses of the data either incomplete orimpossible. In particular it would assist in covering up high failure rates in certain languages.

For example, say I wanted to calculate the “fulfilment rate” for Tamil, as opposed to the dubious “successrate” shown in Table 2. By summing data from Tables 8, 9 and 14, I can calculate that there were 621 requestsfor Tamil in total, but the record-level data contains only 541 records for Tamil ie 80 requests or 13% of theTamil data is hidden in “Not disclosed”, so full analysis is impossible.

The situation for Lithuanian, Vietnamese and Latvian is even worse because these languages are not includedin Table 14, so there is no way to calculate the total requests for each of these languages. Hence we don’t evenknow what % is hidden in “Not disclosed”.

Even for very frequently used languages such as Polish the “Not disclosed” category is problematic. I wantedto look at the figures for Polish for my region, the North-West, but the number of Polish records which can’tbe allocated as they are concealed in “Not disclosed”—310—is greater than the 239 Polish requests definitelyassociated with the North-West!

I fail to see any justification whatsoever for restricting the record-level data in this fashion. The onlyindividuals protected by this obfuscation are those who are desperate to fly in the face of the evidence andmaintain that the FWA is a success.

Revealing Omissions

Finally, the most important thing about this report is all the statistics that are missing.

There is not a single figure giving information about the tiers of interpreters used, although the FWA clearlystates this information is to be supplied. Perhaps it is now convenient to forget about quality in relation to theFWA? Perhaps this reflects the reality that there are no minimum standards for court interpreters any more? Itis certainly noteworthy that the detailed criteria set out for each tier in the FWA have been diluted into “tier-based needs” in this report and contain no mention of any qualifications or experience at all.

Similarly, the number of available interpreters, gaps in availability of languages by region and all the otherKey Performance Indicators listed in the FWA are conspicuous by their absence.

These statistics do not even address the limited scope set honestly. While the MOJ turns a blind eye andrefuses to accept that the FWA is fundamentally flawed, the outlook remains bleak. Proper evaluation of theFWA would reveal very poor stewardship of both the public interest and the public purse.

Annex B

Framework Fantasies: The Number of Interpreters Working under the FWA

We are now over six months into the MOJ’s Framework Agreement (FWA) for interpreting in courts, andthroughout, rather than treating interpreters as stakeholders in the judicial process, the politicians and officialsat the MOJ have persisted in attempting to impose the Framework on interpreters in the delusion that they canforce highly-qualified, intelligent, freelance professionals to work for them under clearly unacceptablearrangements.

One of the Framework Fantasies is that interpreters are low-skilled automatons, who just spurt outtranslations word for word, expendable Google Translate skivvies who can easily be replaced from amongstall the newcomers in this country and, if it weren’t for a few “militants”, the FWA would operate smoothly,everything would settle down and the “teething problems” could be forgotten.

The reality is that the professional interpreters, who are able to facilitate efficient and effectivecommunication in court, are voting with their feet: refusing to work both for the chosen contractor and, inmany cases, for any body which participates directly in the FWA. Good interpreters are intelligent individuals



and well able to assess the current situation. We can see that there is no future at all in public service interpretingwhile this farcical FWA persists.

In fact, in a recent letter to John Leech, Crispin Blunt answered my MP’s question about how many ALSinterpreters are registered on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. Applied Language Solutionssupplied the information that they had 301 NRPSI interpreters as at 6 July 2012. Unverified figures providedby ALS are known to be less than reliable and it is not in its interest to understate this number. So, at best,13% of NRPSI interpreters might be available to work under the Framework Agreement and it is clear that atleast 87% of NRPSI interpreters reject it outright.

Both ALS-Capita and MOJ representatives have repeatedly maintained that properly qualified, experiencedand vetted interpreters are signing up to work under the FWA in droves. They seem to think that by repeatingit frequently, they can make it come true: that, if they can make interpreters believe it, they will followlike sheep.

We know that ALS/Capita has made many statements about the numbers of interpreters working under thenew arrangements quoting wildly varying figures. The context always implies that the number relates to properinterpreters working under the FWA, but the words are always suitably vague, so that they cannot be pinneddown.

The MOJ surely could be expected to do better? It wouldn’t be hard to be a touch more impartial, objectiveand reliable than Gavin Wheeldon’s creation.

In an article in the Independent on the 21 May 2012, the MOJ is quoted as follows: “Close to 3,000interpreters are now working under this contract.”

In a letter dated 31 May 2012 to Sir Alan Beith, the Chief Executive of HM Courts & Tribunals Service,Peter Handcock, answers a question about how many interpreters are providing services via ALS(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/courtinterpreters.pdf).

He explains that each language for which an interpreter is qualified counts separately “as a single entity”giving “a figure of almost 3,000 interpreters (by language)”. The normal terminology for this is “3,000 languagelistings”, as saying “3,000 interpreters” lends itself to misleading quotes such as the one in the Independentmentioned above.

Mr Handcock continues: “This equates to around 1,500 individual interpreters providing services under thecontract.” In actual fact it is extremely improbable that 3,000 language listings equates to 1,500 interpretersproperly qualified in all their listed language pairs. Why could Mr Handcock not tell the Chair of the JusticeSelect Committee how many people were actually providing services as interpreters? Perhaps because thefigure is substantially lower than 1,500? Or maybe the 3,000 figure is poppycock? Is disingenuous obfuscationa reasonable way to reply to the Chair of the Justice Select Committee? Or could it be possible that MrHandcock really is blithely unaware of what is happening in the service for which he is responsible?

Similar information was conveyed to the House of Lords on 9 July 2012 during a debate instigated byBaroness Coussins. Lord McNally said: “At the moment there are about 1,500 interpreters under contractand they are equivalent to about 3,000 interpreter persons, which means that many of them speak two ormore languages.”

Anyone knowledgeable about the realities of legal interpreting in the UK will instantly recognize this astwaddle, because the vast majority of legal interpreters work in only one language pair. There are somecombinations of languages where it is more common to work in multiple language pairs eg Urdu<>Englishand Panjabi<>English or Cantonese<>English and Mandarin<>English, but most interpreters have only onepair for which they are properly qualified to intepret.

The proposition presented by Lord McNally and Peter Handcock might be taken at face value by thoseunfamiliar with the field because misconceptions about what is involved in interpreting are common.

The most high-profile type of interpreting is conference interpreting and people may be aware that it iscommon for a conference interpreter to work with multiple languages. However it is common only where theinterpreting is in one direction ie the interpreter understands a number of languages, but speaks only in his orher native tongue. Court interpreting is bi-directional ie you interpret to and from both languages in the pair.Few interpreters are qualified or capable of interpreting bi-directionally between multiple pairs of languages toa high standard.

The second misconception is expressed in Baroness Sharples’ question: “how many languages eachinterpreter is expected to speak?” A legal interpreter doesn’t just have to “speak” a language—social chit-chator getting by communicating in everyday situations—the interpreter has to interpret between two languagesand needs specialised terminology in both, a huge breadth of vocabulary in both etc. I have degree-level Frenchand Russian and “I speak” a bit of Spanish and Italian, but I only interpret professionally between Polish andEnglish. If holiday-level language skills are included, then 1,500 interpreters could easily become 3,000, or farmore, “interpreter-persons”.



My arguments above are confirmed by the actual figures provided to me by the National Register of PublicService Interpreters. Currently 86% of NRPSI interpreters are registered for one language pair only, 12%interpret in two language pairs and 3% in three language pairs. The ratio of language listings to interpreters is1.17, which means you would expect to have 17% more language listings than interpreters—not 100% moreas Lord McNally claimed!

It is a matter for embarrassment, to say the least, that this was presented as a serious proposition in theHouse of Lords and to the Chair of the Justice Committee. It points to dilution of standards and quality on amassive scale, which is wholly incompatible with complying with the EU Directive on the right to interpretationand translation in criminal proceedings, due to be fully operative in October 2013.

Written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Linguists

Introduction

1. The Chartered Institute of Linguists (“the Institute”) is glad to have the opportunity to provide evidenceto the Select Committee.

2. In consultation and collaboration with the legal services, starting in 1982, the Institute researched anddeveloped qualifications and professional standards for interpreting services for the criminal justice services,establishing the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) in 1994. The Institute was a keyparticipant in consultations leading to the introduction, in 1997, of the National Agreement on Arrangementsfor the Use of Interpreters, Translators and Language Service Professionals in Investigations and Proceedingswithin the Criminal Justice System (revised in 2002 and further revised in 2007) (“the National Agreement”).14

3. The Institute took part in direct meetings with the CJS Interpretation Project from the start of 2010, andsubmitted evidence to the project. The Institute has followed with close interest and concern the implementationof the Languages Services Framework that was finally launched in February 2012.

4. The evidence provided here focuses primarily on the first two areas that the Select Committee wishes toexplore, ie the rationale for changing arrangements for the provision of interpreter services, and the nature andappropriateness of the procurement process. We are aware that other bodies, which are in a position to offermore direct evidence relating to the other areas of enquiry will be covering those in their own submissions.We will, however, draw attention to some of the main negative outcomes of the Language Services Frameworkand its implementation.

Summary

5. The Chartered Institute of Linguists believes that the intrinsically worthwhile deliverables sought by theMinistry of Justice in its Language Services Framework Agreement, are seriously undermined in the followingmain aspects:

— A competitive sourcing process which would make unrealistic demands on a single nationalprovider with insufficient experience in the field.

— A failure comprehensively to apply existing nationally and internationally recognisedprofessional standards.

— Lack of understanding of the practical aspects of language in use, evidenced, for example, inthe proposal that members of the legal services can predict the language complexity of a futureevent and allocate individuals with the “right” level of language skills to them.

— The concept that a single profit-making commercial body should have national control over thefees and working arrangements of professionals, without appropriate involvement of therelevant professional organisations or of individual practitioners.

— Inadequate recognition of the crucial need to foster and preserve trust between the criminaljustice system, the public and interpreters.

— Lack of appreciation of the potential damage to the mutual trust required between the legalservices of the UK and of other EU member states.

— Failure to recognise the need for a regulatory body independent of any provider, which canregister interpreters who meet appropriate and necessary criteria in regard to qualifications,experience, CRB checks, and which can administer disciplinary procedures.

— Inadequate recognition of the principles of EU Directive 2010/64/EU (“the Directive”) on theright to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, which is to be implemented byOctober 2013.

Background and context

6. The Chartered Institute of Linguists (www.iol.org.uk) is the largest professional language body in the UK,with a membership of over 6,000, comprising translators, interpreters, bilingual professionals and educators14 http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/interpreters/National Agreement on Use of Interpreters-August 2008.pdf



working in a range of contexts. It is non-profit making, in accordance with the terms of its Royal Charter, andit has seen its work in connection with public services as important. Beginning in 1982, with support from theNuffield Foundation, it developed and piloted systems for the selection, training, assessment and good practiceof public service interpreters across all sectors. There was close collaboration with the legal services throughoutthe development work on that sector of the public services.

7. This resulted in:

— The establishment in 1994 of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI),which is now an independent voluntary regulatory body (www.nrpsi.co.uk), administeringregistration processes against appropriate criteria, a code of conduct and disciplinaryprocedures.

— Relevant national examinations, mapped against independent national and internationalstandards and accredited by Ofqual. These are offered by the IoL Educational Trust(http://iol.org.uk/qualifications/examsmain.asp) the associated charity of the Chartered Instituteof Linguists:

— Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI) at initial professional level (QCF level 6—first degree) in four pathways: Law (England and Wales), Law (Scotland), Health andLocal Government, which includes housing and other social services. In 2011, some 850candidates registered in full or in part for the DPSI (Law, England and Wales) in 39languages.

— Diploma in Translation (Dip.Trans) at QCF Level 7 (Masters) This has a general papertogether with a choice of semi-specialised options including law. It is intended to offer acertificate in public service translation at this level.

— Certificate in Bilingual Skills (CBS). At about A level, this is too low a level to accreditinterpreting skills but provides a solid foundation to begin training for the DPSI. It hasbeen adapted for testing second language skills for public service employees such as policeofficers eg CBS for Metropolitan Police.

Candidates come primarily from the UK but also, particularly for the Dip.Trans, from abroad.

8. Since 1998, the Chartered Institute has, to date, been a core participant in eight successive EU projectssupported by the European Commission, whose recommendations have been accepted by the Commission. Theearlier projects informed the Directive and the later ones its implementation.15

9. There has been continuous collaboration with the legal services and other language bodies throughout,including:

— The NRPSI Legal Services Advisory Group, which started its work in 1994–95. This includedsenior representatives from the Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service, Law Society,probation service, immigration tribunals, legal aid, Association of Chief Police Officers,Metropolitan Police, Magistrates’ Association, prison service and Customs & Excise.

— After some years this was subsumed into the Interpreter Working Group (IWG), under theauspices of the Better Trials Unit. This brought in other language bodies such as those forBritish Sign Language.

— Inter alia, the IWG:

— Submitted a funding proposal for £64 million of five-year tapering funding to establishnot-for-profit regional units for the provision of interpreting and translation services, undernational guidelines, creating an efficient 24/7 operational system. At the same time itwould include a focus on necessary growth, eg through training, data collection andliaison. This was rejected.

— Developed the National Agreement on Arrangements for the Use of Interpreters,Translators and Language Service Professionals in Investigations and Proceedings withinthe Criminal Justice System.

10. This 30 years of diligent, incremental and consensual work has been carried out in the context of:

— National lack of funding for language training in general and public service interpreter trainingin particular.

— The limited number of languages offered in academic courses, and the failure to formalise thepotential resource of those who speak a language in addition to English.

— The low priority given to language provision on the part of the public services generally.

— Sensitivities around languages and cultures.

— The failure to challenge the unacceptability of informal interpreting arrangements, eg bychildren, neighbours or other unqualified persons.

15 See article from The Linguist, attached as Appendix III.



11. Nonetheless, a survey on the provision of legal interpreting and translation in the EU, published in 2008,showed that the UK at that time compared favourably with other member states—but may not now do so.16

12. Structures had been established within the UK for a professional framework as recommended by the firstEU project, in 2001 (see Appendix I). It only remained to fine-tune their quality through experience and toincrease the quantity of legal interpreters and translators. These structures for the legal sector create a modelfor the formalisation of the profession for all language practitioners.

13. The provision of interpreters and translators alone is not enough to deliver an effective and equal legalservice to multi-lingual societies. The UK had therefore, along with some other member states, begun toaddress the other skill sets and structures required (see Appendix II). For example, training of legal services ismentioned in the Directive in Article 6:

“Member States shall request those responsible for the training of judges, prosecutors and judicialstaff involved in criminal proceedings to pay special attention to the particularities of communicatingwith the assistance of an interpreter so as to ensure efficient and effective communication.”

14. It may be noted that such training should include not only how to work with translators and interpreters.It should also apply to the wider challenge of how the legal services themselves should research, plan, organiseand implement their service delivery to a multi-lingual, multi-cultural society, for which and to which theyare accountable.

Development of the Languages Services Framework (LSF)

15. It was understandable that the MOJ should become impatient and frustrated, along with everyone else,at the pace of progress—although that slow pace was not altogether surprising in the context of managing thedevelopment of effective practices to deal with intercultural national social change.

16. It is also recognised that it can be inefficient and inappropriate for hard pressed police officers, andothers, to locate and commission the right language practitioners. There has to be some sort of intermediaryindependent professional arrangement, as other professions have. In this context, it was unfortunate that theMOJ took heed of the small group of vociferous interpreters who, for their own reasons, were critical of thestandards bodies at the time. Many of these interpreters have since changed their view.

17. It was clear from the outset, despite advice from the language profession, that the following factors,integral to both the LSF and the rationale behind it, were likely to disadvantage any tender winner:

(i) The failure to appreciate the fragmented and inconsistent nature of data and skills availableacross the country; this might have been nurtured better through a consistent regional approach,rather than by employing a single, national organisation without the necessary depth ofunderstanding and experience.

(ii) The evident lack of appreciation of the relevance to public service interpreting of the basicprinciples underpinning any profession.17

(iii) The omission of existing professional standards bodies from the LSF, in particular the NRPSI,and the notion that a national professional register can be administered by a commercialcompany, which is at odds with the spirit of the Directive.

(iv) The unfortunate concept that a single profit making company can dictate the fees and workingarrangements for a profession on a national basis. The Institute does not normally involve itselfin the employment arrangements of its members, unless standards are affected. It does, however,conduct regular Rates & Salaries Surveys.18

(v) Many language practitioners belong to the National Union of Professional Interpreters andTranslators (NUPIT. www.unitetheunion.org/nupit). No doubt the union and other bodies willbe presenting detailed evidence on this topic. Suffice it for us to say that reasonable fees mustbe paid in order to attract and retain language practitioners with the level and type of skills andqualifications required by the CJS. These skills are in demand elsewhere, as can be seen fromthe Rates & Salaries Survey. The Chartered Institute, given its broad membership, is aware thatmany public service interpreters have portfolio careers, as demand for their skills is by definitionunpredictable. In the face of a decline in remuneration for work in the CJS, they may decide toconcentrate on other areas to make use of their professional skills.

(vi) Lack of understanding of language and language practice, such as:

— The misconception that members of the legal services can predict the language complexityof events in advance and then allocate interpreters with the “right” level of language skillsto them. Linguistic difficulty is not determined by the importance of the occasion asperceived by the legal services. It can, for example, be more linguistically challenging tointerpret in a neighbourhood or domestic dispute in an informal context than in astraightforward guilty plea in a high court.

16 Status Quaestionis: Eds. Hertog & Grucht (www.agisproject.com)17 Aequitas, chap 7.18 The 2012 survey, carried out in collaboration with the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI), is

forwarded as an annex to this submission.



— Failure to take account of the fact that a lower standard of interpreting is not appropriateat a lower “tier” of the MOJ interpreting tiers: accuracy is the crux of the matter. It isrecognised in the UK that QCF Level 6 (first degree) is the “minimum level forprofessional interpreting qualifications”.19

— Failure to recognise that monitoring should not solely relate to logistics but should alsoinvolve engaging independent competent linguists to assess professional skills andpractice.

Main Negative Outcomes

18. A significant number of registered and qualified legal interpreters and translators have refused to workfor ALS and may never return. Other organisations will have submitted their own evidence on this.

19. There is well documented and widely publicised evidence that the LSF has led to reduction in theefficiency of the criminal justice system when members of the public who do not speak English are involved.This has cost implications, as will certainly be evidenced by others in their submissions.

20. The risk of the inadequate practices set out in the LSF being transferred to the health and other publicservice sectors is of grave concern. The absence of professional interpreters or deficiencies in translation andinterpreting can have potentially fatal results. For example, see The Victoria Climbié Inquiry report of aninquiry by Lord Laming,20 and Executive Summary of The Eighth Report of the Confidential Enquiry intoMaternal Deaths in the UK by the Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE).21

21. Most importantly, the trust between the MOJ and the legal services, the language practitioners and thepublic has been damaged, and the damage can only increase. That trust is crucial here in three particular aspects:

— All the parties involved in the CJS have to be able to trust the interpreters and translators. Asthe criminal justice system involves a series of legal services, this means they must be able totrust each other, and the interpreters and translators engaged by each service, in order to retainthe integrity of the whole. The courts, for example, must be able to trust the communication inthe prior investigations and reports for the courts to rely on the evidence before them on whichto base their decisions. Furthermore, the courts must be able to rely on communication in whatcomes after the hearings to ensure that the subsequent actions they order, such as the range ofsentencing options—including community service orders—are carried out satisfactorily.

— The public must be able to trust the CJS. This applies particularly to new arrivals, who maynot intuitively trust our legal system, especially if they have come from countries where legalsystems may be corrupt or arbitrary.

— Mutual trust between member states is essential in order to underpin increasing judicialcooperation for the prevention of terrorism and trafficking of drugs and people; forimplementing mutually recognised legislation and for dealing with cases that cross nationalborders.

Conclusions

22. It is clear that the arrangements under which the LSF operates are unsatisfactory for the reasonsenumerated above.

23. If allowed to continue, it is likely that the following will happen:

— continued risk to the CJS and the parties involved in the service delivered by it;

— escalating costs arising from adjournments, appeals etc;

— diminution of the availability of qualified interpreters and weakening of the professional base;

— further loss of trust; and

— regression from our former position as one of the leaders among EU member states, in thedevelopment of practice and policy in this important area of justice.

24. If the shortcomings identified are not dealt with effective progress will not be made. The CharteredInstitute of Linguists recommends that the essential principles relevant to the provision of interpreting andtranslation in the justice system be reviewed objectively and openly, restoring and making full use of the19 National Occupational Standards in Interpreting (London: CILT, revised 2006, final version 2010).20 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4008654)21 http://www.mdeireland.com/pub/SML11_Executive_Summary.pdf.

Also, Saving mother’s lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer—2003–2005. The Seventh Report onConfidential Enquiries into Maternity Deaths in the United Kingdom. G. Lewis (ed.) 2007 (London: CEMACH The ConfidentialEnquiry into Maternal and Child Health).



existing but endangered professional base to bring about an efficient system for delivery of interpreting in thecriminal justice services.

Keith Moffitt MCILChair of Council

Ann Corsellis OBE Hon.FCILVice-President



CharteredIns�tute

ofLinguists

APPENDIX

I

Aequitas.Accessto

Jus�ce

acrossLanguageandCulture

intheEU(Gro�usproject98/GR131,publishedin2001;www.agisproject.com)

PU

BL

IC S

ER

VIC

E I

NT

ER

PR

ET

ING

& T

RA

NS

LA

TIO

N:

CO

MP

ON

EN

TS

OF

TH

E P

RO

FE

SS

ION

Inte

rdep

end

ent,

tra

nsp

are

nt,

acc

ou

nta

ble

an

d c

on

sist

ent

Sel

ecti

on

fo

r

trai

nin

g c

rite

ria

linguis�c

professional

Tra

inin

g

knowledgeofthe

domain

enhancementof

languages

interpre�ngand

transla�on

Ass

essm

ent

linguis�c

professional

Registra�on

Criteria:

qualifica�ons

experience

references

suitability

Pro

fess

ion

al

pra

ctic

e goodprac�ce

guidelines

code

CPD

Employmenteg

contracts

le!ersofagreement

insurance

support

Deployment

na�onalregisters

QualifiedTrainers

Qual

ifie

d

Ex

amin

ers/

asse

sso

rs

Qu

alif

ied

men

tors

and

su

per

vis

ors

Plus:

Supervised

Ongoingcommunica�on,atallstages,withand

betw

een:

services(e.g.legal)

speakersofotherlanguages

languageprofessionalbodies

APPENDIX II

FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES ACROSS LANGUAGES ANDCULTURES

(extract from Non-English Speakers and the English Legal System, Ann Corsellis; published by Institute ofCriminology, University of Cambridge)

A. Providing a service includes the following tasks, which are the responsibility of the public service inquestion

1. Finding out about the client(s) and their requirements.

2. Preparing the service to meet those requirements.

3. Giving information about the service to the client(s).



4. Exchanging information and negotiating decisions with client(s).

5. Delivering an appropriate service.

6. Quality Assurance.

7. Researching and developing the service

B. By using, at each stage, the combination of professional skills below:

Communication

1. Interpreters.

2. Translators.

3. Language aware personnel.

4. Bilingual service personnel.

Service delivery

5. Service professionals with relevant expertise.

Management

6. Planners, organisers, researchers with relevant expertise.

C. Each skill (in B above) is made available through consistent, transparent:1. Selection.

2. Training.

3. Assessment at appropriate levels.

4. Observance of code of ethics and good practice.

5. Appropriate employment arrangements.

6. Deployment.

7. Support and Continuous Professional Development.

APPENDIX III

The Linguist, Vol. 50 No. 1, 2011, pp. 21–2

CHANGE MAKERS: CIOL INVOLVEMENT IN RECENT EU PROJECTS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICESECTOR

By Ann Corsellis

Since 1998, the CIOL has been involved in a number of EU projects in the public service sector, whichprovide a context to the reports on progress published in The Linguist from time to time (see Council News,page 33). Public service interpreting and translation (PSIT) encompasses all areas of the public sector, includinglegal, health and social services. One day it is hoped that structures and resources may evolve to enable PSITsto have access to post-graduate training and assessment, and careers, that allow them to work in all the publicservices. Meanwhile, progress is being made sector by sector.

The lead is currently being taken by the legal system, mainly because there is relevant legislation. As AnneMartin and Juan Miguel Ortega illustrated in their excellent article in the last issue (TL50,4), to preserve theintegrity of the whole, legal interpreters and translators (LITs) have to be equipped to work across the legalsystem, so to call them “police” or “court” interpreters could be misleading.

Criminal (and civil) matters are increasingly an international activity. It therefore follows that the EU shouldseek to establish equivalent standards for LITs in all 27 member states to promote three main activities:

1. Implementation of the basic legal principle that each individual is equal before the law,irrespective of language and culture.

2. Judicial cooperation between states in matters such as the prevention of terrorism and oftrafficking in drugs and people.

3. Mutual recognition measures, such as the common European Arrest Warrant, which becamemandatory in 2004.

The best structures to deal with this will not spring forth in perfect form. A patient process of internationaland interdisciplinary exploration, consultation and development is required. The fundamental legalrequirements exist, notably in Article 6, paragraph 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).1

It is worth reading the clear account of the legal progression by Caroline Morgan, a lawyer from the EuropeanCommission, in the report of the AVIDICUS project2—and to note the road map described.



There have been seven EU-funded projects focusing on LITs. The first ones informed the Directive 2010/64/EU3 of the European Parliament on the right to interpreting and translation in criminal proceedings; laterones support its implementation:

1. Aequitas. Recommended the equal and adequate standards required (2001).

2. Aequalitas. Sought to disseminate those standards throughout the EU (2003).

3. Aequilibrium. Looked at the necessary liaison working arrangements between the language andlegal professions (2005).

4. Status Quaestionis. Survey of developments in LIT in all member states showed an unevenpatchwork of provision (2008).4

5. EULITA. European Legal Interpreters’ and Translators’ Association aims to promote EU-widestandards and information exchange (2009).5

6. Building Mutual Trust 1. Selection of sample teaching and other materials for LITs and legalservices, and their trainers (2011).6

7. AVIDICUS 1 Assessing the implications of videoconference interpreting (2011).7

Three more projects are currently in progress: Building Mutual Trust 2 concerns developing video trainingmaterials, and AVIDICUS 2 continues to research the implications of video-mediated interpreting. A EULITAproject, TRAFUT, will promote implementation strategies.

Network of Experts

Institutions from at least three member states have been involved in each project, resulting in a growingcreative network of professional expertise. The CIOL has been a core participant, except in the EULITAprojects, to which it gives support when asked. Lead coordinators have rotated, with the CIOL leading thefirst project.

The work on LITs is an integral part of the concept of equality before the law and being prepared toimplement that in practice. Equal and adequate standards of LITs in all member states will happen slowly, butthere is no alternative to getting it right, especially given non-negotiable legal principles, recognised, graduate-level language standards for reliable transfer, and EU and domestic legislation.

The reasons for competent implementation are obvious. More interesting are the reasons for not doing itwell, for attempted short-cuts and short-term compromises. One wonders whether cost is as significant as itseems, and whether votes may play a part.

Progress has been made but is intermittent and brings anomalies. For example, where there is insufficientshared language, police officers may not conduct an interview without the assistance of a qualified interpreter,paid for by the state—but doctors can8—and do.

Now there’s a thought. It looks as if support of the wider profession is going to be needed for some time yet.

Notes

1. www.echr.coe.int

2. Morgan, C, “The New European Directive on the Rights to Interpretation and Translation in CriminalProceedings” in Braun, S & Taylor, J L (eds.), Videoconference and Remote Interpreting in CriminalProceedings, 2011, Guildford: University of Surrey, 5–10. Available at www.videoconference-interpreting.net/BraunTaylor2011.html3 eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:280:0001:0007:en:PDF

4. For more on Aequita, Aequalitas, Aequilibrium and Status Quaestionis, see www.agisproject.com

5. www.EULITA.eu

6. www.lr.mdx.ac.uk/mutual-trust/

7. www.videoconference-interpreting.net

8. Directive 2011/24/EU on the Application of Patients’ Rights in Cross-Border Healthcare, 9 March 2011.



Written evidence from Sitta K Sittambalam

Specifically we 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 havebeen effective.

6. The appropriateness of arrangements for monitoring the management of the contract, includingthe quality and cost-effectiveness of the service delivered.

The deadline for submissions is Monday 3 September 2012.

The Rationale for Changing Arrangements for the Provision of Interpreter Services

In this part it is clearly understood the purpose of the exercise is to reduce costs to the government, whichis very important and perfectly reasonable.

But prior to getting into that one has to look at how interpreters have been treated by such governmentagencies over the past decade and proportionality of the measures taken by different departments, in particularthe Home Office, The Ministry of Justice (including the Prison Service). There are several others who buythese same services such as the NHS, Local Authorities, solicitors etc.

There are some three professional bodies, which accredit interpreters/translators (by reviewing theirexamination qualifications and work experience) in this country, as I can recall, the CIoL, ITI, APCI. I amcertain they would have submitted their own evidence to you for consideration.

All interpreters, except those in British Sign Language, (BSL) are almost entirely of foreign origin. It is clearand patently obvious that such biased treatment has been served upon interpreters as they are predominantly offoreign origin.

Firstly there has been a complete failure of the various govt depts. in talking to each other in the acquisitionof the above services and setup a properly organised unit to provide these services. These services have beenpurchased for over 20 years as far as I am aware. So in effect no one in authority has been seriously thinkingabout such issues, for a very long time, at least 10+ years, yet these are people employed at expensive salariesand perks to manage such functions among other matters. However what they have done successfully over thesame period is to keep rates of payment to interpreters, unchanged for more than 10 years, including the carmileage allowances, while they had their regular annual pay rises for cost of living and merit/promotion. Oneof the best cost savings that can be achieved in this respect is to put all the civil servants back to their salariesin 2002–03 or thereabouts. Also the govt is ripping off the public in huge sums in vehicle, road and fueltaxation, under various pretexts of polluter pays?!

The Home Office and the MoJ have an annual budget expenditure around £20 billion, of which perhapssome £150 million at a very generous estimate would be the spend on interpreters. The proportionality of thecost reduction exercise being applied so drastically and without any proper independent monitoring, validationand verification is a scandalous waste of tax payers’ money.

In addition it must be mentioned that out of the 40 or so constabularies, there are several different variationsof pay rates and terms despite many of the forces claiming that this is in line with ACPO policy. Howeversome of these forces when asked to provide a copy of the detailed terms and conditions of engagement ofinterpreters do not provide them, and a few of them would merely send a single sheet of pay rates!

The Nature and Appropriateness of the Procurement Process

This is an area very difficult for any person to comment upon, without suitable knowledge of the entireprocess, particularly as many Government Departments maintain an excessive level of confidentiality undernumerous and varied pretexts to avoid timely warnings and criticisms of their actions. Besides they the govtemployees get away with whatever they do as there are virtually no sanctions of any consequence applied tothem, for their serious and significant failures. They all absorbed under “we must learn from it” umbrella. Bynow many should have multiple Ph.Ds. and even D.Sc.s for “what has been learned”. Further examples arenumerous Defence contracts with massive underestimates/overspends, The infamous NHS Database project,The PFI initiative in which many hundreds of million £s have been lost, to name but a few.

However in this case of award of the contract to the eventually successful bidder, ALS, it was clear that thisagency had failed miserably in the provision of the same services with a number of the North Westconstabularies over the preceding two years and lost a judicial review brought against them by a group ofinterpreters sometime in 2010–11.

So what due diligence did, the so called govt. staff evaluating this bidder amongst other competitors, applyin arriving at their decision, to award this contract to ALS. Furthermore this successful bidder had an extremely



low and unacceptable credit rating at the time they were awarded the contract. Is this how public servantsshould protect govt contracts and resources!

A proper scrutiny of how the govt staff believed the so-called savings, and what if any sanctions theyimposed on the bid winner, along with what clear, transparent and independently accessible and verifiablerecording system for bookings, attendances, costs paid out was in place, prior to award of contract, particularlyas one of the reasons given for the award of the contract was that the MoJ had no real idea of costs incurredin the employment of interpreters. Also needed is how the staffs awarding the contract were gullible to believethe “con” sold to them on cost savings by the winning bidder and how senior staff in govt who would havepreviewed the contract before sign off also believed such claims of savings. These are extremely serious issueswhere govt employees paid to do a job fail to do it miserably and continue to remain in employment withoutany sanctions or penalties and many even get promoted and another person of similar competence arrives inthat chair.

What basic critical parameters did the tender demand that the supplier must meet in providing interpreters,and what penalties were in place for failure to meet such standards! It has become quite clear now that manyof ALS supplied interpreters are neither qualified nor are CRB cleared, in addition to not being evaluated forcompetencies although they(ALS) claimed they want to evaluate many of the accredited interpreters, beforetaking them on.

The Experience of Courts and Prisons in Receiving Interpretation Services that meet theirneeds

This is best answered by courts and prisons. In my experience some courts are very good at administeringthe bookings and managing them, yet quite a few are very poor at it, and I can say this with some authority asI have worked in over 40 different courts and prisons across the country.

The Nature and Effectiveness of the Complaints Process

This is yet another failing by the govt staff awarding the contract and the courts are not interested in receivingcomplaints, so long as they have an interpreter supplied to them by ALS, who are CERTAINLY not impartialto monitor the complaint process and respond, despite having the responsibility to take corrective action.

The Steps that have been taken to Rectify Under-performance and the Extent to which theyhave been Effective

These are clearly more than likely to be based on information provided by ALS and unless independentlyverifiable cannot and should be given only minimal credibility.

One of the key reasons why matters have improved is because many professional interpreters are solelydependent upon this occupation for their main and only source of income. After a few months of waiting havegone to work under ALS, as they cannot afford to be without income.

I have had several calls from both Police forces as well as courts to serve as ALS had not been able to meettheir needs. Some I have reluctantly served, but many I have refused to serve even if they paid me the preALS contract rates. I have told them clearly you r organisation and you have chosen an option now you haveto face the consequences of that option, even though I have added to them that I sympathise with their positionas the decision imposers are entirely different. I am more fortunate and can and will only serve at a fair price.Only last Saturday, 1 September 2012, I was called to attend a police Station some 110 miles away. This Policeauthority had a policy of not paying for travel time to interpreters, and I said I would not be able to attendunless I was paid for travel tine and they agreed and attended. Another force which arbitrarily imposed nopayment travel time is GMP, despite no such ACPO policy/guideline. I got stung by them once the first time Iattended. Thereafter I got their agreement for payment before attendance.

In some forces the officers take it upon themselves to include the travel time in the attendance time, and Isimply say that it is improper and can be interpreted as fraudulent practice, in the event of an audit! As such Iask for special authorisation of such payments from a senior police staff, before accepting an assignments fromsuch forces.

The Appropriateness of Arrangements for Monitoring the Management of the Contract,including the Quality and Cost-effectiveness of the Service Delivered

It seems the larger part of govt machinery is fully shrouded in secrecy, unnecessarily. It does not require anEinstein to have a simple database of attendances/bookings, venues, languages, claim paid (separated intotravel costs and work costs) with case number for access and review. There is no reason why this cannot be inthe public domain. We all familiar with how many people argue why numerous pieces of information shouldnot be divulged, claiming security (thanks to one of our former PMs). This utter and complete nonsense tohide their incompetencies.



Now going on to some irresponsible comment by some parliamentarians and especially one member of theJustice select committee, please take into consideration the following:

1. Many MPs are out of touch with reality, have an excessively and unduly glorified perceptionof their status. They take an exception of a professional and state it as the norm when it suitsthem. They have done this with GPs as well previously. Mind you many people do not ratemany GPs very highly. The reference here is to some interpreter earning over £100,000 p.a.The MP making such statement cannot know what part of those earnings are from the publicsector and how many hours that interpreter had to travel and at what unsocial hours they hadto work! As much as getting paid for work, the interpreter is foregoing a lot of quality time.As comparator it worth stating here how many MPs came forward to open up their expensesor spoke strongly that all should be revealed in the House of Commons. None that I recall. Infact quite the opposite many were doing their utmost to stop the publication revealing of detailedexpenses. Not only are the MPs on a fancy salary bit also on exorbitant expenses—can theytruly be in touch with reality or the life a normal average person in Britain not most of them?

It would be good if the number of MPs is reduced to 500–525 and their salaries adjusted to 25–30% abovethe national average wage, after all they are on truly enhanced expenses!

2. It is high time that proper punitive sanctions are introduced for govt staff and contractors whoagree such miserably failing contracts and treat a part of this country’s own society in such abiased and prejudicial manner.

You may know of product liability legislation in the public domain, where not only themanufacturer but also any dealer and seller is liable for dangers harm and failings of theproduct, the above suggestion is in harmony with it.

3. The MP in the Justice select committee who said at one of its hearings (around March, Aprilthis year) in comment that he too thought that interpreters were paid too much, I understand isa Barrister. Well I have seen many of them in action in several tribunals and courts, and manyof them are seriously lacking in competency, many grossly overpaid and I have also seen judgespunish barristers with costs against them for not complying with court orders. So he is bestkeeping his opinion private. It is well known the 80–20% rule applies to any profession.

4. Extracts from your committee recent report for reminder.

129. As well as having good financial control over what it has spent, the Ministry also needsto have detailed knowledge and budgetary control of its future spending plans. This is

particularly the case as the Ministry is susceptible to shocks in demand as seen

following the riots in the summer of 2011. The steps the Ministry has taken in this

area should help to mitigate this risk.

OPERATING MODEL

130. In 2010 the MoJ created a new Operating Model Blueprint (OMB). The aims were toensure that:

— all policy was undertaken in a single Business Group and focused on ministerialpriorities or changes required by delivery bodies;

— wherever appropriate, corporate services were provided on a shared or combinedbasis, including to ALBs;

— there was a small strategic core that supported ministers, provided a strategicframework and ensured governance; and

— delivery bodies could focus on their core mission of leading the delivery of services.

138. The MoJ has taken the correct approach by focusing the highest proportion of job lossesin senior management grades in order to safeguard frontline jobs. We call on the Ministryto go further in removing unnecessary layers from their management structures in orderto free up resources for the front line.—how did this come about? Where has goodgovernance been hitherto?? Competence shortcoming or empire building!

142. Concerns have been raised with us that the Ministry does not have the skills in place tomeet the increased demands of commissioning and contract management. This places theDepartment, and the public purse, in a dangerous position when it enters into negotiationswith private sector firms. We call on the Department to demonstrate in its response that ithas the necessary skills to deliver its plans in this area, and to set out the steps it hasalready taken and will be taking to ensure its workforce has the necessary capabilities.

I am putting this at the end of my statement, as I would like the committee to peruse the above beforeforming a view, quite often influenced, by who says it.

Finally a bit about myself, I am citizen of this country and resident here for some 43 years arriving here onan open work residence permit. At present I live in Warwickshire. I am educated to tertiary level and speak threelanguages. I am retired from my main occupation as an Engineer, having worked in research and development,Manufacturing, and in Aftersales Technical Service and Marketing, having managed a region of Dealershipsfor a multinational truck manufacturer. Although interpreting was not my main occupation I got into it part



time in the mid-1990s and became full-time from 2004. I have worked for some 15+ constabularies and amuch greater number of courts and tribunals across the country. Even though I say it, I am reputed to be oneof the best interpreters in my language and have been told so by many solicitors, barristers and judges. I amalso an examiner and moderator of Chartered Institute of Linguists Diploma examination. I am willing toattend the select committee hearing and give evidence, if necessary.

August 2012

Written evidence from Elvana Moore

Please find below my response to the call for evidence in respect of the Applied Language Solutions (ALS)contract with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). I have confined my comments to a number of the six areas definedin the announcement, and they are based on personal experience as a highly qualified court interpreter who hasprovided services in the South West England and South Wales area since 2005, and until ALS were awardedthe contract. Additionally, I have used information as detailed in the web site www.linguistlounge.com, whichI would strongly recommend member of the committee to read in detail.

1. Rationale for Changing Arrangements

I can find no rationale for outsourcing the previous system. In my experience over seven years it workedvery well indeed. The Court Listings Officer selected an interpreter from the National Register of PublicService Interpreters, arranged the appointment and on completion the interpreter submitted a claim form to thecourt. The selected interpreter was that closest to the court, the listings officer managed the appointment andcommunication between the court and the interpreter was swift efficient and effective. Not once did I not attendand over time a rapport was built between the court and the interpreter which ensured that the needs of thecourt were met. Comments by the MoJ that the previous system was ineffective and open to abuse have nofoundation whatsoever, and I suspect have been used as a smokescreen in an attempt to hide the truth.

2. Nature and Appropriateness of the Procurement Process

Well founded advice given by various professional bodies who handle interpreters was wholly ignored bythe MoJ, whose arrogance in this process was astounding. Moreover, it is beyond belief that ALS were awardedthe contract—they had no experience in this field and indeed it would not be unreasonable to speculate thatsome personal relationship between ALS and the Ministry was involved as soon after the award ALS wasbought by Capita PLC. Someone somewhere has made a considerable amount of money through a whollyunsuitable and ineffective contract using the public purse.

3. Experience of Courts and Prisons in Receiving Interpretation Services that meets their needs

It is quite clear that that ALS has spectacularly failed to meet the legal requirements of the contract. Hundredsof court cases have been adjourned at considerable cost to the public purse and a number of high profile caseshave been abandoned. ALS have been summoned to appear before judges and have had costs awarded againstthem. Wholly unsuitable and unqualified interpreters have been recruited by ALS, and many have worked incourts without the requisite security and CRB vetting. Moreover, ALS have claimed that they have over 3,000qualified interpreters on their books—this is not possible as a simple correlation using numbers vetted byWarwickshire Police, who were given the task, and the number of previously qualified interpreters who movedto ALS will prove. Despite continual assurances by the MoJ that the system has improved it has not, so muchso that Solicitors’ are now employing interpreters on a case by case basis as they have no faith in thoseprovided by ALS—this is an additional cost that is funded through legal aid.

4. Nature and Effectiveness of the Complaints Process

Bearing in mind it is some seven months since the inception of the contract and major problems continue,it is obvious that the complaints process is not effective and that appropriate remedial action has not beentaken. It would seem that the MoJ is turning a blind eye and allowing our once highly respected judicial systemto fall into disrepute.

5. Steps that have been taken to Rectify Under-performance and the Extent to which they havebeen Effective

No steps have been taken.

6. Appropriateness of Arrangements for Monitoring the Management of the Contract,including the Quality and Cost-effectiveness of the Services Delivered

There would appear to be little monitoring of arrangements as many requests for information on this subjectcalled under FoI Act have been dismissed using excuses that hold no foundation. In these days of severefinancial austerity, and bearing in mind the plethora of IT systems available it is beyond belief that it appearsthe MoJ has no way of monitoring the contractor’s performance and states that it will incur disproportionate



costs to ascertain the damage to the public purse due to the direct failings of the said contractor. The qualityof the service offered is appalling and thus the cost-effectiveness. The costs of adjournments and disruptionsto our courts since 1 February 2012 alone must now run into millions and the longer the MoJ insist on retainingthe contractor the costs to the public purse can only increase. Indeed, it is fair to say that no savings have beenmade thus far, as the NAO will no doubt discover in due time.

7. Additional Comments(a) Outsourcing has not resulted in any staff savings in courts nor indeed the MoJ.

(b) All interpreters who have refused to work for ALS would agree that due to financial restraints onthe public purse there was a good case to review payment levels. Yet, no one in the MoJ seemed tohave the sense of taking an approach to reduce the previous payment levels; this could have beennegotiated though one of the professional bodies.

(c) The ALS contract has cost the public purse dearly and more importantly made a mockery of ourlegal system. It needs to be curtailed immediately and the previous system reverted to before thosequalified and experienced interpreters leave the industry permanently. They will not be easy toreplace as it is a very costly and time consuming business to gain a suitable qualifications and theexperience to work in courts.

August 2012

Written evidence from Sense

Sense welcomes the opportunity to respond to this call for evidence. Access to appropriate interpreting andtranslation services are of the utmost importance for deafblind people. Our response sets out why this is so,what is needed for a quality interpreting service for deafblind people and explains how restricting interpretingservices to a sole provider can have a negative impact on deafblind people.

Key Points— Enabling effective communication between a deafblind person and others should be the priority.

— Providers must be flexible in meeting the needs of deafblind people and not bound by inflexiblepolicies, or to sole providers, where these will not give the best outcome for the deafblind person.

— Having an interpreter with the right skills and experience is essential.

— Qualifications and registration help to safeguard standards but are only relevant to some forms ofcommunication support.

About Sense

Sense is a national charity that supports and campaigns for children and adults who are deafblind. Weprovide tailored support, advice and information as well as specialist services to all deafblind people, theirfamilies, carers and the professionals who work with them. In addition, we support people who have a singlesensory impairment with additional needs.

About Deafblindness

Deafblindness is a combination of both sight and hearing difficulties. Most of what we learn about the worldcomes through our ears and eyes, so deafblind people face major problems with communication, accessinginformation and mobility.

Deafblind people and Communication

The communication needs of deafblind people are complex and individualised. Deafblind peoplecommunicate in many different ways including BSL, visual frame signing, hands-on signing, deafblind manual,block, clear speech, gestures and objects of reference.

See Appendix I for an explanation of each of these methods. Some of these methods of communication areslow compared to speech or BSL and additional time may need to be allowed.

The type of communication support needed depends upon many factors, including the communicationmethod(s) the deafblind person uses, how proficient they are with them, how much vision and hearing theyhave and if they have additional impairments. There is no single solution that will work for all deafblindpeople. A flexible approach to meeting deafblind people’s needs is essential.

Deafblind people must get the support that best meets their individual needs, in order to maximise theirability to express themselves and to understand what is said to them and what is happening. Deafblind peoplethemselves are the best judge of what communication support they need. Before interpreter bookings are made,the deafblind person should be asked about his or her support needs.



The appropriateness, quality and professionalism of communication support provided in a justice setting isof the utmost importance. If communication support is inappropriate, of low quality or unprofessional,miscarriages of justice may occur. Sense recognises that using registered interpreters helps to safeguardprofessional standards. However, registered interpreters are not always the best people to meet the uniquecommunication needs of all deafblind people and it will sometimes be necessary to use communication supportproviders who are unregistered and/or unqualified but who have the appropriate skills and experience.

It is essential that communication support is provided by people with skills and experience in the specificcommunication method(s) used by the deafblind person. See Appendix 2 for an explanation of the differenttypes of support that deafblind people may need.

The register of sign language interpreters makes no distinction between interpreters who are experienced inusing visual frame signing and/or hands-on signing and those who are not. There is a register of deafblindmanual interpreters but there are very few deafblind manual interpreters on it and with current uncertaintyabout the future of deafblind manual interpreting qualifications, it is likely that, if the register is continued, thenumbers on it will dwindle yet further. There is no register of Deaf relay interpreters, communicator-guides orintervenors. Therefore, communication support for deafblind people often needs to be provided by someonewho is unregistered but has the appropriate skills and experience.

Sense is aware of many instances, in a range of settings, when interpreting agencies, including AppliedLanguage Solutions, have booked the wrong kind of support for a deafblind person. This is a waste of resourcesand leads to frustration, appointments being cancelled and, potentially, to miscarriages of justice. The wrongtype of communication support, for example, could be a BSL interpreter for someone who uses deafblindmanual, a deafblind manual interpreter for someone who uses BSL, a BSL interpreter with no experience ofworking with deafblind people for someone who uses visual frame or hands-on signing, a BSL interpreter withno experience of working with people with learning disabilities for someone who has a learning disability aswell as being deafblind and who communicates using a few basic signs. Care must be taken to understand thetype of support a deafblind person needs and to arrange the right type of support. To make sure that this isachieved, deafblind people must be asked what support they need and courts must have the flexibility to bookappropriate support from wherever it is available and should not be bound to a sole provider who may beunable to meet an individual’s unique needs.

The unique difficulties faced by deafblind people often result in them needing support in more situations,and for longer, than people with a single sensory impairment. For example, deafblind people may needcommunication support for even the simplest of interactions such as asking for a drink or the toilet, whereas adeaf person may be able to manage these situations by lipreading or asking people to write things down.Deafblind people may also need support with mobility to get to the court and find their way around it.

There is a national shortage of communication support for deafblind people. It may be necessary to haveflexibility to book an interpreter from further away or to make the booking directly with the interpreter ratherthan through an agency. Anything that restricts how interpreters are booked, including being bound to a soleprovider, will exacerbate the shortage.

August 2012

APPENDIX 1

COMMUNICATION METHODS USED BY DEAFBLIND PEOPLE

Block is a method of tactile communication where the shapes of capital print letters are drawn with a fingeronto the deafblind person’s palm.

Deafblind manual is a form of tactile fingerspelling. Each letter of the alphabet has a sign that is madeagainst the deafblind person’s hand. Words are spelt out, letter by letter.

Hands-on signing is an adaptation of BSL where the deafblind person uses their hands to feel the signs.

Visual frame signing is an adaptation of BSL where the signs are kept within the deafblind person’s fieldof vision.

APPENDIX 2

TYPES OF COMMUNICATION SUPPORT NEEDED BY DEAFBLIND PEOPLE

Communicator-guides are people who are trained to provide support to people with acquired deafblindnessin day to day situations. The methods of communication they can use will be different, depending upon theirtraining and experience. They are not trained to interpret. However, some deafblind people may prefer to usea communicator-guide rather than an interpreter. This may, for example, be if the deafblind person’scommunication skills are limited and the level of communication support provided by a communicator-guidematches their level of communication skills or if they need someone who can repeat spoken communicationusing clear speech.



Deafblind manual interpreters are trained to interpret between spoken and written English into deafblindmanual. They do not necessarily provide verbatim interpreting; they may paraphrase so as to speed upcommunication. They are also trained to provide additional information to the deafblind person, such as whatis happening around them and what other people are doing.

Deaf relays are deaf BSL users, with specialist skills in visual frame or hands-on signing, who watch a BSLinterpreter and copy their signs into visual frame or hands-on signing. When a deaf relay is used, it is vitalthat a BSL interpreter is provided for them to watch. Some deafblind people who use visual frame or hands-on signing find it easier to follow a Deaf relay interpreter than they do to follow a BSL interpreter. This isespecially the case if the interpreter lacks experience of using visual frame or hands-on signing but may alsobe the case even if the interpreter has experience of hands-on or visual frame signing.

Intervenors are people who are trained to provide support to people with congenital deafblindness. They usevery individual ways of communicating, which may combine speech, signs, gestures, facial expressions andobjects. This individuality usually means that the deafblind person and intervenor must be familiar withworking together.

Written evidence from Ian McGarr

I am a registered legal interpreter number 12378 on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. Ihave the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (English law with French). Until recently I held the status ofChartered Linguist. I have decided that the inadequate contractual conditions imposed by Applied LanguageSolutions will make it impossible for me to continue to work as a legal interpreter in the justice system. Beloware my comments in response to the request for submissions to the Justice Select Committee.


The National Agreement put in place after a review by Lord Justice Auld was abandoned without properconsultation with interpreter organisations. There seems to have been no similar prior study for thearrangements with Applied Language Solutions.

The consultation process leading to the Framework Agreement was flawed. As Chair of the West MidlandsLegal Interpreting Steering Committee at the time, I requested a visit to demonstrate that a model of good,effective interpreting practice was in place in the West Midlands. However, visits were made to other areas, insome cases where there were perceived problems.

Insulting remarks were made without foundation by Ministry of Justice officials about professionalinterpreters. There were based on unsubstantiated “anecdotal evidence”.

The National Register of Public Service Interpreters was set up as a result of the Begum case in which poorinterpreting by an unqualified individual led to a major miscarriage of justice. The NRPSI is internationallyrecognised as a standard to emulate, based on success in the Diploma in Public Service Interpretingexamination. There was recognition of the specialised skills essential to the effective application of justice inthe legal sector. By lowering the opportunities for entry into this sector, the Ministry of Justice underminesjustice for those who have a limited knowledge of English. There are likely to be significant costs to justice inthe United Kingdom as a result.

I have taught the skills of interpreting on two 10-week courses to Level 3. The students were not expectedto demonstrate the skills required to work in the legal sector, even though they had the competencies for otherinterpreting work. Yet Level 3 can be an entry point under the Framework Agreement.

2. The Nature and Appropriateness of the Procurement System

The contract went to the lowest bidder, Applied Language Solutions, with inadequate vetting of theirproposals. ALS claimed that they would have geographical location control of interpreters. This has clearlynot happened. Bookings were outsourced to low cost call centres based abroad. It soon became apparent thatthese centres had no adequate knowledge of court and police requirements. Applied Language Solutionsworkers on tiers 2 and 3 have been sent to undertake work that should have been done by interpreters classedas tiers 1 or 2.

Very shortly into the contract, Applied Language Solutions was acquired by Capita. The way that this cameabout needs to be thoroughly investigated.

3. The Experience of Courts and Prisons in Receiving Interpreting Services that meet theirneeds

I have not registered with Applied Language Solutions. Therefore, I have not done any interpreting work incourts in 2012.

However, I have been to observe a number of court cases where an interpreter was required. I noted thatALS contract workers were being given considerable amounts of support by magistrates, court officials and



solicitors, which was not the case under previous arrangements. This was happening even months into thecontract. A number of ALS contract workers were not dressed in the formal appropriate manner that I wouldexpect of a professional interpreter, nor demonstrating awareness of professional conduct.

Clearly, I am unable to comment on the performance of ALS contract workers at police stations since thepublic are not allowed access. However, the potential for inadequate justice for limited English speakers as aresult of incompetent interpreting is considerable.


Since the introduction of the ALS contract, many qualified interpreters have made observations of proceduresand reported on them to organisations under the Professional Interpreters for Justice umbrella, such as theevidence collated by the Professional Interpreters’ Alliance. The recording of this evidence seems to have hadlittle or no effect on whether ALS retains a contract worker on their list. Many Members of Parliament havereceived this information. Surely it is time that an effective complaints procedure was put in place.

5. The Steps that have been taken to Rectify Under-performance and the Extent to which theyhave been Effective

A report by the Magistrates’ Association recently highlighted the fact that ALS contract workers travelconsiderable distances to come to court, when magistrates are aware of highly competent qualified interpretersliving near to the court. Yet they are unable to call upon the services.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunals (AIT) booking team continue to approach me for a short-noticebookings where ALS has failed to supply an interpreter. AIT expressed reluctance to move to the new schemebecause it was happy with the quality of the services provided by its interpreters in the past.

6. The Appropriateness of Arrangements for Monitoring the Management of the Contract,including the Quality and Cost-effectiveness of Service Delivered

It became clear very early on that, far from saving money on the Ministry of Justice budget, the new systemwas costing more money. This was partly due to cases cancelled when ALS contracted workers failed to appearor when the service offered was inadequate.

Checks made by qualified interpreters themselves have revealed serious inadequacies in ALS procedures.For example, in some cases, if the interpreter had not specifically asked for his or her name to be removedfrom the ALS list, the name would continue to be counted as an ALS worker. Attempts appear to have beenmade to make the situation appear to the Ministry of Justice to be rosier than it actually was.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Framework Agreement needs to be set aside. The Ministry of Justice should enter into negotiations withinterpreter organisations to bring about a return to the use of the National Register of Public ServiceInterpreters, with a view to providing an effective service to courts and police, whilst at the same time notputting in jeopardy the needs of limited English speakers who have dealings with the justice system.

August 2012

Written evidence from Jennifer Smith

I am writing in response to the call for evidence regarding interpreting and translation since AppliedLanguage Solutions (ALS) become the sole contractor under the National Framework agreement.

I am a NRCPD registered Sign Language Interpreter and up until the contract started I worked in courts fora year either as an interpreter for the solicitor or the courts and in some cases, which were shorter in lengthwith no conflict of interest, for both. I worked for a company, Sign Solutions which were considered to be theexpert company for sign language interpreting in the legal domain and I worked in courts daily.

The National Agreement that was in force was adequate in stating the standards necessary in courts. Thiswas put into the contract though I am aware of one occasion where ALS could not fulfil a booking and thiswas passed to another agency who provided a signer who had no experience of court work and had not passedthe National Occupational Standards in Interpreting. The danger with this contract is there is no monitoring ofstandards of either the main contractor or its suppliers. The additional problem is that the pay an actualinterpreter receives when sub-contractors are used is less and this attracts those that are less experienced, somewith no knowledge or training in interpreting in legal settings. ALS has had no previous experience in provisionof Sign Language Interpreters and this is a niche area that should be left to those who are experienced.

On several occasions in February and March when I was booked as a solicitor’s interpreter there was no courtinterpreter provided. On one occasion a Crown Court had asked the defence Barrister to book an interpreter asthey could not access any interpreters via the contractor. I was thanked specifically in court for stepping in andcovering the booking.



The sign language interpreting agency that ALS has used as a preferred supplier had no experience of legalinterpreting and were using interpreters who were NRCPD registered interpreters but with no court experience.

There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding by the contractor between a language user, the termbeing used is a “linguist” and an interpreter, who has skills and training in interpreting between two languages.The two should not be confused especially when the contract concerned is for courts and tribunals.

The lack of cancellation fees in the contract is a grave error meaning that it is difficult for interpreters toaccept bookings unless they are at the last minute which also makes it difficult to source the same interpretersfor trials lasting longer than a few days. In order to win this contract ALS clearly put in certain promises suchas fees and terms and conditions offered to personnel that has resulted in not being able to fulfil the contractwith experienced staff.

Many bookings I am aware of have had to be cancelled and the number of adjournments due to a lack ofinterpreter will inevitably negate the proposed cost savings as these are being passed on to courts themselvesand Deaf people are not getting the appropriate access to justice that should.

I am concerned that the statistics released by the Ministry of Justice were collated by ALS. The contractwas awarded based on estimates and all of the monitoring done since has been by the contractor so that thereis no effective monitoring taking place.

Both the NRPSI and NRCPD have lists of interpreters with vetting and insurance. These lists should be usedby court staff with a specific remit for booking interpreters using the rationale of the National Agreement toensure standards are maintained and people have access to justice by skilled personnel. There are other waysof saving money on interpreting costs and having a national contract does not work when there are not enoughgovernment personnel to ensure the contractor is fulfilling the contract appropriately. The tendering processwas not appropriate and has ended in a dangerous situation that is costing tax payers money for a sub-standard service.

Speakers of other languages using interpreting services such as Deaf people can not access the complaintsprocess and can be the most vulnerable in society. Legal personnel often do not have the knowledge they needto ensure interpreters are effective and skilled. By using registers that are already in place and proven to work,interpreters of the appropriate standard are guaranteed and an accessible complaints process is in place forDeaf people.

I have not worked in courts since this contract (unless booked by a solicitor separately) and will not do sounder this contract. Many interpreters I know are also boycotting the contract. What Deaf people, some of themost vulnerable in society, now have is access to the least experienced interpreters, and worse, in somesituations, not even a appropriately qualified and registered interpreter.

August 2012

Written evidence from Rekha Narula

1. I write to you regarding the outsourcing of interpreting and translation services by the Ministry of Justice,within the Criminal Justice System, to a company called Applied Language Solutions (ALS) via the FrameworkAgreement (FWA). I contend that the Framework Agreement with ALS is flawed and has failed for the reasonsgiven below.

2. I write in my capacity as an interpreter on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. I havebeen interpreting in the Criminal Justice System for over seven years, and in the health and local governmentsectors for over 10 years.

3. I take pride in my chosen profession; being an interpreter is what I have wanted to do since the age of14 when I got my first taste of “official” interpreting for UN delegates. My sole aim and ambition from thattime was to use my languages (I now speak six) and to use them on a daily basis. To that end, I studied for adegree in Modern Languages, graduating with an Upper Second with Distinctions in Spoken French andSpanish. I have added to my qualifications significantly, namely by gaining two DPSIs (Diploma in PublicService Interpreting); one in Law and one in Health.

4. When HMCTS (Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunals Service) implemented the Framework Agreement on1 February 2012, I refused to join ALS, as did a significant number of my colleagues. I also refused to joinALS when West Midlands Police signed its contract with ALS on 28 November 2011, despite repeatedlybeing “encouraged” to do so. Correspondence from forces (Dorset, Warwickshire, West Mercia, for example)considering signing the Framework Agreement with ALS have also received replies from me—and mycolleagues—indicating that we are not going to join their potential “preferred supplier” of interpreting andtranslation services.

5. Two of the reasons why I, among many, have refused to register with ALS is because a) it pays scantregard to the quality of the service it delivers and b) its appallingly low rates of pay to a professional such asmyself, and one who is highly qualified. I am not alone in holding a degree along with further qualifications;these qualifications were/are based on courses and exams taken at the end of each course. On ALS’ own



website, in its Linguists Lounge page relating to the “Quality Assessment” there is a Question and Answersection and where one question is “What is the pass mark?” The reply is “The QA test is a diagnostic test, nota pass or fail test.” http://www.linguistlounge.com/quality-assessment-test/

6. This then suggests that no matter how good or bad an “interpreter” is, he or she can register with ALSand, consequently, get work from them, simply by taking this QA test. This demonstrates a total lack ofunderstanding of languages, the nature of interpreting, the work of a legal interpreter and is denigrating to mychosen profession. Exams are set to “sift the wheat from the chaff”; to see whether a student has the ability inthat subject. If there is no pass or fail in ALS’ QA test, then anyone with little or no ability can work for ALSas a “linguist” as it terms its interpreters.

7. The tier system introduced by ALS is also flawed. Tier 3, the lowest paid tier, requires an interpreter to“Demonstrable experience in the public sector with appropriate linguistic background” and to have “Formalisedbasic interpreter training: http://www.linguistlounge.com/payment-structure/

8. This again demonstrates the total lack of knowledge of what is required to interpret in the criminal justicesystem, or any other area for that matter. As an interpreter in courts and for the police, inter alia, I needed toknow the terminology used by all sides in a case, police vocabulary, court room terminology including thevery specific phrases used by solicitors and barristers. Having “basic interpreter training”, whether formalisedor not, is simply not enough. A legal term or phrase in English may not have an exact equivalent and so I haveto be totally familiar with the terms in the languages being used in order to resolve this, and inform the partiesinvolved. Requiring “basic interpreter training” would be akin to asking a health care assistant to do the workof a nurse, a doctor or consultant because the health care assistant has some basic clinical/medical training.Within a legal context, it would be asking a legal secretary or an unadmitted clerk to do the work of a solicitoror a barrister, even a judge.

9. I would contend that speaking more than one language does not an interpreter make. This requires somenatural aptitude, to some extent, but becoming an interpreter also requires training, qualifications and experiencein order to reach the level of competence required to work in a police station, a magistrates’ court, a crowncourt or immigration tribunal. As interpreters we have to switch between two different modes of interpreting;consecutive and simultaneous. Both require training and experience.

10. In the courts, the chaotic situation caused by ALS’ failures also have consequential financial costs whichmust be borne by the taxpayer, ie us. This is also not to mention the fact that defendants, suspects, victims andwitnesses are not seeing justice being done if they do not have a competent interpreter:

“The jury in the trial were discharged this morning (July 11) after the defendant had a problem withhis interpreter. The trial is due to start again on August 28.

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/suttonnews/9808757.Man_accused_of_sex_act_near_to_school/”

And a trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court in April this year had to be halted at a cost of £25,000 dueto mistakes being made by the ALS-appointed interpreter:

http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/news/328-interpreter-bite-mistake-causes-trial-collapse

11. The Government has admitted that the controversial ALS interpreter contract will not save £12 million:http://www.lackuna.com/2012/07/12/government-admits-controversial-als-interpreter-contract-will-not-save-12m/

12. Furthermore, police forces which outsource their interpreting do lose control of costs. One force whichoutsourced (Bedfordshire) found that its interpreting costs exceeded budget by 100% in the first year. However,police forces which retain control of the interpreting resource also retain control of costs, and can make savingsand efficiency gains. Examples are the Metropolitan Police, as well as Cambridgeshire and WelshConstabularies.

13. I would refer you to the Professional Interpreters for Justice Campaign and responses to previousconsultations: http://www.unitetheunion.org/sectors/community_youth_workers/unite_and_your_organisation/national_union_of_professional/professional_interpreters_for.aspx

14. I now wish to draw your attention to the myriad articles in the media and professional journals currentlycirculating, which describe the total chaos caused to Court and Tribunals by ALS’ abject failure to servicetheir contract (for examples see http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/news).

15. I do not need to remind the Committee of the consequences of outsourcing to companies, however large,which are simply unable to fulfill their obligations. Apart from ALS/Capita, G4S is currently under very closescrutiny, including answering questions in Parliament, in relation to providing security guards at the recentOlympic Games in London and must answer for its lack of living up to the promises it made some sevenyears ago.

August 2012



Written evidence from Amanda Clement

The following comments are of a general nature and are my own personal observations. I am unable toprovide qualitative or quantitative evidence of the practical working of the contract drawn up with AppliedLanguage Solutions and, therefore, I wish to contribute solely in terms of the rationale for changingarrangements for the provision of interpreting services.

My personal background is in languages and law. I have degrees in Modern Languages and Law, togetherwith a Masters in Translation. From 1995–2011 I managed the interpreting and translation service for theMetropolitan Police Service, initially as head of Language Services branch and later as Head of LanguagePolicy & Coordination for an expanded unit named Language and Cultural Services. In both roles I wasresponsible, amongst other things, for the recruitment, vetting and training of professional interpreters andtranslators, who provided services on a freelance basis to the Metropolitan Police Service. In this capacity, Iserved on various regional and national committees which set standards for linguists working in the legal sectorand I also contributed to several projects funded by the EU Commission, which sought to implement equalityof standards throughout Member States, in order to establish mutual recognition of linguists’ qualificationsand training.

In November 2011, I took voluntary redundancy from the Metropolitan Police Service and I am now afreelance translator and language consultant. I wish to reiterate that the comments which follow are my ownand must not be construed in any way as related to the Metropolitan Police Service.

In 1997, the Trials Issues Group, Witness Care Sub-group drew up the National Agreement on the Provisionof Interpreters to Investigations and Proceedings of the Criminal Justice System. This document sought, forthe first time, to establish a minimum professional standard for linguists working within the criminal justicesystem of England and Wales, in response to language-related miscarriages of justice.

The National Agreement cited membership of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI)as the minimum, measurable standard appropriate for work in this field and the Interpreters Working Group(IWG) was set up to monitor and manage the National Agreement and to address any issues arising from it.The IWG was intended to have a rolling Chair, first held by the Crown Prosecution Service and later by theAssociation of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

The Agreement was not without problems, most notably the lack of qualified, NRPSI interpreters in someparts of the country in some language combinations mainly due to lack of funding for access to acceptableinterpreter training courses. This resulted either in increased travel time and cost or in non-compliance withthe National Agreement. Thus, other categories of qualification were annexed to the Agreement, to addressthese issues in the event of a NRPSI interpreter being unable to fulfil an assignment within a suitable time.

The drafting of the National Agreement, and its monitoring through the IWG was the result of a collaborationof UK criminal justice system agencies towards a common goal for over 10 years and, whilst not perfect, itwas well on the road to providing a workable system of linguistic support, whilst recognising the interpretingand translation professionals with whom it transacted and which was hailed as a beacon of good practiceacross Europe.

My own concerns at the current arrangements are manifold.

Firstly, I consider the work put in over a number of years by committed professionals, in collaboration witheach other and with the interpreting and translation providers and their registration and professional bodies wasnot recognised. Instead of improving a well-established working model, the current arrangements effectivelydeconstruct a great deal of work and threaten to extinguish a profession which the UK criminal justice systemhas a significant interest in preserving.

Justice in the UK is independent and must be seen to be so, not only for its own integrity, but also to complywith domestic and European legislation, notably the Human Rights Act and the European Convention ofHuman Rights. This places a responsibility upon judicial services to ensure interpreters and translators usedwithin the legal processes in Member States are qualified and independent. Moreover, they must be seen to beso. I am not convinced that the current contract is sufficiently transparent on both these points.

The lack of an independent professional regulator within the current arrangement is of significant concern.Such a role cannot properly be performed by any organisation relying upon the government for the contract itholds. It must be independent of any party to the contract and is best performed by the profession itself, inorder to maintain its own integrity. Much work went into the establishment of the National Register of PublicService interpreters with exactly this aim, and the NRPSI, then managed by the Chartered Institute of Linguists(the premier professional body for linguists in the UK), demonstrated responsibility towards its registrants andtowards the profession it seeks to safeguard, whilst adapting flexibly, wherever possible, to the demands placedupon it by the criminal justice system. The inclusion of the NRPSI as the minimum standard (for spokenlanguage interpreting) in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes of Practice in 2008, was a short-livedmilestone, as it was removed in the May 2012 revisions, a retrograde step. The NRPSI was the minimumstandard, not the gold-standard, and the decision to withdraw even this standard marks a decline in the standardof legal interpreting that had previously been amongst the best in Europe.



A professional interpreter should be paid at a professional level. Undermining this level of earning in orderto provide a service as cheaply as possible, whilst still making a profit for a commercial enterprise is not aneconomic strategy which will entice the professional, leaving the criminal justice system vulnerable toinexperience and under-qualification, when there are a significant number of qualified and experiencedprofessionals who find themselves out of work, unwilling as they are to work for an unprofessional rate. Norshould the members of the legal profession ask them to, as mutual respect is a cornerstone of successful inter-disciplinary working relationships.

In summary, I am disappointed by the decision to throw the baby out with the bathwater, thus eroding yearsof good work by agencies of the criminal justice system and expert and professional linguists, in the hope ofa commercial “quick fix” which, it seems, is not turning out to be so. And this to the near-destruction of acadre of qualified and experienced professionals, the undermining of their professional standing and theoverlooking of their well-established and hitherto respected professional bodies. There are surely better waysthan this to address the issues in service provision which arose during the lifetime of the National Agreement?Working with the Chartered Institute of Linguists and the National Register of Public Service Interpreterswould be a good start, rather than devaluing it and its registrants in such a catastrophic and cavalier manner.

August 2012

Written evidence from Association of Sign Language Interpreters

I am writing from the Association of Sign Language Interpreters (ASLI) to respond to the call for evidenceregarding interpreting and translation since Applied Language Solutions (ALS) become the sole contractorunder the National Framework agreement.

ASLI took part in the initial consultations and insisted that there should be only NRCPD RegisteredInterpreters used in this contract. The concern we have is the lack of monitoring as to whether this is happeningor not. We note the recently published statistics were created by ALS rather than appropriate monitoringsystems being used by the Ministry of Justice to ensure the contractor is using interpreters of appropriatequality.

ALS have shown disregard for appropriate standards and vetting procedures. Just as doctors and socialworkers must be registered with appropriate bodies, the General Medical Council and the Health and CareProfessions Council, respectively, there are registers of interpreters in existence: NRPSI and NRCPD. Theyalready hold vetted interpreters who have reached the appropriate standards in interpreting. The Ministry ofJustice and ALS have effectively ignored the NRPSI and the interpreters held on that register. There areconcerns that in time, with a lack of monitoring, that standards will further be eroded for Sign LanguageInterpreters. The company that ALS chose to be a preferred supplier for Sign Language Interpreters had littleto no experience in providing interpreters in court settings which has been detrimental to Deaf people and theinterpreting profession.

ASLI worked with its members to develop the National Agreement, only part of which now applies due tothis contract. There are solutions other than outsourcing the national interpreting provision in order to savemoney. These were not explored despite calls from interpreters and interpreter organisations to do so. The bestpractice seen with the London Metropolitan Police and Cambridgeshire Police in sourcing local interpretersvia booking co-ordinators working closely with the local community provides value for money as well asserving local communities best. Local interpreters can remain in work and work closely with booking co-ordinators.

Many courts have been unable to source appropriately skilled interpreters due to this contract and where thecontract has failed some have been unable to resort to the way they booked before. Sign Language Interpretershave experienced a drop in fees and the biggest problem appears to be cancellation fees which have beenremoved from terms and conditions by ALS. This creates a climate where interpreters can only accept lastminute work, it stops continuity and the booking of the same interpreters for trials ensuring that safeinterpretation can take place. Many bookings have had to be cancelled and the number of adjournments due toa lack of interpreter will inevitably negate the proposed cost savings as these are being passed on to courtsthemselves and Deaf people are not getting the appropriate access to justice that they should.

Deaf people can not access a complaints process and as they are the most vulnerable in society are Speakersof other languages using interpreting services such as Deaf people can not access the complaints process andlegal personnel do not have the knowledge they need to ensure interpreters are effective and skilled. By usingregisters that are already in place and proven to work, interpreters of the appropriate standard are guaranteedand an accessible complaints process is in place for Deaf people.

Many of our members are boycotting the contract and as more police forces are signing up to the agreement,many have less work and are now leaving the profession. The most experienced interpreters are the ones whoare often boycotting and as a result of this contract, Deaf people are receiving interpreters of a lower qualityfrom a contractor who is ill-equipped to understand the needs of this community.



There are other options and ASLI would be willing to discuss these when necessary.

August 2012

Written evidence from Dr Christopher Stone

Summary— 2010 analysis project procurement SRG/09/060.

— English as an additional language and BSL users as research participants.

— Potential for a fine grained understanding of interpreting provision.

— Cancellation of project impeding appropriate metrics for interpreter quality.

Evidence addressing: 6. The appropriateness of arrangements for monitoring the management of the contract,including the quality and cost-effectiveness of the service delivered.

Evidence

1. In 2010 the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) wished to explore the use of interpreting in courts and tribunalsacross England and Wales and was actively involved in procuring analysis of the provision of interpretingservices within England and Wales for victims and vulnerable witnesses. This project was titled, “The use ofinterpreters in the court system in England and Wales (SRG/09/060)” and was to be guided by a steering groupconvened by the MoJ.

2. The MoJ wanted to commission research among two groups: adults with English as an additional language(EAL users) and Deaf adults who use British Sign Language (BSL users). The project was to look at the extentof interpreting in the judicial system, as well as experiences from a broad set of perspectives. An importantaspect of the project was to be reviewing issues of quality and appropriate assessment criteria with a varietyof detailed reports are envisaged at the end of the study.

3. The use of interpreters in the judicial system is accepted in the UK as an issue of integrity and forms partof the Witness Charter. However, whilst it is understood that competent interpreting is crucial to theadministration of justice little is known about how often it is used, particularly in family courts and tribunals,and how it is rated in terms of quality. In addition, the process of identifying and engaging interpreters in thecourts could be better understood to explore whether interpreters themselves feel that their work could bebetter supported.

4. The project (SRG/09/060) would have provided crucial evidence to inform practice, enabling bettermonitoring of interpreting quality. With the cancellation of this project (see below Email received cancellingproject SRG/09/060) a crucial opportunity was missed in ensuring that any management contract put in placecould be sufficiently scrutinised.

Email Received Cancelling Project SRG/09/060

—Original Message—

From: Tiwari Anjali

Sent: 26 March 2010 12:38 PM

To:

Subject: RE: The use of interpreters in the court system in England and Wales (SRG/09/060)

Dear Vanessa,

I am sorry to inform you that this project has now been put on hold and decision will be made after theelection. Please see the message below form Tina Goulton:

Message from Tina Golton, Head of CAJAS Research Team:

“As a result of the budget on Wednesday, MOJ has been asked to make additional savings. Thisproject remains a high priority for us, but we are reviewing all uncommissioned analyticalprojects to ensure that we are confident that they represent value for money. In light of this, weare unable to be able to commission this project before the election. I would like to thank youfor all the work you have put into this project. If we take this work forward in the near future,then you will be our preferred contractor. I would like to apologise for all the inconveniencethat this has caused. If you wish to discuss this decision, I am around today (Friday) andMonday next week (on 020 3334 3061). I am unavailable then until 6th April. In my absence,please feel free to call the Head of CAJAS, Osama Rahman, if you wish to discuss this decision(Tel: 020 3334 3096).”



I would like to thank you and all the members of the consortium for all the time and effort they have putinto preparing the tender documents and attending the meeting in London. I will be in touch when I have anyfurther information regarding this project from the Ministry of Justice.

August 2012

Written evidence from Mrs Thuy O’Shea

ALS—FAILURE TO PROVIDE COMPETENT INTERPRETERS (VIETNAMESE LANGUAGE)

I wish to notify you of a very serious incident regarding the quality of interpreters in Vietnamese languagewho are provided by ALS to courts.

On 23 April 2012 there was a trial at Lincoln Crown Court involving two Vietnamese defendants—Bui &Le, T20110097. The Resident Judge of Lincoln, His Honour Judge Sean Morris was the presiding judge forthis trial. There were three barristers, two for the defence and the prosecutor. A Vietnamese interpreter, Mr LNguyen, was sent to the court by ALS as interpreter for the trial.

Half way through the first day, Mr Nguyen, the interpreter, was dismissed by the Judge because the Judgeand all the three barristers had no confidence in his ability to interpret for the trial. The Judge asked the listingofficer to request ALS to provide the court with a better interpreter and upon contacting them, the listing officerwas told that Mr Nguyen is one of their best interpreters!

The court then had to revert to the National Register to instruct a qualified interpreter for the trial. I thenattended and interpreted for the whole trial.

On 30 May 2012 there was a big case in Birmingham Crown Court involving over 20 Vietnamese defendantscoming to court over three days (30, 31 May and 1 June) to be sentenced. The sentencing hearing for all ofthe defendants in this case was reserved to His Honour Judge Carr. There were four Vietnamese interpretersprovided by ALS for the three day hearing at Birmingham Crown Court. One of the four interpreters was thesame Mr L Nguyen who had been sacked by His Honour Judge Sean Morris because of his incompetence inLincoln Crown Court on 23 April 2012!

August 2012

Written evidence from Carita Thomas

This response is made in a personal capacity. I am an immigration solicitor, and represent clients whosecases have gone to appeal in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First Tier and Upper Tribunal. Ihave not given any personal or case details in this submission but references are to real cases that have takenplace since ALS began operating as the sole provider of language services for the Ministry of Justice.

The value of a good interpreter cannot be underestimated. This is particularly true when working with clientswho are vulnerable, and when the outcome of their case can have serious consequences, such as returningsomeone to a country where they fear persecution if their appeal is dismissed, or when a family may be keptapart if an entry clearance appeal is unsuccessful. Asylum cases also hinge upon an assessment of the“credibility” of the applicant, and the way questions are understood and answered in an appeal hearing mayhave a major impact on the ultimate evaluation of the case by a judge.

Since ALS has taken over the contract as sole provider of language services, interpreters that have beenrequested in advance of hearings for my clients have not turned up, have been late, and not always been of thequality expected of interpreters before the Tribunal.

One of my clients persisted with an interpreter who was speaking a different dialect of Pashto because hedid not want to be impolite, until our barrister intervened when it became apparent that the client did not fullyunderstand the questions being put to him. The unwillingness for clients to disclose that they do not understandis not uncommon. They are often reluctant to challenge authority figures and think by challenging someonewho is involved in an official procedure this may reflect negatively on their case. In a recent hearing I wasonly aware that the client was having difficulties with the translation of questions because the interpreter wehad requested to attend to translate for conferences with the barrister sat in the back of the room while theappeal was being heard. We had asked for an interpreter who spoke Iranian Farsi, yet an Iraqi interpreter wasbooked. The interpreter booked also openly suggested that our interpreter should do the translation for theappeal hearing as he knew her professionally and, in his opinion, she was superior.

The solution when a problem with an interpreter arises is to adjourn the hearing until a better alternative canbe found. However, this has cost implications for all parties involved in the case, including the Tribunal. Inthe case involving the Pashto interpreter, we had to adjourn to another date in order to obtain an interpreterwith the correct dialect. Adjournments also have personal implications for the client, who may have waited along time for a case to be determined, and on many occasions, summoned up courage to attend the Tribunalto deal with a hearing that can be stressful and highly emotional for them. Delay prolongs their anxiety. My



clients have been reluctant to adjourn hearings because they want the case to be dealt with as soon as possible,and do not always appreciate the long term implications of poor interpretation.

ALS has also been unable to deal with requests for more unusual languages, so the burden has been passedback to the Tribunal service.

The experience of the interpreting services provided to several of my clients has not been positive, whetherin terms of linguistic quality or standards of professionalism, such as being at a hearing on time. Theseproblems are particularly unfortunate as they coincide with the passing of the Legal Aid, Sentencing andPunishment of Offenders Act, which will exclude a huge number of people from the scope of free advice.Non-native English speakers are likely to be at a disadvantage in a process that should allow for equality ofarms. The potential for injustice will increase if appellants, witnesses and sponsors are left without independentinterpreters provided by representatives as a safeguard in the courtroom, and no advocate to ensure that the“highest standards of interpretation” are met.22 Judges are likely to face longer and more inquisitorial hearingswhen litigants in person appear before them, and dealing with interpretation problems will only add to the costand time of the judicial process.

August 2012

Written evidence from Emery Johnson Solicitors

The following submissions are made on behalf of Emery Johnson solicitors, a crime, family and child carelaw practice based in Leicester.

— These submissions are made in relation to the standard of service provided by AppliedLanguage Solutions (ALS) in their provision of interpreters in the courts.

— It is submitted that ALS have caused unnecessary delay by not giving interpreters appropriatetime markings for court hearings.

— It is submitted that the interpreters provided by ALS do not always have sufficient languageskills for the role.

— It is further submitted that ALS do not always supply an interpreter with knowledge of themost appropriate language.

— It is submitted that the failure by ALS to supply appropriate interpreters causes unnecessarydelay to cases and is infringement on the rights of defendants and other parties to cases whoare unable to follow proceedings in English.

The following issues have been experienced due to the failure by ALS to provide an appropriate service.

1. A Plea & Case Management Hearing was listed at Leicester Crown Court in May 2012 for adefendant who required a Punjabi interpreter. The interpreter did not arrive in time for thehearing to begin promptly at 10am. This caused the hearing to be put back to the afternoon.The interpreter then stated that as she had only been booked for the morning she would beunable to stay for the hearing. ALS were unable to provide a further interpreter. As a result thecase was put back by one day. As the defendant was in custody this meant he had to betransported to and from the prison on both occasions.

A requestwas made that the interpreter booked for the following day attend at 9:30 am to allow sufficient time for thedefendant to be seen by his legal representatives prior to the hearing. This request was refused on the basisthat interpreter bookings were not available prior to 10am.

2. At the trial of the same defendant in August 2012 an interpreter was provided who had actedfor the client at the Police station, it is recommended that the same interpreter is not used atthe police station and at court unless there is difficulty in finding an alternative interpreter, andall parties have agreed to the same interpreter being used. It was not necessary, or agreed, toinstruct the same interpreter in this case and as a result a further interpreter had to be called.

3. At the same trial the interpreter provided for the complainant was found to be altering andsubstantially adding to the complainant’s evidence. As a result the jury was discharged, and thetrial adjourned for 10 months. The inaccuracy in translation was spotted by a Police Officerpresent in the court, the defendant’s interpreter and the complainant.

4. At a Plea & Case Management Hearing at Manchester Crown Court in December 2011, thedefendant required a Portuguese interpreter. The interpreter provided by ALS spoke BrazilianPortuguese and was unable to fully and accurately interpret for the Portuguese defendant.

5. Due to the problem experienced at PCMH a specific request was made that an interpreter whospoke European Portuguese be provided for the trial in August 2012. The interpreter providedspoke a regional dialect and was unable to simultaneously translate for the defendant.

22 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice,1993, which recommended only trained and qualified interpreters be used in court.Chapter 34, Best Practice Guide to Asylum and Human Rights Appeals, Mark Henderson & Alison Pickup, 31st May 2012



6. At a hearing at Nottingham Crown Court in June 2012 only one interpreter was provided fortwo defendants with conflicting interests. This interpreter had only been booked for the morningsession despite a distinct possibility the hearing would be heard in the afternoon. The interpreterwas unaware she was required to take an oath in court.

7. A trial at the Loughborough Magistrates court in June 2012 had to be adjourned due to theinterpreters failure to attend. When informed of the interpreter’s failure to attend, ALS wereunable to make contact with the interpreter or provide an alternative interpreter.

8. At a trial at Leicester Crown Court in August 2012 a Roma interpreter was requested for thedefendant. ALS did not provide a Roma interpreter, and instead provided an interpreter whospoke Romanian.

September 2012

Written evidence from the Prison Reform Trust

The Prison Reform Trust is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective penalsystem. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the widerpublic; and by influencing Parliament, government and officials towards reform.

The Prison Reform Trust’s main objectives are:

— reducing unnecessary imprisonment and promoting community solutions to crime; and

— improving treatment and conditions for prisoners and their families.

We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry. Whilst much has been made of the issuesconcerning the delivery of the new interpretation and translation contract by Applied Language Solutions inthe courts and tribunal service, our comments are focused primarily on the implications for prisoners and theprison system, and recommendations for improving access to language services, understanding of prison rules,and access to services.


When the Ministry of Justice published proposals for a new centralised system to provide interpretation andtranslation services in the criminal justice system the Prison Reform Trust welcomed the review. We believedthat this was an opportunity to improve access to translation, interpretation and language services, particularlyfor marginalised groups including foreign national prisoners, the deaf and deaf/blind.

During the consultation we raised a number of problems within the existing arrangements at the time andexpressed concern that there was a lack of clarity on how the new framework agreement would be deliveredoperationally within prisons.

The existing system was criticised by the Inspectorate of Prisons, highlighting that the national languageservice was consistently underused, and that there was an “over-reliance on using other prisoners to translate,sometimes in situations where professional interpreting services would have been more appropriate”.23 Accessto interpreters for particular languages was also cited as an issue.

“Getting interpreters is difficult, especially in Vietnamese. I am Language Line trained, but I have been toldit is too expensive—you have to get permission from the Governor to use it. This causes difficulties whendealing with confidential issues—you can’t use another prisoner.”24

This is something that our own No Way Out briefing paper on foreign national women in prison supported.The paper, jointly published with Hibiscus, a charity working with foreign national women imprisoned in theUK, found that there had been a large rise in the number of women in prison from Eastern Europe, China andVietnam. They were found to be the least likely to speak English or have basic literacy, and that an overreliance on other prisoners as interpreters was fraught with difficulties in terms of trust and confidentiality.25

There are clear benefits from providing a centralised system which allows individual prison establishmentsto access translation services for prisoners directly from a prime contractor. However, unless the service iseasily accessible and seen as good value by prison staff, the problems that foreign national prisoners face inaccessing the support they need and are entitled to will continue.

At a time when the Ministry of Justice is facing significant reductions in its budget and prisons are forcedto make difficult financial decisions, issues such as the one highlighted above become even more of a risk.There are numerous individual establishment reports from Independent Monitoring Boards, and the Inspectorateof Prisons that demonstrate that expense is a considerable deterrent for prison staff, and that the permissionsneeded to access language line also acted as a deterrent.23 HMIP (2007) Foreign national prisoners: A follow-up report, London: HMIP24 HMIP (2006) Foreign national prisoners: a thematic review, London: HMIP25 Prison Reform Trust and Hibiscus (2012) No Way Out: A briefing paper on foreign national women in prison in England and

Wales, London: Prison Reform Trust



Much was made of the expected savings that the new contract with Applied Language Solutions was likelyto realise. However, the initial £18 million was quickly revised to £12 million, before the Minster of State,Lord McNally announced that it was unlikely that these savings would be achieved in the first year of delivery.

We believe that a centralised system for accessing interpreters and translators is potentially a good effectiveuse of resources. However, this has to be properly resourced as the existing levels of funding available for thiswithin the prison service are too low. A robust needs assessment would demonstrate that the current service isnot adequately funded. It is difficult to see how this could happen without mandatory requirements or ringfenced budgets.

Any cost savings must come from centralisation, lessening the administrative burden and economies of scale.

2. The Experience of Courts and Prisons in Receiving Interpretation Services That Meet TheirNeeds

Despite the significant number of parliamentary questions, media coverage, and statistical information onALS’s performance in the first few months of operation, there is currently no reliable information available inthe public domain on the experience that prisoners, either sentenced or remand, have had in receiving the newservice. Much has focused on the use of interpreters at the court stage of criminal proceedings, rather thanfurther down the line, however there have been a number of particularly concerning individual cases beingreported.

There have been reports of some interpreters failing to turn up to court hearings, either on time, or at all.Ministry of Justice statistics show that in the first three months of operation there were 2,455 instances wheredespite a request being made by the court to Applied Language Solutions, they were unable to meet the request,and a further 217 instances where an interpreter was assigned and booked for a court hearing, but failedto attend.26

Problems such as these not only lead to delays in court proceedings and increased costs, but also have thepossibility of defendants being remanded into custody pending the arrival of an interpreter, as was seen in thecase of Latvian national Ivans Karanovs.27 For someone to be deprived of their liberty as a result of a providerfailing to meet their contractual obligations is a gross misuse of custody, and we sincerely hope that this wasan isolated incident.

The absence of suitably trained professionals during court cases could have the potential for miscarriages ofjustice if more extreme and unsuitable alternatives are used. Recent press reports have highlighted one case, inwhich it was alleged that a court had to resort to Google’s online computer translation because no Lithuanianinterpreter could be found.28

Whilst there is a lack of information currently available on the performance of Applied Language Solutionswithin prisons we would like to take this opportunity to outline a number of recommendations to improvecommunication and understanding with prisoners who don’t speak English, are deaf, or deaf/blind.

Prison Life

There are particular examples of situations in prison where people should have automatic access to aninterpreter to explain what is happening to them. These include (but are not limited to) any time in segregation,health care appointments, adjudications, categorisation, breach processes, parole applications, immigrationstatus, bail information, and any internal prison meetings that have an impact on sentence progression.

Information Provision

Many prison staff individually spend time putting together standard information that could be centrallyprovided and adapted for individual establishments. In particular “easy read” information both in English andother languages should be centrally commissioned for induction and reception. Templates could be used byprison staff to complete the detail for their prison.

Literacy

The PRT/Hibiscus briefing paper No Way Out explains that population of female prisoners from EasternEurope, China and Vietnam has grown. Some will not be literate in their first language and therefore relianceon translated material in language of origin is not always the solution.

As part of a new study published by Liz Hales and Loraine Gelsthorpe, The Criminalisation of MigrantWomen, a number of foreign national women in prison were interviewed who had been victims of traffickingand work under servitude and whose entry into the UK was facilitated by smugglers. The report found that26 Table 1, Ministry of Justice (2012) Statistics on the use of language services in courts and tribunals, London: Ministry of Justice27 Briggs, S. (2012) Anger after interpreter problems delay hearing of man accused of assaulting MP, Peterborough Telegraph

[online] 2 August. Available at http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/anger-after-interpreter-problems-delay-hearing-of-man-accused-of-assaulting-mp-1–4118055 [Accessed 3 September 2012]

28 Boycott, O. (2012) MPs to investigate “underperforming” firm awarded £300 million court monopoly, Guardian [online] 20July. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/20/mps-investigate-firm-court-monopoly [Accessed 3 September 2012]



within this group 76% of those interviewed did not have English as their first language, and that 71% neededsome interpreter support, with evidence of limited literacy.29

Diversion

Poor access to translation services can mean asylum seekers and victims of trafficking are not indentifiedand diverted out of the criminal justice system and into more appropriate services.

Easy Read

We would encourage the Ministry of Justice to use as much information as possible in easy read, irrespectiveof the language. This would ensure that all written material was as widely accessible as possible.

Equality Impact Assessment

We are concerned that there is no mention of using female interpreters within the current frameworkagreement. Interpreters need to be trained to identify the sensitive situations in which women have a right tohave a female interpreter. This is a matter re-inforced by the new Bangkok rules, recently ratified by the UN,which apply to women in custody and those serving community penalties.

Protocols

Although there is no mention of protocols for disclosing information about individuals who are harmingthemselves or threatening to harm others, this should be part of the code of conduct for interpreters/translators.

Conclusion

Whilst we appreciate that it is still early in the delivery of the new contract, and that teething problems dohappen, any problems with the contract and delivery of the service need to be ironed out and further progressmonitored to ensure access to justice, particularly for vulnerable people. There has been limited performancedata made publicly available, with nothing published on the delivery of translation and interpretation servicesin prisons, we believe that the government should also publish this data routinely. There has been someencouraging progress in improving compliance since the contract began, but it is still too early to make firmconclusions on the effectiveness of delivery.

August 2012

Written evidence from Fair Trials International

Executive Summary

1. Fair Trials International (FTI) has long been concerned about standards of interpretation and translationservices, not only in the UK but throughout the European Union (EU). The ability to understand criminalproceedings and the prosecution’s case is vital to preparing a defence and receiving a fair trial.

2. We welcomed the adoption in 2009 of an EU Directive guaranteeing that nobody facing criminal chargesin any EU country would be disadvantaged because they do not speak or understand the language of thecountry in which they are accused or arrested. The UK opted in to this Directive, which must be implementedinto domestic law by October 2013. The right to interpretation is well protected in UK law, but new legislationwill be needed to make sure that translations of key documents are available free of charge and that highstandards of interpretation and translation are maintained. These are requirements under the Directive.

3. Over the past six months we have been concerned about reports that standards of interpretation in the UKare declining. When cases are adjourned due to lack of an available interpreter, this not only has an impact onthe individual suspect but also causes significant costs to the Government and ultimately, the tax payer, due towasted police, court and lawyer time. We are aware of cases in the UK where proceedings have continued inthe absence of an interpreter, even though it is not clear that the defendant understands the proceedings—aclear violation of the right to a fair trial.

4. As technology is increasingly used in interpreting services, both through telephone and video-link, it isvital that adequate procedures are introduced to ensure that high standards of interpreting are maintained. Audioand video recording is an efficient and cost effective way of creating an accurate and impartial record of allinterpretation provided in a case, to deal with any doubts or complaints which may arise at trial or onsubsequent appeal or review. We recommend that it is used in all cases involving interpretation.

5. The UK has traditionally had high defence rights standards in comparison to many other Europeancountries. We appreciate that resources are tight due to the current austerity measures and economic crisis.However, proper safeguards for basic fair trial rights are not a luxury we can do without in a modern and fair29 Hales, L And Gelsthorpe, L (2012) The Criminalisation of Migrant Women, Cambridge: Institute of Criminology, University of

Cambridge.



justice system. Action is needed to ensure that every person arrested or tried in the UK has proper protectionfor the fundamental right to a fair trial, including the vitally important right to access high standards ofinterpretation and translation.

Context of this Inquiry

6. FTI welcomes this opportunity to present its views on interpretation and translation services in the UnitedKingdom to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee. The right to effectively communicate in, andunderstand, criminal proceedings is an indispensable aspect of the right to a fair trial. A lack of adequateinterpretation and translation during any stage of criminal proceedings is unjust and violates Article 6(3)(e) ofthe European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which states that everyone charged with a criminaloffence has the right to “the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language ofthe court”. If defendants cannot understand the case against them or communicate properly with their lawyerthen they cannot properly prepare a defence and therefore cannot receive a fair trial.

7. In the six months since the Applied Language Services contract came into effect in February 2012, wehave heard reports of a number of hearings in UK courts where interpreters have not been available (oftenfailing to turn up despite being booked), leading to adjournment until a later date. This has an enormous impacton the suspects involved, who may have to wait weeks for their cases to be heard, often without being grantedbail. It also incurs significant public costs due to wasted court and police time and unnecessary periods spenton remand. If the suspect is legally aided then these costs will be increased further as the lawyer will have toreturn on an alternative day.

The New EU Directive on Interpretation and Translation—Why it is Needed

8. FTI helps hundreds of people arrested abroad every year, and the standard of interpreting in police stationsand at court proceedings in many EU countries continues to be a common problem reported by those whomwe assist. In 2010, 33% of the people who contacted us from EU countries reported being denied access to aninterpreter or translation of key documents.

9. In recognition of the fact that fair trial rights are not adequately safeguarded in many EU countries, theEU adopted the “Roadmap” on procedural defence rights in November 2009. This gave a mandate for a seriesof laws designed to ensure better protection of defence rights in Europe. The first Directive under the Roadmap,on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, was adopted in October 2010.30

10. FTI was delighted that the UK opted into the Directive, which must be implemented into the nationallaw of all Member States by October 2013. It will help ensure that nobody is denied a fair trial because theydo not understand the language in the country in which they are accused or arrested. It provides additionalconcrete protections to the basic principles enshrined in Article 6(3)(e) ECHR including, for example:

— Interpretation: Interpretation must be provided free of charge for proceedings beforeinvestigative and judicial authorities, during police questioning, for all court hearings and incertain circumstances for communication between suspects and their lawyers.

— Written translation: Written translations of documents essential to enable suspects to exercisetheir right of defence must be provided within a reasonable time and without charge.

— Sufficient quality: The interpretation and translations provided must be of sufficient quality toensure that suspects have knowledge of the case against them and can exercise their rightof defence.

11. Free access to interpretation for all suspects in criminal proceedings is well established in the commonlaw of the UK and is protected in statute for those in custody.31 However, the duty to translate documentsfree of charge is not explicitly included in UK law and relies on the case law of the European Court of HumanRights.32 We note that the Government has indicated that it expects to be in compliance with the Directive bythe implementation date of October 2013.33 In order to achieve this it is likely that there will be a need forlegislation to clarify what types of documents must be translated free of charge, and to make provision for themaintenance of high standards of interpretation and translation. A failure to comply would enable the EuropeanCommission to bring infringement proceedings against the UK at the Court of Justice of the European Unionin Luxembourg.

12. Given the need for the Directive to be effectively implemented during the next year and the UK’straditionally strong record in this area, it is concerning that standards of interpretation in the UK are nowreported to be declining. Members of FTI’s Legal Expert’s Advisory Panel (LEAP), a network of experiencedcross-border defence practitioners, have previously warned that great caution should be used around30 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 proceedings31 See Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code C32 European Scrutiny Committee, Twenty-Ninth Report of Session 2008–09, Documents considered by the Committee on 14

October 2009, page 71, available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmeuleg/19xxvii/19xxvii.pdf33 Oral answer to EU Interpretation and Translation Question, House of Lords 9 July 2012 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/

pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/120709–0001.htm#1207098000454



subcontracting interpreting and translation services to agencies, due to the risk of cost increases and thepossibility that independence will be compromised.34

13. Worryingly, cases are sometimes allowed to continue despite the fact that no interpreter is present. FTIobserved an extradition hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court on 24 August 2012 where an Albanianinterpreter was required but none was available. The hearing commenced regardless. At the end of hearing, thejudge remarked that he hoped that the defendant had been able to follow proceedings, but received no replyand made no active effort to ascertain whether this was the case or not. FTI is concerned that defendants arebeing required to attend extradition hearings in the UK that they do not understand, given the serious humanimpact extradition has on individuals and their families.

Increased use of Technology in Interpreting Services

14. Telephone interpreting is widely used in police stations and video-linking is increasingly being consideredas a means of overcoming shortages of interpreters. At present, these are used for simple procedures but arenot considered appropriate for use in evidential procedures or at trial.35 It does however seem likely that, astechnology continues to advance, both telephone and video-linking will be used for interpreting in increasingnumbers of cases.

15. Technology can offer a good way to deal with situations where the personal attendance of an interpreteris impossible, for example, due to the rarity of the language or dialect required or in genuine emergencies.However, care must be taken to ensure that accurate and reliable standards are maintained and that the suspectfully understands the proceedings to the same level as if a physical interpreter was present. In July 2011, FTIvisited a women’s prison in England and interviewed eight non-national prisoners about their experiences onremand. Several of these women indicated that their pre-trial detention hearings had taken place via video-linkand that they could not understand the proceedings.36

Recommendations

16. The Directive must be implemented into national law by October 2013. While rights of interpretationare already well protected under UK law, legislation will be required to ensure: a) that the UK complies withthe provisions of the Directive that relate to translation of documents in criminal proceedings; and b) that theUK’s traditionally high standards of interpretation and translation do not slip.

17. Audio or video recording provides a good way of both checking that adequate standards are in placeand reducing the risk of unfairness where it transpires that suspects have not understood the interpreter. TheUK currently has strong provisions in its laws relating to the recording of interviews in police stations.37

While the Directive is silent on this point, it is our recommendation that audio and/or video recording shouldbe used in all cases involving interpretation in the UK. Recordings should be preserved throughout theproceedings so that any subsequent doubts about content or accuracy can be easily clarified. Recordings alsostreamline the complaints process by providing an impartial and accurate record of the interview or courtproceedings.

Conclusion

18. The right to high quality interpretation and translation during criminal proceedings is a cornerstone of afair trial, and will be enforceable under EU law from October 2013. FTI is concerned that the UK is movingbackwards in this area and in some cases is failing to guarantee adequate standards to those who do not speakEnglish or are unable to understand proceedings, particularly at bail hearings and in extradition hearings.

19. The UK should now be focusing on the steps needed for full compliance with the new Directive. It isimportant to maintain the traditionally high standards of interpretation in criminal proceedings in the UK andto extend these to the translation of documents. A failure to do so will mean not only that suspects anddefendants are denied their basic fair trial rights, but also that the UK may be subject to infringementproceedings brought by the European Commission.

September 2012

34 See communiqué issued after the Fair Trials International Legal Experts Advisory Panel Meeting (11 September 2009) availableat http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/LEAP_Communique_September_2009.pdf

35 Section 9 National Agreement on Arrangements for the use of Interpreters, Translators and Language Service Professionals inInvestigations and Proceedings within the Criminal Justice System as revised 2007 and 2011, available athttp://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/interpreter-guidance

36 For more information see page 21 of “Detained without trial: Fair Trials International’s response to the European Commission’sGreen Paper on detention” October 2011 available at http://www.fairtrials.net/documents/DetentionWithoutTrialFullReport.pdf

37 See Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in particular Codes E and F



Written evidence from the University Council of Modern Languages

1. The University Council of Modern Languages (UCML) welcomes the announcement that there is to be awide-ranging inquiry into the current arrangements for the provision of police and court interpreting andtranslation services. Although only limited consultation with the Teaching and Interpreting (T&I) constituencyin the UK HE sector has been possible in the time available, the message that the current arrangements arehaving a negative impact on professional interpreters and the quality of service for many service users couldnot be clearer.

2. UCML is of the view that the Ministry of Justice has been unwise to have instituted a process whichundervalues professional interpreters and translators, and which serves as a disincentive to would-beprofessionals. Consequently, UCML wholeheartedly supports the move to undertake an inquiry into a situationthat has caused such high levels of dissatisfaction among key stakeholders.

3. Although moves to centralise services in organisational terms are understandable, provision that frequentlyleads to the by-passing of a system set up to ensure that appropriately qualified and experienced interpretersare available to the justice system (the National Register of Public Service Interpreters) is considered hugelyregrettable; a tiered system of interpreting provision38 (such as the one provided by the current contract holder)is not considered by university-level training establishments to guarantee the level of quality and rigour thesecontexts demand, and sends a mixed message to students about the importance of high-level training. As aresult, university departments that offer training in interpreting and translation are finding it increasinglydifficult to present a clear and coherent message about employability, professional status, pay and workingconditions.

4. Graduates of university courses are reporting back to institutions on the difficulty in accessing work whenthey have the required qualifications for membership of the NRPSI and the expense they would need to occurto undertake an additional assessment to be taken onto the books of the contract holder. The expense of high-level language training and specialist add-on CPD (inter alia the Diploma in Public Sector Interpreting or DPSIoffered by the Chartered Institute of Linguists) with no guarantee of a decent living wage in return for theinvestment again makes it difficult for career departments and lecturers to promote the field as a viable careeroption, and this despite the pay scales for interpreting that were negotiated some years ago.

5. Graduates of courses also report back on experiences in the field at which NRPSI-qualified interpretershave had to work alongside untrained interpreters in high-level court work, situations that have also beenwidely reported in the press. In the North West, for example, universities are informed by graduates who aremembers inter alia of the PIA (Professional Interpreters’ Alliance),39 which has been gathering news reportson issues arising from the current contract arrangements.

6. In addition, the work of the HEFCE-funded National Network for Interpreting project has been promotingHeritage languages and careers in public service and conference interpreting as a means to bolster interest inlanguage study and careers beyond A Level. This message has been diluted by the current service arrangementsas it is difficult to provide evidence of decent pay for high level and complex interpreting work and to highlightthe value and importance of languages that may often be spoken in the home rather than studied in mainstreameducational contexts.

7. It is important to highlight recent FCO concerns40 regarding the need for investment in high-levellanguage skills to support work at an international level, a situation which UCML believes is furthercompounded by the current service provision arrangements in which high level language skills are beingseriously undervalued.

8. The translation and interpreting fields in higher education across the world and not least in the UK haveworked in tandem with professional bodies for over twenty years to enhance training provision and promoteprofessional services as the means to ensure justice is served in situations where participants do not sufficientlymaster the language of the legal system they are dealing with. The current service arrangements serve, in theview of UCML, as a regressive rather than a progressive force and UCML has serious concerns both for thoseinvolved in the justice system and for the reputation and professional status of language experts and traininginstitutions if the current arrangements are allowed to continue in their current form.

9. UCML is the overarching national organisation which represents the interests of modern languages,linguistics and cultural and area studies in higher education throughout the United Kingdom. Virtually alldepartments and professional associations are UCML members. UCML members provide all the specialist andnon-specialist language training in UK universities, and play a significant role in training and research intranslation and interpreting for the public services.

September 2012

38 http://www.appliedlanguage.com/interpreting/legal-and-court-interpreting/39 http://professionalinterpretersalliance.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/MoJ%20outsourcing40 http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?id=790974382&view=Speech



Written evidence from Peterborough Magistrates Court

1. The Rationale for Changing the Arrangements for the Provision of Interpreter Services

Magistrates were not told why this change happened apart from the saving of £18 million from the translationbudget. As far as I can work out there was no projected service improvement in terms of provision or qualityin the contract. The detail of the contract has not been available to the Judiciary.

2. Nature and Appropriateness of the Procurement Process

Magistrates have not been made aware of the process that was carried out select Applied Language Solutions.One can only surmise that the “cheapest” bid was accepted. This is a common but serious error in Governmentprocurement. Given the service quality that has been delivered it is likely to be a false saving but the additionalcosts will be buried in other budgets. No one is familiar with the penalty clause aspects of poor delivery. Weare told there are such clauses but no one will tell the users what they are and who has the accountability forpursuing them.

3. The Experience of the Courts

Prior to the ALS contract for North Cambridgeshire the service was sourced locally. There are a significantnumber of cases involving translation services due to the high number of East Europeans and others workingin the agricultural businesses around Peterborough. When these people commit offences they usually requiretranslation services. The local court staff had local contacts for almost all the locally spoken languages. Theyused agencies for the more eclectic needs. I cannot recall a case ever where a case had to be adjourned toanother day for lack of an interpreter.

As Bench Chairman I receive a monthly report of ALS failures. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Servicehave specifically forbidden me from passing that data to this enquiry! However what I can tell you is that theinitial service was truly appalling. Day after day interpreters did not arrive. This resulted in many cases wheredefendants were kept in custody unnecessarily and much money was being expended over transport and prisoncosts. This of course does not account for wasted court time let alone the quite unfair detention of a defendantin many cases. Others were just incompetent. A Russian speaking Justice had to correct some of the translationin court as it was just wrong! Others were very unfamiliar with court phrasing and processes, so much so thatthe progress was dreadfully slow.

We still get cases where no interpreter is present and we are not permitted to use local contractors whichmight get round the poor level of service provided by ALS. Many of the previous excellent interpreters willnot work for ALS and will not substitute for them when they cannot provide their own contractor. The blanketban is unnecessary as that would in certain circumstances provide an acceptable solution.

In summary on performance there are fewer problems now than in February. As the problem level inFebruary was truly catastrophic I would be seriously concerned if this were not the case. Of the figures I haveseen and some anecdotal evidence, bearing in mind I am not allowed to quote precise detail, the numbersremain at an unacceptable level.


My bench members and the Court Clerks complain to HMCTS as and when a problem occurs. These arelogged on the spreadsheet that contains the detail of performance and as I understand it they are forwarded toMinistry of Justice staff in London. What happens after that is a mystery to me and the Court Clerks. Werarely get feedback on individual cases and when it is provided it usually goes along the lines that “there wasno resource available”.

5. The Steps Taken to Rectify Underperformance and Have They Been Effective

We examined whether a “wasted costs order” against ALS might make them sit up and take notice. We wereadvised that that such an order was unlikely to succeed. We know the Peterborough Crown Court Judges havesummoned ALS executives to their courts to supply explanations. ALS promised a dedicated Magistrates Courttranslator for one of the common languages but I do not think that materialised. As it has got better in someways they must have been effective. As we do not know the penalty clause mechanisms (if any!) we do notknow if there is a budget saving. Magistrates have to put up with this poor service as do defendants, prosecutorsand defence solicitors and we are powerless to do much about it. Local HMCTS are similarly frustrated.HMCTS believe the contract was imposed by Ministry of Justice staff and they too are powerless do muchabout it.

6. Monitoring of the Contract Including Service Quality and Cost Effectiveness

I am told that there is a new logging system for ALS and other service provider failures. This will onlyrecord the amount of court time lost due to such failures. This will seriously understate the real cost but willlook good when Whitehall reports to Parliament. You should regard such reports with the greatest scepticism.



It will not show extra costs for prosecutors, defence lawyers, secure transport services and custody costs. Whatmay look like 10 minutes lost in court will run into many hundreds of pounds, even thousands.

I and many other magistrates believe Whitehall want this swept under the carpet. Just a few teethingproblems. I believe that outsourcing is fundamentally misunderstood in Whitehall. You outsource the operationnot the responsibility. Trying to find anyone in HMCTS or the Ministry of Justice to put their hand up to say“this is my problem and I will fix it” I fear is a lost cause.

September 2012

Written evidence from Irina Jefremova

1. I, Irina Jefremova BA DPSI MCIL, am a professional public service interpreter in both Lithuanian andRussian. The following are my personal observations made on five occasions during the first few monthssubsequent to the commencement of the Framework Agreement. Since July 2012, I have no longer beenattending courts for the purpose of making further observations.

2. These observations can briefly be summarised as:

— 14 February 2012: Non-attendance of ALS Interpreter. Hearing proceeded with defendant’swife acting as interpreter.

— 30 March 2012: Poor Quality/Inexperienced Interpreter. Lack of interpretation. Complaints fromdefendant’s acquaintance.

— 30 March 2012: Lateness. Poor Quality/Inexperienced Interpreter. Complaints from publicgallery.

— 4 April 2012: Unprofessional conduct. Lack of interpretation.

— 5 April 2012: No interpreter available for four days. Use of non-ALS agency. Poor Quality/Inexperienced/Unqualified Interpreter. Mistranslation of sentence.

— 11 July 2012: Non-attendance of interpreter. Hearing postponed.

3. Tuesday 14 February, Birmingham Magistrates’ Court

4. Lithuanian defendant charged with motoring offences. ALS interpreter had been booked, but after threehours still had not attended. Hearing proceeded with defendant’s wife interpreting the adjournment of the caseand the conditions of Bail.

5 Friday 30 March 2012, Birmingham Crown Court

6. Court 1, HH Judge Creed, Pre-trial review. Case number: T20117209. Punjabi Interpreter required.

7. An ALS linguist arrives and states he will be interpreting into Urdu, although the case is listed as requiringa Punjabi interpreter. The interpreter demonstrated a very poor comprehension of the judge’s directions andcourt procedures, but eventually the session begins. However, only a very limited subset of the proceedingsappeared to be translated for the defendant, with the interpreter barely uttering a sentence every five to tenminutes. The client repeatedly turned to her fellow defendants to attempt to gain an understanding of theproceedings.

8 After the session, I was approached by a friend of the defendant. He told me that the defendant did notspeak much Urdu, and that the ALS interpreter himself had made it clear to them from the beginning that hewas unable to interpret at the same time as others were speaking (ie simultaneous interpreting).

9. Friday 30 March 2012, Birmingham Crown Court

10. Court 10, HH JUDGE BURBIDGE QC, For Sentence. Case: T20117222 (Vietnamese InterpreterRequired).

11. The ALS interpreter arrived one hour late and struggled to repeat the affirmation. The judge raised hiseyebrows a couple of times, but decided to proceed nevertheless.

12. In the public gallery, I sat next to two Vietnamese ladies. As soon as the case started and the ALSlinguist (he introduced himself as Vin Chan) started his interpreting, their faces turned very emotional—theladies’ eyes widened with surprise, they vigorously shook their heads on many occasions, hid their faces intheir hands, and even giggled amongst themselves a few times. They were asked to keep quiet. I scribbled onthe paper “Is he good?”, pointing at the ALS linguist in the dock—they vigorously shook their heads.

13. The hearing lasted for an hour, and as soon as it was finished, the two Vietnamese ladies rushed to thedefence counsel. I overheard them say that the Vietnamese interpreter was a complete joke and should havenever been allowed to work in courts. According to them, not only did he translate all the basic dates andnames wrong, he misinterpreted much of what was said. The ladies were convinced that the Vietnamesedefendant had no chance of fully understanding the sentencing guidelines that were discussed, the explanation



behind his imprisonment, or any other aspects of his future (including being on the sex offender register, theHome Office’s involvement, etc). They insisted on a re-sentencing hearing, and the barrister confirmed that shewould appeal.

14 Wednesday 4 April 2012, Norwich Crown Court. Lithuanian interpreter required

15. A Lithuanian ALS linguist, Mr D. L., who is not on the National Register of Public Service Interpretersand who does not profess to hold any language-related qualifications whatsoever, arrived at Norwich CrownCourt to interpret for a preliminary hearing. However, throughout the hearing the ALS linguist concentratedon actively discussing the case with the defendant over the videolink, instead of interpreting for her. He alsocomplained to the court that, apparently, he is severely underpaid and would only receive £20 for this job—even though he had travelled from Harrogate (366 miles for a return journey).

16 Thursday 5 April 2012, Birmingham Magistrates Court. Lithuanian interpreter required

17. I received a call at midday from Absolute Interpreting & Translation Services, a Birmingham-basedinterpreting agency, begging me to attend Birmingham Magistrates Court “any time at all today, they’reprepared to wait, and at any cost”. I declined the job, but went to Birmingham MC to observe the case(1101072954, court 8) instead.

18. The court had been trying to book a Lithuanian interpreter for the defendant through ALS every daysince Monday (the defendant was remanded on Sunday), and although ALS said they do not have a Lithuanianinterpreter based in the West Midlands, they would still keep trying to get one. Today, being the fourth day inthe row, the judge was extremely displeased—he ordered the court staff not to find an interpreter through anyother route.

19. Eventually, an interpreter was sent from Absolute. Shabbily dressed, the “interpreter” made no secret ofhis lack of interpreting qualifications, or the fact that he had never worked in a court before. I observed thehearing and was shocked by how many things went wrong. The “interpreter” had to be reminded to get upduring his oath taking. With regards to his interpreting, every time there was a legal term, he would say “excuseme, speak louder please” or “sorry, I can’t hear you” and would render the repeated sentence into Lithuanianas “I did ask them to repeat, but I still don’t understand what they’re saying”. The sentence of “six weeks inprison reduced to four weeks and credit given for the 3 days spent in custody” was interpreted as “six weeksand four weeks and three more days in custody”. No wonder the defendant looked very confused, and twiceasked the judge to repeat the sentence. All three times he received the same rendering.

20. Wednesday 11 July 2012, Birmingham Crown Court. Lithuanian interpreter required

21. Attending to observe the trial of Tomas Zaunieravicius at 10am (T20120329), I was stopped by an usherand questioned as to whether I was the Lithuanian Interpreter they had booked through ALS. At this point theinterpreter was yet to attend, and calls for the Lithuanian interpreter could be heard over the public addresssystem at 10:30am and 11:00am. I left the court at 12:00am, with the case now listed as “To Be Heard” andno sign of the interpreter.

September 2012

Written evidence from Yvonna Swanson

I am a Polish legal translator and interpreter with 25 years’ professional experience. Ten years ago I decidedthat my translating and interpreting skills were good enough to move into the field of legal interpreting and Igained my Diploma of Public Service Interpreting in Law. I also became a full member of the National Registerof Public Service Interpreters, specialising in Law. I have been a court, tribunal, police and UKBA interpreterever since. I also work as an examiner for the Institute of Translation and Interpreting and as a Tutor on DPSIcourses, the Law option.

In order to highlight the important role of a court interpreter, consider a crown court trial with a defendantwho is not an English speaker. The trial involves a judge, a court clerk, two ushers, prosecutor, barrister,security guards and twelve jurors, not to mention all the administrative back and front office court staff. Duringsuch trials the role of the interpreter is crucial to the delivery of justice. A qualified and experienced interpreterworks fast, helps to avoid confusion and ensures fast and effective communication between all the partiesinvolved. That interpreter understands linguistic nuances in both languages and slight cultural differences. Suchinterpreters save a lot of court time, which apart from human cost can only mean huge savings in monetaryterms. The interpreter’s job is central to such trials and ensures delivery of justice. Hence such work is veryresponsible. Under the old regime such an interpreter would earn not more than £200 for a full day’s work incourt. On average, that interpreter could expect to work only two full days a week. All those interpreters werefreelancers, so when they were on holidays or ill, they had no income.

In my opinion, the new FWA agreement cannot work and deliver as promised, because:



It treats highly qualified and experienced professional legal interpreters on the same level as unqualified andinexperienced “linguists” (the term newly introduced to this specialised area of interpreting by ALS).

It has resulted in miscarriages of justice, re-trials and some appeals, with significant cost implications, allbrought by the use of unqualified, unverified and inexperienced interpreters, most of them without even thebasic CRB check.

Under the previous system of payments, a fully qualified and full-time interpreter who was prepared to travellong distances to work would earn up to £25,000pa on average. Under the current system, the same interpreterwould earn £10,000 on average. Such rates of pay can be attractive only to unqualified, inexperienced“linguists” or old interpreters of post-retirement age.

The system is too centralised and local knowledge gained over the years by the local listing officers andcourt administrative staff is ignored and totally wasted (ie most of the courts had their own lists of local reliableinterpreters, and over the years listing officers had developed their own lists of professional and reliable localinterpreters; these lists are no longer used).

Professionals whose rates had not risen since 2003 saw their rates slashed further to the level of cleaners’wages. But, unlike cleaners, legal interpreters have no guarantee of work most days of the week. An interpreterwas required to book the whole day for a court job, although he or she may have been released after half anhour. It was because of this, and that consequently it was not possible to book more than one job per day, thatthe minimum payment of three hours was established under the old system. This has now been abolished; theminimum payment is now £20, and nothing at all, not even travel re-imbursements, if the job is cancelled atshort notice. One needs to bear in mind here the fact that on average a court interpreter works two days a week.

It is increasingly the case that ALS interpreters simply do not turn up at court. They book themselves onmultiple assignments—ALS allows this—and then go to the one likely to give them the best pay.

In this profession there is a need for continuous professional development (eg to keep on top of ever-changing legislation and developing terminology in both languages). It is obviously time-consuming and costly,but people on very low rates of pay cannot afford to do this. Neither is there any incentive for them to do so.

At the moment there are still some highly qualified and experienced interpreters working in this field butthere is evidence that new people are not joining the profession, as the remuneration is so low. This year therehas been a dramatic fall in the numbers of new students joining DPSI courses. The implication is that theprofession is dying, and the quality of the service being provided is going down, while the costs to the courtsand the tax payer will rise because of delays and re-trials.

I believe the new system is causing damage to the profession and to the justice system, and that far fromsaving costs it will increase them, while cases of miscarriage of justice will become more frequent as non-English speakers are given inadequate representation in courts, tribunals and when interviewed by the police.

September 2012

Written evidence from Bogumila Kolbus

I am a Polish interpreter with 12 years of experience of interpreting within Criminal Justice System- duringthis time I interpreted in Crown Courts, Magistrates’ Courts, Tribunals, Family Courts, various police forces,on conservative estimate over 12 years I did 20,000 hours of interpreting.

I studied law in Poland, obtained a Law Degree and completed a Legal practice Course in England where Ialso obtained interpreting qualifications in the forms of IAA Assessment and Metropolitan Police Test, thereforeI think I am well qualified to comment of the recent changes in provision of interpreters for HMCTS and TheFramework Agreement.

As per email from Ms Carrad from the Interpretation Project dated 27 April 2011 in response to my emaildated 14 April 2011 and the Equality Impact Assessment the aims of the project the reasons for introductionof the Framework Agreement were:

1.Cutting the costs- according to the MoJ the annual costs of providing interpreters is £85 million but inresponse to a FoI no the MoJ stated that the costs are £10 million for Magistrates Courts and £5 million forCrown Courts ( MoJ FoI disclosure log ref 72066)- so where is the claimed figure of £85 million coming from?

The contract with ALS is for £300 million for five years and was supposed to bring £12 million saving- sorrythe figures do not add up—85–12= 73 and recently the MoJ admitted that those savings will not be achieved.

If we take into account the number of hearings that were adjourned since the arrangements were introducedfor example in the first two weeks on a number of days hearings that could not proceed only in WestminsterMC (as observed personally) would be approx 100 (10 per day) the situation only improved once the courtswere allowed to book interpreters from NRPSI themselves. I tried to obtain the exact figures writing to approx300 Magistrates’ and Crown Courts individually, only for those request to be conveniently pooled “as a partof a campaign or number of similar requests” and information refused by MoJ because “gathering of theinformation exceeded the prescribed cost”. That means that nobody can get a full picture with regard to the



whole country or even a sample. The MoJ admitted that they have the information but did not want to releasethe information because it was too damning I if you add collapsed trials eg Snaresbrook CC, interpreters beinglate—eg Westminter MC interpreters arriving 4pm, 5pm instead 10am and other well documented examples,wrong language interpreter provided and possible appeals in future due to lack of interpreter and casesproceeding and quality of interpreting there will be no savings but possible huge additional costs.

2. The process of identifying and booking interpreters costly and time consuming, single point of contactdesirable.

Under the old system interpreters were booked by the list office and subsequently rebooked for futurehearings by a court clark and/or list office. All the courts had their own lists of local, reliable (on the basis ofprevious performance) interpreters sourced from the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. Theycalled them and in most languages they obtained the interpreter in one or two calls, most of us, if unable toattend would call other colleagues and find somebody available in 10 minutes—the court had the name,telephone number and ETA if urgent. If you were late you risked the court clark tearing a strip out of you, apossible reprimand from a judge and no future bookings from that court and since we are self-employed thatcould have serious consequences.

Now the court puts the request in and waits- no name, no telephone number for the interpreter as per courtstaff I spoke to- “we don’t know who is coming, when they are coming, if they are coming at all”. Calls toALS to chase the request are being met with promises that somebody will be there for 11.00, then 14.00, 16.00or by ALS staff trying to convince the court to cancel the request. If the interpreter is late the explanation is“I was only told about it this morning , an hour ago I came from 190 miles away” by the interpreter or “therewas a breakdown of communications, the information was not relayed” by ALS representative, as per recentexplanations in the Court of Appeal”. Consequences? More court time wasted listening to ALS’s excuses—Westminster MC a number of times, Kingston CC, Peterborough CC, Court of Appeal and a handful of wastedcosts orders

According to the MoJ the situation “is improving” but since the MoJ did not monitor the contract from thebeginning and the statistics were provided by ALS and as such unreliable (they would hardly admit they areunable to perform) and on the face of it there is some improvement because ALS is actually sending somebodybut very often in wrong language which either says that ALS staff are not trained well or a deliberate tactic ifthey haven’t got somebody in the right language.

Another thing is who they send- only 300 of the interpreters from 2,300 on the NRPSI joined ALS, andthat’s by ALS and having in mind that a lot of NRPSIs found themselves “signed” with ALS without theirknowledge and had to request their details to be removed a number of times, this is also unreliable figure. The“assessments” are conducted by ALS (they were supposed to be independent but the Middlesex Universitydenied they are conducting them, only constructed an “instrument” to be used by ALS). More importantly theassessment does not have a pass rate, so anybody can become a “linguist”, please note that they are not called“interpreters” by als., and very often people were offered jobs without the assessment or CRB clearance oreven checking their identity- I registered with ALS under fictitious name, address, no qualifications whatsoeverno CRB clearance and was offered two jobs straight away. A rabbit called Jajo, a dead dog and a cat calledMasha (in rare “Cat” language), Alexandr Orlov (50 years to get his GCSEs, clearance by KGB) were alsooffered assessments or jobs. Warwickshire Police tasked with providing clearances for ALS workers onlyreceived 743 requests from ALS, from that only 570 were cleared, with ALS claiming to have 2,000, 3,500,4,000 “linguists” on their books.

The standard of interpreting, and that can only be judged by an interpreter or a person speaking bothlanguages fluently is such that as an Institute of Linguists examiner for the Diploma in Public ServiceInterpreting and Metropolitan Police Test (two exams that qualify the interpreter for inclusion on the NationalRegister of Public Service Interpreters) since 2006 none from approx 25 Polish ALS “linguists” I observed incourt since February would pass- their standard of English is inadequate, knowledge of court procedures andspecialist legal vocabulary non-existent, unprofessional behaviour rife (eg using their phone in court or evenin the dock- probably to use Google Translate or text, inappropriate laughing and joking, discussions withdefendants) and possible disciplinary procedures impossible as the “linguists” do not introduce themselves,often do not take an oath and as such are non-identifiable, and even if they are identified as the Romanianinterpreter responsible for collapsing a trial in Snaresbrook CC to the tune of £25.000 are not disciplined- this“linguist” was seen in Wood Green CC two days later and back in Snaresbrook the following week.

And one of the other reasons for the change was that “the complaints made against interpreters are not beinginvestigated as thoroughly as we would like and it is not always clear what, if any action is taken”.

That is if somebody actually made a complaint to the NRPSI they would know how it was dealt with becausethe NRPSI considered the complaints and the outcome was notified to both the complainant and subject of thecomplaint- I know because I made a complaint against another NRPSI interpreter. Usually what would happenwas that the particular interpreter was simply not called by a particular court and lost work as result and now?The “linguist” is being sent to the same court as if nothing happened and the court can’t do anything about it.With ALS it is like any other call centre with everything- you call, you complain you demand action andnothing changes because nobody gives a damn, nobody is identifiable because they are in India, Poland orsomewhere else, and as a result you just waste your time because the company is not interested in provision



of good service, just interested to get your money doing as little as possible and as cheaply as possible- howmany “linguists” were disciplined or removed from ALS books? As per ALS can’t afford to remove peoplefrom their books because nobody wants to work for them on their terms and conditions being paid £16 or £20per hour (the tier 1 jobs @ £22 per hour as per description described in Document 2: Tiers and Rates ofPayment do not exist) with min 1 hr payable, limited travel costs payable and limited travel time payable intheory, in practice it depends how well you can haggle with ALS.

Examples of jobs published on ALS site

Duration: 15 min (since when the courts operate appointments by hours and minutes?)

Town: Huddersfield

Date: 29 August 2012, 10.00 (the court has to accommodate the mighty ALS on the dot presumablysince they deigned to send somebody- is the court for interpreter or interpreter for court?)

Payment estimate: £50

Travel time 2.5 hours (around 80 miles)

Town :Stockport

Date 29 August 2012, 9.45 duration 40 min, 1 hour travel time 10–30 miles (?) payment estimate £25

It might not look too bad as per hr but this might be the only job that day, or maybe 2 that can be reasonablydone within court hrs, the interpreter gets £50 per day minus travel expenses, pay for parking, tax, NIcontributions, indemnity ins, car maintenance, we have no holiday pay, no sick pay and of course there is noguarantee that he will be another job that week—at best this amounts to minimum wage (as advertised by alsin their recruitment ads. I can work in a warehouse or a factory for guaranteed pay pocket every week plusbenefits, as a cleaner I can earn £10–15 p/h cash in hand. Did I study for my degree, obtained otherqualifications for that? Please bear in mind that we are highly skilled, highly educated people, working indifficult conditions, doing stressful work—try to tell me that interpreting at a murder or rape trial, child abuseis easy? Unsocial hours—police does not operate 9–5, with unpredictable work load, there are professors,doctors, people with Masters degrees but we are treated as migrant labour to be exploited. That’s why thecurrent scheme will never work- there will be revolving doors with people signing with als, working for awhile and leaving as soon as they realise that they are running around the country, being timed to the minute,spending money for travel and they can hardly earn a living- £50 per day, five days a week, 52 weeks (v.optimistic estimate based on my experience in a popular language- Polish amounts to 13,000 per year. I justapplied for a paralegal job with Family Mosaic at £25,000 per year, sick pay, holiday pay, 9–5 easy workfilling applications.

The MoJ were sold a fairy tale when you read the 5 documents setting out what the framework agreementwas supposed to achieve- qualified, highly trained interpreters, consummate professionals, all (!???) languagesavailable within 25 miles radius and supplied within an hour, full management information available (Document4) with breakdown, feedback on complaints within 24 hrs. What they are getting is unqualified, non-vettedamateurs as and when als has somebody available in some part of the country- eg Rv Romanowicz, ReadingCC, Polish 19 August 2012, two defendants, one “linguist” from Southampton 50 miles away, (previously 20NRPSI interpreters available within 25 miles or the one travelling from Newcastle to Ipswich or the exampleabove) In fact als can’t often supply even in popular languages like Polish, (320 on NRPSI). And how manyjobs for Fidjian in Penzance per year to be available for within one hour? it is unrealistic- if there is a needfor a particular language then soon more interpreters take up the exam- simple forces of the market, there is areason why in some languages there is only a few interpreters in the whole country- the amount of workavailable.

Another reason for the Framework Agreement was to establish a register of interpreters as required by theEC Directive- but there is a register of qualified and cleared interpreters ran by a body with no vested interest,financed by subscriptions of interpreters, exams conducted by independent body- the Institute of Linguists,established following the miscarriage of justice in Begum case so why do it again?

The old system could have been improved in few simple ways-

— by avoiding double bookings (there were sometimes two interpreters booked for one case but Inever heard about seven interpreters booked for two defendants as ALS did in Blackfriars CC,case of Zarzycki and Bujnik 16 May 2012.

— improving booking system so there will not be five Polish interpreters, each for a short hearingbut one or two

— cases with interpreters to be dealt first, not last as they were

— centralise booking system via very efficient Tribunals Call Centre in Loughborough whichbooked interpreters for the tribunals throughout the country, the closest to the venue called firstand strict control of travel time, punctuality etc

— centralise payments to be submitted via email

This would bring genuine savings instead the MoJ went with a small company with poor record in NorthWest , financially unstable, without interpreters on their books- did somebody check who ALS is? No- theybelieved smooth promises of a man who built his business on lies.



The MoJ is giving this company 300 millions of taxpayers money without checking what they are actuallygetting for it- the MoJ did not bother to monitor the performance despite what’s written in the FrameworkAgreement, is refusing to divulge any information regarding the performance (because they don’t have it?)gaging court staff and even Magistrates from talking about ALS’s performance.

Yours sincerely

Bogumila Kolbus Polish Interpreter

Below Some Interesting Reading- Only a Short Selection

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9477275/Judges-banned-from-blogging-or-Tweeting-about-cases.html

Monday, 27 August 2012

A JUDGE has hit out at the company that provides translators in legal cases, saying its failure to providereliable interpreters was a “plague” on the courts.

Judge David Ticehurst said the service provided by Applied Language Solutions had been “dreadful” becausetoo often interpreters had not turned up, turned up late and on some occasions been “incompetent”.

1. His Hon Judge David Ticehurst

After the case of a cannabis gardener had to be postponed due to an interpreter being repeatedly late, JudgeTicehurst summoned ALS to court for a hearing to determine a “wasted costs order”.

Judge Ticehurst said: “Since ALS took over the contract, the courts have been plagued by a failure ofinterpreters to turn up, and not be as good at English as they should be.

“Family cases have had to be adjourned, as have criminal cases.

“When an interpreter is incompetent, late or fails to turn up, ALS says ‘it’s nothing to do with us’.”

Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has a legal obligation under the Human Rights Act to provideinterpreters.

ALS was appointed by the Ministry of Justice to have sole control of the contract for courts and tribunalsin England and Wales on January 30.

But Judge Ticehurst said if it was up to him he would terminate the contract.

The barrister representing ALS, David Scutt, argued the company was doing everything it could to providea reliable service.

But the judge argued: “What are they (ALS) getting paid for? Finding an interpreter who may or may notturn up on time?”

Under the Supreme Court Act 1981, judges have the power to order a party or legal representative to meet“wasted costs”. The court must give them a reasonable opportunity to attend a hearing to give reasons why itshould not make such an order.

The case in the order against ALS was that of Men Pham, a 54-year-old Vietnamese woman who speaksno English.

On the day the case was first listed for sentence, 17 July, the interpreter was 44 minutes late, having comefrom London. By the time the case was able to be called, the judge was in the middle of a trial so had toadjourn it until August 14.

A request was made for the case to be heard at 2pm that day to allow for an interpreter’s travel time, yetstill he was half an hour late, this time coming from Cardiff.

The case finally concluded at 3.10pm, when Pham was given a one-year suspended prison sentence and asix-month curfew.

Deciding not to make the costs order against ALS, Judge Ticehurst said: “I’m sure that, in future, ALS willensure that any interpreters will appear in court, on time, not late.”

It is not clear how much money had been wasted by the delays.

On its website, ALS states it is “dedicated to providing high quality professional language translationservice—at excellent prices”.

A company director declined to comment after the hearing.

Category: HMCTS Interpreting Reports

Published on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 10:02

Written by OM



I have recently spoken with the solicitor I worked with and he has told me that at a hearing at ReadingCrown Court on 16th July ALS failed to provide a Ukrainian interpreter for their client I had worked withat prison.

The judge ordered £12,000 wasted costs to be paid by ALS. They were trying to send a Polish interpreterfrom Cambridge, it probably did not occur to them this was a different language! I am very proud to say I hadrefused to work on this case in court as professional interpreters have been boycotting the new arrangement,although the court had asked me, saying it was “at the solicitor’s request”.

ALS appears in court—as the defendant

Category: Analysis and Comment

Published on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 17:19

Written by Dutch Interpreter

ALS Ltd workers not turning up or not being up to the job of court interpreting is causing widespreaddisruption to the smooth running of the courts service. The knock-on effects of the failing contract are costly:unnecessary adjournments and remands in custody, and wasted costs for all parties attending.

Judges and Magistrates are hitting Applied Language Solutions Ltd and its parent company Capita where ithurts with orders to pay wasted costs. One trial that collapsed at Snaresbrook because of ALS Ltd cost anestimated £25,000. The company was recently ordered to pay wasted costs of £12,000 by a judge at ReadingCrown Court.

ALS is listed as the defendant in a case (U20121085) heard at Bristol Crown Court on 22 August, when theagency was spared a wasted costs order but was directed by HH Judge Ticehurst to get its workers to court ontime in future. ALS also appeared as the defendant before a Peterborough Crown Court judge on 3 August(U20120097), “to show cause”.

Not content with delaying Justice through its ramshackle delivery of the contract worth £300 million, ALSLtd now seems to be clogging up forthcoming listings with regular appearances in the dock.

Members of the judiciary ought to be quicker to use their powers—how many ALS Ltd managers and agencyworkers should really be in the dock for contempt of court?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19186942

9 August 2012 By Angus Crawford

BBC News Court interpreter checks “non-existent”

Interpreters from a private company have been working in courts in England and Wales without the requiredcriminal record checks, the BBC has been told.

The checks are “non-existent”, one interpreter said.

A private company, ALS, took over the £300 million contract earlier this year but has faced criticism fromjudges, politicians and lawyers.

ALS says if it finds interpreters who do not have the right documentation, it will remove them from theregister.

“Edward” (not his real name) has been a court interpreter for eight years and has worked for ALS sinceMarch.

He does not want to be identified for fear of losing work but describes security checks as “non-existent”.

He says he registered with ALS one evening and was offered his first work the next morning.

“I just did it online. I hadn’t filled in my references or work experience; they rang me up the next morningand offered me jobs. There was no chance to check anything; they didn’t,” he told the BBC.

It was “impossible” to check if he had a valid Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check, he said.

At that time he did not have a valid CRB check as required by ALS and the Ministry of Justice.

He worked without a CRB check for three months. In that time he worked on one trial involving Chinesetriad gangs.

Edward fears lax security could allow criminals access to sensitive court information. It would, he says, be“pretty easy” to falsely register as an interpreter.

“Very worrying”

He describes that as “very worrying”.



That fear is echoed by Neil McCafferty, who is projects director of translation company Talk Russian UK.

His wife had been an occasional court interpreter and last year, to test the new system, he registered his catMasha with ALS.

He said: “We signed her up for the rare cat language. We were absolutely staggered to start receiving emailsfrom the company suggesting we take Masha the cat for a language assessment”.

In July this year he registered again but in his own name. He has no valid qualifications and no CRB check.

He said: “I was absolutely shocked when on their mobile phone app it was offering me work—I could havebeen anybody.”

“I could have been trying to access the criminal justice system for all sorts of unpleasant reasons. That initself is incredibly frightening,” said Mr McCafferty.

There are 800 requests a day from courts in England and Wales, for an interpreter to assist a witness, avictim, or a defendant.

ALS, now owned by outsourcing giant Capita, has also been criticised for not providing enough staff andfor low standards.

The most recent figures show that between 30 January and 30 April there were 2,232 official complaintsabout the service.

Of the trials it was asked to attend, it managed to provide staff to 81%—its contract demands 98%.

Translation errors Translation errors have led to trials collapsing.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “Interpreters working in HM Courts and Tribunals must be vetted tothe minimum requirement of an enhanced Criminal Record Bureau check”.

“It is the contractor’s responsibility to make sure they meet this requirement. We keep this and othercontractual requirements under scrutiny,” he added.

It confirmed 43 interpreters had already been removed from the register for not having the appropriatechecks.

ALS said: “If the BBC is aware of any interpreters working without the necessary information and isprepared to provide specifics, ALS will investigate and suspend or remove such interpreters, if appropriate.”

ALS was started from his back bedroom by Gavin Wheeldon in 2003. Eight years later he won the contractwith the Ministry of Justice.

In December 2011 he sold the business to Capita and until last month was chief executive.

He strongly defends the performance of the contract: “Month one was very very bad, month two it improveddramatically...the level of complaints are almost non existent now.”

But “Edward” is turning his back on a system he thinks is insecure. “I’m not an isolated case, I talk withother interpreters, many of them have no qualifications at all,” he added.

VIDEO: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19191277

Court interpreter checks “non-existent”

It has been revealed that interpreters from a private firm have been working in courts in England and Waleswithout criminal record checks.

The government awarded the £300 million contract to ALS, which has been criticised for low standards andfor not providing enough staff.

Angus Crawford reports.

Dear John,

Language Services in the Justice Sector

Following our meeting of 21 June I agreed to write to you with some further information on the issueswe discussed.

You asked how many of the interpreters accepting assignments from Applied Language Solutions (ALS)were included on the NRPSI register. Information provided to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) by ALS indicatedthat, on 6 July, there were 301 interpreters on the ALS list who were also registered on the NRPSI. Thisnumber will of course fluctuate as new interpreters offer their services and others cease to offer their servicesunder the contract.

You also wanted to know the length of the contract that the MoJ has signed with ALS. It may help if Iexplain that the MoJ has signed an overarching Framework Agreement with ALS to provide language services



to the justice sector. The Framework Agreement has been signed for four years and contains the terms andconditions which the MoJ, or other justice sector bodies, will apply to the provision of language services. TheMoJ has since signed a contract with ALS under the terms of the Framework Agreement. This contract is forfive years. The difference in duration between the two is to allow for the Framework Agreement to be re-tendered while the contract is still in force.

Turning finally to your query in relation to professional indemnity insurance, the Framework Agreementrequires ALS to ensure that throughout the contract the interpreter/translator is covered by a current and validpolicy of professional indemnity, acceptable to ALS and the MoJ, providing insurance against any liability theindividual may incur as a result of their appointment by ALS, or the performance or failure to perform anyduty as outlined in the contract.

I hope that this letter clarifies the issues we discussed.

Crispin Blunt

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: FOI-2012–00336

I write in connection with your request for information dated 07 July 2012 received by Warwickshire Policeon the same day, in which you seek access to the following information:

1. How many linguists has Warwickshire Police vetted for Applied Language Solutions Ltd and over whatperiod?

2. Of those, how many were interpreters and how many were translators?

3. How many ALS Ltd translators and interpreters successfully passed the vetting process?

4. To what vetting level are checks carried out?

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within Warwickshire Police to locate informationrelevant to your request. I can confirm that the information requested is held by Warwickshire Police and isdocumented below:

1. 720 Applications received by Warwickshire vetting unit since January 2012 to date.

2. We do not hold this information.

3. 574 accepted.

4. Non Police Personnel Vetting 3 (NPPV 3).

Appeal Rights

A MURDER trial had to be halted temporarily when a man translating vital evidence revealed he was onlythere because his wife—the real interpreter—was too busy.

The judge suspended the case when it became clear that Mubarak Lone was failing to translate key phrasesfully and even got the oath wrong for a Sikh witness who was giving evidence.

It was only thanks to a junior defence barrister, who happened to speak Punjabi, that the problem was spotted.

Following an investigation it was discovered Mr Lone was not qualified or registered.

The fiasco can only be reported today following the conclusion of the trial of mum-of-two RajvinderKaur, who was yesterday sentenced to life with a minimum term of 11 years in prison , for battering hermother-in-law to death with a rolling pin.

The debacle—which delayed the case by a day, costing tens of thousands of pounds—is the latest in a longline of problems at courts across the country since the Government awarded the interpreter contract to AppliedLanguage Solutions (ALS) in a bid to save £18 million.

There have already been thousands of complaints about interpreters provided by the firm, who either turnup late, fail to appear or are not up to the job.

Now a high profile Government committee is launching an inquiry into the awarding of the contract whichhas brought chaos to courtrooms throughout England.

The latest problem arose at Winchester Crown Court last Friday, shortly after Mr Lone, who turned up 45minutes late causing the trial to be delayed, was sworn in.

When he attempted to translate the oath to a Sikh witness he got it wrong.

Then, while translating for Kaur’s husband Iqbal Singh as he took the stand to give evidence concerning hismother’s murder, Mr Lone went on to omit key words and phrases.

After repeated failed attempts by defence barrister Jonathan Fuller QC to have his questions asked correctly,the judge, Mr Justice Barnett, stopped the trial.



In the absence of the jury, Mr Lone admitted his wife had been contracted by ALS to act as a translator, butshe already had work commitments so he went in her place.

He went on to say he had taken the interpreter test set by ALS but had not received his results and wasnot accredited.

Describing the situation, Mr Justice Barnett told the court: “This is extremely unfortunate, to use a classicunderstatement.”

However that wasn’t the end of the matter.

When the trial recommenced on Monday morning a similar situation unfolded when a new female interpreterfrom ALS arrived—but once again she was not able to correctly translate words and phrases.

The case was only able to continue with the assistance of Kaur’s junior counsel, Sukhdev Garcha.

Mr Garcha told the Daily Echo: “I couldn’t believe the first interpreter was so woefully inadequate and thenit happened again with the second who was completely out of her depth. She didn’t understand a lot of wordsand phrases and her vocabulary was completely lacking.

“If I hadn’t spoken up then people in the court would have thought everything was being interpretedcorrectly.

“It would have been to the detriment of our client—we could have had a miscarriage of justice. That’s theprice you pay.”

Defence barrister Jonathan Fuller QC added: “It’s at the very heart of the justice system because the wordsare the evidence. If you find, as a defence counsel, that you are calling evidence on words that are unreliablethen that is the start of a miscarriage of justice.”

Mr Justice Barnett declined to comment further.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/courtroom-interpreter-039savings039-evaporate

Courtroom interpreter “savings” evaporate

Thursday 19 July 2012 by Catherine Baksi

The Ministry of Justice has admitted that £12 million of savings predicted for the first year of controversialnew arrangements for courtroom interpreting “will probably not be achieved”.

The announcement, by justice minister Lord McNally, came as the ministry declined to reveal the cost ofthe contract with Applied Language Solutions. In response to a freedom of information request made bythe Gazette for the cost of the contract’s first three months, from February this year, the MoJ said it held theinformation but providing it would be too costly.

Problems with the new interpreting hub were revealed by the Gazette on 9 February.

McNally told peers last week that the contract had a “very poor start”, but said there had been“improvements” and that the government will ensure a high-quality service. Responding to a question fromLabour peer Lord Harrison, McNally accepted that “the original estimate of a £12 million saving in the firstyear will probably not be achieved”, but he said “this is not a solution for just one year. It is a long-termsolution that we hope will, once it is bedded down, give the service and quality required.”

Crossbencher Lady Coussins, vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, expressed concern thatdata on contract performance was provided by the contractor “without any independent verification or audit”and tells a “very different story from the complaints we hear daily from judges”.

McNally replied: “There is not an independent monitoring system—there is a client. We are the client, andwe do not intend to pay good money for a shoddy service.”

He dismissed Coussins’ fear that poor performance could put the government in danger of legal action fornon-compliance with a European directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings,due to be implemented in October 2013.

Applied Language Solutions declined to comment, referring enquiries to the MoJ.

http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/490-i-registered-with-als-with-fake-details-and-got-12-job-offers

I registered with ALS with fake details and got 12 job offers

Category: Analysis and Comment

Published on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 10:29

Written by Registrant



After reading about Jajo the rabbit I decided to register with ALS. I had (have) no intention of working forthem. I only wanted to see how far I could go and how incompetent ALS is.

So I registered with a fake name (the name of a fictional character), a fake address (a well-known officialresidence of a head of state), a mobile number with only 10 digits and an obviously fake Skype name. Noqualifications, no experience, no security vetting.

Two days after I registered I got my first job offer, a 45 minute job at a court in central London. Soon afterthat I received an email inviting me to take the assessment test, I did not reply, but I carried on receiving joboffers. In total, up to now, I have received 12 job offers.

To me it’s very clear that:

(1) anyone can register online on the ALS website and ALS will not check their identity,qualifications, experience, security vetting, etc; and

(2) they offer jobs to people who register on their website without even checking the profile/details people give when they register—if they did, they would have realised that all my detailswere fake.

I have screenshots of my fake profile and the 12 job offers emails.

http://www.linguistlounge.org/index.php/all-articles/court-and-tribunal-interpreting-reports/486-distressed-vulnerable-adult-and-wasted-costs-as-als-interpreter-fails-to-attend-on-time

Distressed Vulnerable Adult and Wasted Costs as ALS Interpreter Fails to Attend on Time

Category: HMCTS Interpreting Reports

Published on Thursday, 12 July 2012 08:47

Written by Alan Brice

I was due to appear as an expert witness at North Shields Asylum Court last Tuesday for an Asylum Appealhearing with a client of mine and we were expected to start at 10am. The client, myself, the solicitor and thebarrister were all ready before 10am as were the Home Office and the Immigration Judge. The French ALSinterpreter arrived at 11.05am. As a result of him being late, the Court managers decided to go ahead with thecase which was supposed to follow our hearing. So instead of our case being heard first, we had to wait until2.30pm to start.

The solicitor and I both lost half a day’s work. It distressed the client because they had to wait for nearlyfive hours rather than half an hour for the start of their case—the client is a vulnerable adult who has hadpsychiatric care following his torture in his home country.

I had to cancel a therapy session with an interpreter for a father & son that I see together, so it cost us, asmall charity, the cost of the interpreter we had booked, the return travel of the father & son and it wasted thetravel time it took them. It also means that I have to rebook that session into my busy schedule.

Alan BriceCentre ManagerNorth East Centrefreedomfromtorture.org

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gI31GYhaq9xS5AsEx-TmbkMHMngw?docId=N0087621341846645753A

9 July 2012

£12 million interpreter savings “unlikely”

A new contract for providing interpreters in courts is unlikely to meet an expected £12 million saving in itsfirst year, the Government has admitted.

The national scheme, run by Applied Language Solutions (ALS), has been plagued by reports of cases beingdelayed or abandoned as a result of translators failing to turn up or making mistakes.

Justice minister Lord McNally said ALS had made “a very poor start to this contract” but there had sincebeen big improvements.

Labour’s Lord Harrison asked at question time in the House of Lords whether the Government would revisedown the “original £12 million estimate” of cost savings. Lord McNally replied: “I presume that some of theoriginal estimates of a £12 million saving in this first year will probably not be achieved—that makes commonsense—but this isn’t a solution just for this year but a long-term solution which we hope, once it is beddeddown, will give the service and quality required.”

Baroness Coussins, an independent crossbench peer and vice president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists,said she understood the company was “supplying performance data to the Government which suggests they



are dong a good job”. But she added: “These figures come without any independent verification or audit andthey tell a very different story from the complaints we are hearing daily from judges and others about the failureto provide interpreters or the sending of unqualified, inexperienced people with no experience of simultaneousinterpreting and some who are simply incompetent, in one case not understanding the difference betweenmurder and manslaughter.”

And retired senior judge Baroness Butler-Sloss, a crossbencher, asked Lord McNally: “Are you aware of theextent of disruption and delay to criminal trials as a result of serious inaccuracies of court interpreting whichis not only leading to very considerable cost but also concerns have been raised by judges across the country,particularly in London, in Birmingham and in Leeds?”

Lord McNally said the Ministry of Justice had a “massive interest in making sure Applied LanguageSolutions provides the quality of service for which it is contracted”.

He added: “There has been improvement and we are talking about a system where there are some 800requests a day for such interpretation—in the first quarter of its operation some 26,000 requests in 142languages. One has got to get complaints about performance into perspective.”

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/official-statistics-reveal-als-performance-failure

Official statistics reveal ALS performance shortfall

Thursday 24 May 2012 by Catherine Baksi

Three months into its contract to provide court interpreters Applied Language Solutions (ALS) was notmeeting its performance targets, statistics published today reveal. Data provided to the Ministry of Justice byALS, showed that from 30 January to 30 April 2012, ALS provided an interpreter in 81% of the cases wherecourts requested one. Its performance target was 98%.

In the first three months of the contract, there were 26,059 requests for interpreters at courts and tribunalsin England and Wales, covering 142 languages. Of the initial requests, 2,825 (11%) were either cancelledby the court, or the person who made the request failed to attend. These figures are not included in thefulfillment numbers.

The figures show that the overall success rate for requests increased from 65% in February to 90% in April,with success rates varying between 58–95% for the 20 most requested languages at all courts, and between69–94% at tribunals.

There were 2,232 complaints relating to the requests during the period. The complaints, categorised by ALS,show that 44% were due to interpreters not attending, 23% were due to “operational issues” and 3% concernedthe quality of the interpreter.

Four languages—Polish, Romanian, Urdu and Lithuanian—accounted for over a third of all languagerequests.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We have now seen a significant and sustained improvement inperformance. There are now only a tiny handful of cases each day when an interpreter job is unfilled. Disruptionto court business and complaints have reduced substantially and close to 3,000 interpreters are now workingunder this contract. We continue to monitor the improvement on a daily basis.”

Earlier this week the solicitor general Edward Garnier QC told the House of Commons that the contractwith ALS “is now running properly”. He said: “The company has got a grip on it and we can expect nothingbut progress from here on.”

On Tuesday, 8 May, a trial collapsed at the beginning of the fourth week, an Applied Language Solutions(ALS) worker having been sacked on Friday. The case was being heard at Leicester Crown Court, T20117192,SARFUDIN and others. It is a three-hander case, and since three weeks have already gone by, the costs to thepublic purse will be very substantial, and caused solely due to incompetent interpreting.

Interpreting error leads to £25,000 retrial costs

http://www.thelawyer.com/interpreting-error-leads-to-%C2%A325000-retrial-costs/1012204.article

September 2012



Written evidence from Elena Irimia

1. My name is Elena Irimia, and I am writing this in a personal capacity as a fully-qualified NRPSI interpreterfor the Romanian language. I have been interpreting for the past six years and have accumulated severalthousand hours of experience for the police, prisons, magistrates courts, and crown court proceedings. Frommy own direct experience I would like to submit the following evidence which relates to area 3 of the scopeof the inquiry, namely the experience of courts and prisons services in receiving interpretation services thatmeet their needs.

2. On 6 February 2012 I attended Derby Magistrates Court having being booked by Derbyshire Policethrough the agency CINTRA. Whilst waiting at the court I engaged an ALS linguist in conversation. Her nameis Leila Sjagailo, a Latvian who had been resident in the UK for approximately four years, and had hithertobeing working as a cleaner in Wakefield. She told me that she had taken some interpreting exams but hadfailed them. She had made an on-line application to register with ALS, and had received court assignmentsalmost straight away, without having being subject to any form of assessment, nor did she have any CRBclearance. This was not her first court booking She also said that she had never spoken to anyone at ALS inperson or via the telephone, so it is clear that no-one at ALS had ever heard her speak in English, Russianor Latvian.

3. In February 2012 I received a telephone call from a Romanian named Claudia, a person I had met onprevious occasions. Claudia was working as an intern with a firm of solicitors in Leicester, so I knew she hadsome experience providing interpreting in a legal environment, although she did not have any interpretingqualifications, nor had she been CRB checked. She had applied on-line to join ALS, and had a 10 minutephone conversation (in English only) with someone at ALS, and just received her first court booking at DerbyMagistrates. She phoned to ask me for advice as she did not know what to expect, nor what would be expectedof her. I deduced from this that she had not received any training or mentoring from ALS in preparation forworking in court, which is stark contrast to the extensive training which I had received.

September 2012

Written evidence from the Association of Translation Companies

Summary

— The Association of Translation Companies found it difficult to engage with the Ministry of Justice.

— In its attempt to support the process bureaucratic obstacles appeared to be placed in the ATC’s way.

— Once our views were sought they appear to have been ignored.

— We recommend that professional representative bodies are consulted before embarking on futurecomplex procurements, as this can help inform the framework and help avoid the bear traps.

— While recognising the need to make savings in public expenditure, this should not be at the expenseof the quality agenda, which needs to be placed far higher up the agenda.

1. The Association of Translation Companies (ATC) is the world’s longest established professionalorganisation representing the interests of commercial companies offering language services.

2. A number of its members tendered for the contract to supply interpreting and translation services to allagencies of the Ministry of Justice. A number informed the Association that they had decided to withdrawfrom the process, as they viewed the specifications to have been flawed.

3. Two of our members, Applied Language Solutions (ALS) and thebigword were shortlisted after theremaining bidders had been eliminated from the process.

4. The ATC’s Public Sector Committee was proactive in seeking to support the MoJ’s procurementdepartment by offering what advice it could to help officials develop a credible process that took into accountthe many issues which it considered needed to be considered.

5. The process of setting up a meeting with the appropriate officials proved extremely difficult andcommenced once Buying Solutions issued an OJEU notice in August 2009.

6. While seeking to offer advice, our approaches did not appear to have been welcomed in the first instance.An official at Buying Solutions told us that it would be “inappropriate” to meet with a supplier organisation,despite the ATC being one of the world’s longest established professional bodies representing interests oftranslation companies.

7. Further delays were created when the Ministry of Justice decided, following consultations withstakeholders within the criminal justice system, that the scope of the proposed Buying Solutions frameworkwould not be sufficient to meet the specific needs of the criminal justice system.

8. We persisted in our approaches but the process of setting up a simple face-to-face meeting with officialsoverseeing the procurement to offer helpful advice took nearly seven months. We found this frustrating.



9. We were similarly unimpressed by a message received from an independent outside consultant employedon a short term contract to advise the Ministry of Justice who, on completing his assignment, asked us tocirculate his details to our members to support their public sector bids.

10. The ATC recognised that part of the Government’s agenda was to streamline the procedures and, at thesame time, reduce expenditure on interpreting and translation services across all justice settings. However, ouradvice focused purely on the quality agenda.

11. The ATC also recognised that the National Register for Public Sector Interpreters, (NRPSI) and otherapproved lists, while providing a useful database of interpreters, does not represent the total available pool ofsuitably qualified interpreters that could be used across all justice settings. Indeed many ATC members,including those tendering for the MoJ contracts have had to establish their own databases of interpreters usingtheir own quality control regimes, often in collaboration with universities. This had been made necessary, as aresult of around a third of all those on NRPSI database opting to withhold their details from translationcompanies. This practice preceded the awarding of the contract to ALS and was something about which MoJofficials were unaware

12. As a result of the protracted process of setting up a meeting, the procurement process had by thenproceeded past the PQQ stage and the short listing of bidders, many of which we were informed were ourmembers.

13. Having finally secured a meeting and establishing reasonably regular email contact, the ATC was invitedto contribute to the debate in the Competitive Dialogue phase of the procurement.

14. Having consulted widely we commented specifically on two issues. The first was that the MoJ appearedto have adopted a different tiering system to that used to award contracts for similar services in othergovernment departments via the OGC.

15. We felt that by adopting a three tier approach, while the rest of Government was using a four tier systemfor sourcing interpreters, showed an inconsistent approach that could compromise the quality of the servicedelivered. The Association also warned that this inconsistency could lead to problems further down the lineand might be a source of criticism of the MoJ’s approach that could, potentially, undermine confidence in it.

16. The second observation made by the ATC was that the Ministry of Justice did not appear to acknowledgethe importance of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI) and the important role it plays in thecontinued professional development of interpreters. We felt that this was a significant omission that needed tobe addressed.

17. We were later consulted by the MoJ about the significance of the various professional qualificationsbeing cited by short listed bidders.

18. This set alarm bells ringing, as we would have expected that rigorous research ahead of the short listingwould have suggested that all the qualifications were important guides as to the competence of interpreters tobe used.

19. For the record the qualifications about which our views were sought were:

— Diploma in Public Service Interpreting.

— Metropolitan Police Test.

— Community Interpreting Level 3 Diploma.

— Community Interpreting Level 1–2.

— A degree partly studied in English with at least one interpreting and one translation component.

— Formalised basic interpreter training including one of the following the Worker’ EducationAssociation (WEA) programmes, bi-lingual skills certificates, community level interpretingdegrees under the NVQ certification system.

— Partial Diploma in Public Sector Interpreting (DPSI) (not module 3b).

— Degree in linguistics, English philology, modern languages.

— Cambridge proficiency in English Certificate.

— First or post graduate degree in interpreting.

— First or post graduate degree in the relevant language.

20. Having taken so long to be admitted to the table to offer support to the Ministry of Justice, theAssociation of Translation Companies was disappointed that our advice on the tiering system and thesignificance of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting role in delivering interpreter CPD appeared to havebeen ignored.

21. If we are to draw lessons from this particular process the ATC believes they would be:

(a) Consult the professional representative bodies before embarking on such a procurement processin the future—it can help provide a comprehensive map of a complex marketplace which canhelp avoid unnecessary bear traps.



(b) Seek to remove many of the bureaucratic obstacles placed in the way of professional groupssuch as the Association of Translation Companies to enable an early productive dialogue totake place.

(c) Place a far greater emphasis on the quality criteria.

(d) Recognise that the period for an interpreter to train and gain expertise can be as long as adoctor, solicitor or accountant and deserves the same professional recognition.

(e) Recognise that streamlining systems to deliver cost savings to the public purse, should neverbe achieved at the expense of delivering the highest quality interpreting services.

August 2012

Written evidence from Marc Starr

1. I am Marc Starr, a Public Service Interpreter registered with the National Register of Public ServiceInterpreters (hereafter NRPSI) under number 12389. I have been registered as an interpreter for Portuguesesince January 2004 and for Spanish since January 2007 and I have a total of over 2,000 hours of interpretingexperience.

2. My submission in its entirety is a response to Point One and Point Two the six questions: The rationalefor changing arrangements for the provision of interpreter services and The nature and appropriateness of theprocurement process.

3. These are the only two parts that are relevant to me because I am an interpreter; I do not work in a rolewhere I can comment in a direct way on the issues that have arisen since the Framework Agreement (hereafterFWA) began. I view the two issues to be very closely tied together because the rationale for making the changesand the nature and appropriateness of the way it was then executed are so hard to separate that in reality theyshould be one single question. I should add that in my view it is not the “appropriateness” but“inappropriateness”, of which more later.

4. I nevertheless believe that every problem that has been caused by the FWA has occurred the supposedproblems the FWA was aimed at solving were exaggerated, distorted and confused, and consequently the issuesthat have come up were because the rationale was based in the assumption that there were problems and theway solving them was tackled made a genuine mess where previously there was only a perceived mess.

5. I believe the supposed “problem” can be summed up as dissatisfaction with the methods of supply usedup to the point that Applied Language Solutions (hereafter ALS) were allowed to take over. I believe that ALSwere seen as a company that could solve a problem that in the view of the Ministry of Justice can be summedup at the simplest level as being primarily two-fold: (1) levels and speeds of availability of interpreters and (2)the back office resources used firstly to find interpreters and then to pay them once they had done the job.

6. The supposition was that provision of some languages in some geographical areas was patchy; the MOJbelieved that some languages were in short supply and they felt that resources and time could be saved byhanding over the booking and payment of interpreters to a centralised system run by a private sector supplier.

7. I do not believe that any of the solutions that rationale aimed to bring about have come to fruition.

8. The MOJ’s rationale was that by creating new qualifications, which although it insisted they were not awatering-down of the criteria, more people would become available and that by booking through a centralisedsystem, the arrival times of interpreters would improve. I do not believe that either of these aims has beenfulfilled but I am more concerned in exposing the folly of the belief itself and why it existed at all.

9. It was misguided in the extreme to believe that any supply issues would be solved by merely creating alarger field of lesser-qualified people masquerading as interpreters and I also assert that there are reasons, tobe explained in subsequent points, why a centralised booking system has no inherent advantage over custodysergeants and listings officers booking interpreters directly themselves.

10. My reason for believing this is based directly on the experience I have had as an interpreter and therange of situations, times and locations in which I have been asked to interpret. These encompass everythingfrom very short-notice calls and jobs booked in advance.

11. I will now attempt to illustrate the range, type, frequency and unpredictability of the spread of my work.It is highly relevant to your understanding of the perception at the other end of the telephone, where publicservice officials who want to use us are sitting when they require us.

12. In a letter dated 5 July 2011, Martin Jones, the Deputy Director for Crime for HMCTS wrote a coveringletter to which a document was attached that in my view remains one of the key examples of the completelyunrealistic set of expectations that were arrived at and to me they amount to expecting interpreters to beavailable in any language, anywhere, at any notice and to do so quickly.

13. From 2004, I was asked with various levels of regularity (several requests in a single day to once ortwice a week) to interpret for Police stations and courts, in every type of hearing from plea hearings to full



crown court trials, Police interviews and witness statements as well as VIPER identity parades and evenoccasional requests for written translations.

14. The three factors at play are: (1) the location requiring me, (2) the reaction times asked for and (3) whenI was called. In other words: who needed me and how suddenly the requirement was, and whether it involvedwork at hours outside the conventional working week.

15. I am based in Manchester but I was asked to attend Police stations in West, South and North Yorkshire,Cumbria, Staffordshire, North Wales, Lancashire, Merseyside and even Tyneside, Avon and Lincolnshire.

16. The nature of the geographic range of locations I was asked to attend suggests to me that other optionscloser to those Police stations and courts had been tried and were not available.

17. A key fact you should consider carefully is that interpreters are freelancers and cannot be expected toknow where and when they will be required to displace themselves for a job. That was never going to changewhether the NRPSI system or the ALS system was used.

18. I do not believe that the idea that an interpreter can be available anywhere for any language at anytime, within an hour, is reasonable, feasible or realistic in the first place. But the rationale for changing thearrangements was not only based on this idea but in my view it also blamed NRPSI interpreters themselvesfor factors that are simply beyond their control.

19. Interpreters have lives of their own. They largely do not want to miss jobs that they could be availablefor. They are happy to be offered work but it is naïve to think this does not involve a huge effort to makethemselves available for the calls they take. I was in a multitude of different situations doing something elsewhen I was called to jobs but I managed to react in countless ways. I would be on the way to see a footballmatch and I would be called to a Police station in Leeds. I would be in the middle of a translation on deadlineand receive a request to attend Oldham or Cheadle Heath Police Station. The same happened with courts onoccasion. These calls came on Sunday mornings, Tuesday afternoons, Saturday nights—it would often not bepossible to know how long they would last and the overall effect personally was often incredibly hard.

20. On some occasions, I would turn on my phone after coming out of a courtroom and I would find a callrequesting me somewhere else. On other occasions, a call would come in where other interpreters had beencontacted and they were not available, either for personal, professional or social reasons. The reason this isrelevant is that while the ideal remains that the person closest to a job will be available, there is no way eitherthe public service can ever expect to know when they require an interpreter, or for the interpreter to knowwhen they will be required.

21. When a requirement existed in Cumbria, for instance, for a Portuguese interpreter, particularly at shortnotice, if no such interpreter existed in the nearby area, it was necessary to bring one in from further afield.This happened to me on several occasions. It is not my fault that I happened to be the interpreter closest toNorthallerton or Carlisle or Anglesey on several occasions. I just happened to be the person closest to the placewhere I was needed. If I did live in one of those places, then the opposite would happen: on some occasions,I would perhaps be required in another location far from where I live.

22. I believe that interpreters have been made scapegoats for this in a way that no other trade or professionhas suffered. Wherever and whenever a requirement exists for any tradesperson or professional, be it a Policeofficer, a solicitor or a locksmith, be it a gas engineer, a doctor or an electrician, their availability is alwaysgoing to be in accordance with factors the tradesperson or professional cannot possibly expect to predict. Nordo they have powers to control the urgency with which they are required.

23. As such, the very idea that supply is “scarce” is a complete and utter distortion of the reality. Thisapparent scarcity formed part of the rationale for wanting to widen the pool of available interpreters but itoverlooked another key factor: the infrequent and unpredictable nature of requirements I have mentioned meansthat it would be pointless and unfeasible for certain interpreters to live in certain areas specifically to serve analready unpredictable need. How many jobs would an interpreter for Tagalog be given if they did go and livewithin 10 miles of Norwich Crown Court?

24. The reality is that while some interpreters in some “rare” languages do live in regions considered moreunlikely, it is the case that they happen to live there for whatever reason—birth, personal circumstances, simplechoice—but many of the main clusters of interpreters serving major languages are in the areas they live inbecause they are in the midst of their own communities. And there are exceptions and anomalies.

25. The occasions on which (for instance) Hebrew interpreter may be needed in Newcastle or a Vietnameseinterpreter is needed in Penzance are always going to be more infrequent than times when someone whosupplies Urdu, Punjabi or Farsi will be needed in Manchester or a Portuguese interpreter will be called to aPolice station in South London, if one looks at the reality of where languages are spoken and where,consequently, people that people who speak them are most likely to be found.

26. By widening the pool of available people, there is no difference to the fact that remains: people on anyaccredited list still have working and personal lives that mean that when they are contacted, even if they areavailable, the first available person has to go from where they are to where they are needed and the use of asingle supplier does not change this.



27. That unpredictable mix of circumstances is something that no management system will ever fully copewith to the extent the MOJ FWA attempted. A kind overview might well consider FWA’s aims as admirable intheory, but the FWA’s mission, to get any language available to any location without affecting quality is simplynaïve and unworkable.

28. I need to draw attention to a prior decision by Greater Manchester Police and other regional police forcesto award contracts to ALS. Although the Justice Select Committee is looking at the MOJ FWA, which the dealby GMP and other Northwest forces isn’t part of, it is relevant because those Police forces took on the exactsame ALS model as has been used by the MOJ FWA participant bodies.

29. In a letter dated 19 January 2009, Superintendent David Wilkinson of Greater Manchester Policeresponded to a letter I had written to him where I had warned I would withdraw my service from interpretingfor GMP if they used an agency.

30. I quote: “There is a definite shortage of interpreters, particularly in the rare and most commonly usedlanguages and Public Sector Authorities are requesting managing interpreting companies to identify theshortages and work with education institutes to design and accreditate [sic] appropriate training. There mustbe a huge amount of ‘untapped’ interpreting skills in our immigrant communities”.

31. That sentence alone displays a belief that GMP and the other forces wanted to achieve the same as theMOJ did with the FWA: to save time and resources and to have more interpreters available across a widergeographical spread and hence also resulting in shorter waiting times. I believe that my understanding of itstrue meaning has significance in direct relation to the MOJ FWA.

32. One of the parts of MOJ allowed a private sector company to design qualifications with educationalinstitutes that in my view watered down the qualifications required to interpret and therefore the definition ofan interpreter.

33. Evidence submitted by other parties will hopefully allow the Committee to take a view of whether therereally is a “huge amount of untapped interpreting skills in our immigrant communities”.

34. The reason I believe this is relevant is because rather than look at more constructive ways to strengthenthe field of available interpreters who had the full qualification required—the Diploma in Public ServiceInterpreting (hereafter DPSI)—the move to outsource by GMP and the other forces was a blueprint for whatthe MOJ later embarked upon.

35. If you combine the availability issue with quality and training, it becomes clear that the MOJ’s idea ofa solution to the mythical supply problem was to loosen the criteria a person had to meet in order to becomean interpreter. The new assessment and the ALS three-tier system was the MOJ’s misguided idea of a solution.

36. I will start from (and I rely on acceptance of) the premise that NRPSI membership is the gold standard.I require acceptance that the DPSI examination is the highest public service interpreting qualification and anyof my evidence in my submission is based on that. It must be accepted—based on the evidence you will receivefrom other stakeholders in this investigation on the performance of unqualified fake interpreters—that the DPSIhas been vindicated.

37. The DPSI is a very stringent test—there are two 30-minute interpreting tests, two translations (into andout of the candidate’s native language) and two sight translations. I have often compared it to a driving test—it assesses the candidate’s ability at the time of the test and beyond that, the person is classed as possessingthe required levels of ability.

38. The element of the rationale that decided that replacing a gruelling and stringent five-part examinationwith an assessment was a good idea is one of the key reasons that I think the MOJ Framework Agreement hasbeen catastrophic for all parties concerned. The MOJ asked qualified interpreters to prove their ability with anassessment that was akin to asking doctors to take a basic first aid qualification to prove their fitness to practice.The very idea is an utter affront to NRPSI interpreters and their achievement in attaining that status.

39. Aside from the qualified interpreters from the NRPSI, the assessment of people without a DPSI wasnever likely to “create” people with the required capability.

40. The annex document to the letter sent out to interpreters by Martin Jones of the MOJ on 6 July 2011said the following about NRPSI interpreters: “The introduction of an assessment is a direct response to addresscollaborative authorities’ concerns that NRPSI registration does not necessarily guarantee quality. Theevidence for this is anecdotal, but has been consistent enough to warrant action”.

41. This part of the rationale for making the change makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How can thevarious collaborative authorities’ officials ever gauge “quality” in any meaningful way? Interpreting is basedon trust and the whole point of there being a qualified professional who.

42. The other mystifying aspect of NRPSI membership being discredited in this way is that the MOJcontradicted itself by creating three tiers of interpreter where DPSI holders (in other words, largely people whowere on the NRPSI) were the ideal candidates. So either the DPSI was a benchmark or quality or it wasn’t.The MOJ’s rationale has not just been riddled with flaws but the way it was implemented makes no sense andhas no consistency at all.



43. The rationale of saving money via outsourcing to a private sector, profit-based intermediary: myconcluding thoughts.

44. The rationale of the contract was that money was to be saved by bringing in a third-party intermediaryto organise the distribution of skilled work among highly qualified professionals, whose rates had not gone upin any meaningful way since the early part of the 2000s, because any rise in 2007 from the court service wasa classic act of giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

45. The MOJ has tried to insert a pointless intermediary that would claim its own portion of the budget forinterpreting. The only outcome this would ever produce was to lower quality because well-informed warningspredicted this would do nothing but decimate a group of professionals, many of whom already felt somewhattaken for granted already. Lowering standards, altering benchmarks and slashing rates of pay was never goingto solve issues that were exaggerated in the first place.

46. The MOJ has taken that existing group of professionals, it has trivialised their skills, mocked theirqualifications and belittled their efforts and sacrifice. Many of these 2,300 professionals are leaving theprofession and many have already left. I urge you to consider this and to conclude that if the way the changeswere brought in was in any way appropriate, those existing professionals would not have reacted bywithdrawing their service to the point where only 301 of 2,300+ joined the chosen intermediary supplier.

47. There is no time to waste and nowhere to go. The MOJ FWA must end immediately.

August 2012

Written evidence from Involvis Ltd

Executive Summary

The Ministry of Justice’s Framework Agreement contract for the provision of public service interpretingcame into effect on 30 January 2012. This report provides the results of a UK-wide online survey (conductedbetween 1 August–26 August 2012) designed to elicit the opinions and experiences of interpreters workingunder this Framework Agreement as well as those who refuse to register with the chosen Contractor, AppliedLanguage Solutions (ALS).

The findings shed light upon the ways in which the contract has been breached by ALS and of the abysmaladministration of the Framework Agreement itself. It has also confirmed anecdotal evidence of unqualified,un-vetted, and inexperienced persons being sent to court to interpret by ALS, in a bid to fulfil bookings by anymeans possible.

Applied Language Solutions (ALS) has been widely criticised by courts, the judiciary, solicitors and themedia with recent comments from the Judiciary including the following:

Judge Toby Hooper QC, Worcester Crown Court:

“The absence of an interpreter was becoming a serious problem in the Worcester and Herefordcourts and was an impediment to the administration of justice.” (Worcester News, 6 March 12)

Judge Ticehurst, Bristol Crown Court:

“Since ALS took over the contract, the courts have been plagued by a failure of interpreters to turnup, and not be as good at English as they should be.” (This is Bristol, 27 August 12)

Judge Robert Bartfield, Leeds Crown Court:

“The cost of this now aborted trial is likely to run into thousands of pounds. The attempt to show asaving of a few pounds has led to an entire hearing going up in smoke.” (Private Eye, 22 March 12)

In addition to unprecedented press coverage of chaos in courts up and down the country (see Appendix A),the problematic Framework Agreement has also been heavily debated in the House of Lords (9 July 2012)with Baroness Butler-Sloss asking:

— “Is the Minister aware of the extent of disruption and delay to criminal trials as a result of theserious inadequacies in court interpreting? Not only does it lead to considerable cost butconcerns have been raised by judges across the country.”

When presented with statistics from ALS regarding the language services provided, Baroness JeanCoussins said:

— “these figures come without any independent verification or audit and tell a very different storyfrom the complaints we hear daily from judges and others about the failure to supplyinterpreters, or the sending of unqualified people with no experience of simultaneousinterpreting and some people who were simply incompetent—in one case not understanding thedifference between murder and manslaughter”.



In the same debate, Lord Harrison asked:

— “Has the Minister revised the original estimate of a £12 million saving as a result ofimplementing the framework agreement because of all these additional costs? Have we notarrived at a situation that is no longer just succumbing to teething problems but is wholly poorlystructured in the first place?”

965 interpreters responded to the online survey; 84.9% (818) of whom are registered with the NationalRegister of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) and 11% (106) of whom are registered with Applied LanguageSolutions (ALS).

Key Findings

— 95.7% of NRPSI interpreters refuse to register with Applied Language Solutions, representing asignificant loss of highly qualified, experienced interpreters from the sector.

— The most common reason for refusing to register with ALS was due to the agency lowering thestandards of professional interpreting (95.1%), closely followed by the low hourly attendance rate(90.9%) and the lack of quality assurance/poor assessment process (85.1%).

— 79.8% of NRPSI’s continue to receive direct calls from courts wishing to book an interpreter,highlighting the inability of ALS to supply.

— Despite the persistent direct calls from courts, 61.4% of all respondents continue to turn down theserequests with just 18.1% of interpreters accepting bookings outside of the Framework Agreement.

— Almost a third of interpreters (30.3%) currently registered with Applied Language Solutions (ALS)are not currently accepting jobs.

— 27.5% of those currently registered with ALS stated that whilst they did some work for the company,they have since ceased accepting jobs.

— 42.1% of ALS interpreters were not required to undergo the mandatory assessment.

— Furthermore, 86.8% of ALS interpreters stated that they had been offered work despite not havingundertaken the required assessment.

— Just over a quarter of respondents (25.3%) stated that while they were registered with ALS, they hadnot been asked to undergo vetting/CRB checks.

— 90.3% (28) of ALS interpreters stated that they were still offered bookings for legal interpretingdespite not having been vetted/CRB checked.

JSC Terms of Reference

The key terms of reference this document seeks to address are:

5. The steps that have been taken to rectify under-performance and the extent to which they havebeen effective,

and

6. The appropriateness of arrangements for monitoring the management of the contract, includingthe quality and cost-effectiveness of the service delivered.

5. The steps that have been taken to rectify under-performance and the extent to which they have beeneffective

5.1 Applied Language Solutions (ALS) have not only proved incapable of fulfilling requests for interpretersbut also of rectifying their under-performance.

Courts and solicitors have been bypassing the Framework Agreement and have resorted to making directcalls to NRPSIs, as evidenced in the responses to Q.7 of the survey:

Q7. Since the Framework Agreement came into effect, have you been contacted directly by courts attemptingto book an interpreter?

75.5% (639) of all respondents stated that they have been called directly by courts wishing to book aninterpreter:

Since the Framework Agreement came into effect, have you been contacted directly by courts attempting tobook an interpreter?Answer Percent Count

Yes 75.5% 639No 24.5% 207



5.2 This bypassing of the FWA has not been particularly effective, as evidenced by the responses to Q.8 ofthe survey:

Q.8 Are you accepting these bookings made through direct calls?

Despite the persistent direct calls from courts, 59.8% (389) of all NRPSI respondents continue to turn downthese requests with just 18% of professional interpreters accepting bookings outside of the FrameworkAgreement:

Are you accepting these bookings made through direct calls?Answer Percent Count

Yes 18.0% 117No 59.8% 389Sometimes 22.2% 144

5.3 Attempts by ALS to rectify their underperformance have resulted in several breaches of the Contract,most notably the requirement for all interpreters to be appropriately assessed and vetted.86.8% (33) of ALS interpreters stated that they had been offered work despite not having undertaken therequired assessment, as evidenced by responses to Q.15:

Q.15 If you have not undergone the ALS assessment process, have you been offered bookings for legalinterpreting by ALS?

If you have not undergone the ALS assessment process, have you been offered bookings for legal interpretingby ALS?Answer Percent Count

Yes 86.8% 33No 13.2% 5

This is in direct conflict with the Framework Agreement which states that all interpreters must have a passat the assessment centre to the relevant Tier to which they have been allocated, see Appendix A, page 106of Ministry of Justice and Applied Language Solutions Agreement relating to Language Services (dated 19August 2011).

5.4 In addition to this, ALS’ attempts to fulfil bookings have led to a large number of interpreters being sentto court without undergoing security vetting or CRB checks, as evidenced by responses to Q16 and Q17:

Q.16 Have you been required by ALS to undergo vetting/CRB checks?

Just over a quarter of respondents (25.3%) stated that while they were registered with ALS, they had notbeen asked to undergo vetting/CRB checks.

Have you been required by ALS to undergo vetting/CRB checks?Answer Percent Count

No 25.3% 19Yes 74.7% 56

Q.17 If you have not undergone vetting/CRB checks have you been offered bookings by ALS?

Furthermore, 90.3% (28) of ALS interpreters stated that they were still offered bookings for legal interpretingdespite not having been vetted/CRB checked:

If you have not undergone vetting/CRB checks have you been offered bookings by ALS?Answer Percent Count

Yes 90.3% 28No 9.7% 3

Again, this is in direct conflict with the Agreement which states:

3.10 The Contractor shall comply with the Authority’s procedures for the vetting of Contractor’sPersonnel in respect of all persons employed or engaged in the provision of the Services. TheContractor confirms that all persons employed or engaged by the Contractor have been vetted andrecruited on a basis that is equivalent to and no less strict than the Contractors’ Personnel VettingProcedures. (See p 25 (point 3.10) of the Agreement)



6. The appropriateness of arrangements for monitoring the management of the contract, including the qualityand cost-effectiveness of the service delivered

6.1 The poor quality of the service delivered by ALS has been evidenced on numerous occasions anddocumented in a dossier published by Interpreters for Justice as well as in newspapers throughout the UK.

ALS registered interpreters have provided further evidence of the low standards of interpreting required byALS in their responses to Q.14 of the survey:

Q.14 Have you undergone the ALS assessment process? (please share your experiences of this in the boxprovided and skip to question 16)

42.1% (32) of ALS registered interpreters had not even undergone the mandatory assessment process,required before being sent to courts for assignments:

Have you undergone the ALS assessment process?Answer Percent Count

No 42.1% 32Yes 57.9% 44

6.2 Comments left by those who did take part in the assessment process demonstrate the poor quality ofassessment and its irrelevance to real-life court scenarios:

Descriptions of ALS Assessment Process (negative)It was based on simultaneous one-way interpreting: this mode is not the usual working situationwhich means that the results are not applicable to the job that we are supposed to do.

Not reflecting real work conditions and tasks.

I took their professional tests to see what they were like. The one online was a shambles becausethe document I was supposed to translate was blank and was made available only in the last 15minutes of the test. Although I completed the test I still have not heard the results six to sevenmonths after.

The tests at their offices were worse. There were supposed to be two interpreting tests followingvideos played on the laptop. The first one would not play and I was told that they will send me alink so I could do it at home. I did the second one and I still haven’t had the results six to sevenmonths later.

This was two 15 minutes verbal test only. This was more like a day to day conversation rather thanhaving a strong legal component to it. Anyone with an average knowledge of English is able topass it.

It was done by computer only. So the assessment was not for language skill only, but on how fastyou can operate the computer program. I did not receive the results of my oral tests. Writtenassessment was not carried out.

Some of it was done on-line, ie the written test. This was sent to my home office computer so anyonecould pass it if they had someone with them who had good language skills. The assessment at AstonUniversity with ALS representatives watching bore no relation to what court interpreters actually doso was pointless and not a good judge of the language skills required in the actual job. I met peoplethere who just could not do the test, but they still passed and are working as interpreters.

The process in itself and the evaluation in particular where thorough, however it seems that even ifyou fail you are accepted on their books albeit at a lesser level and that is the whole problem.

Extremely poor way of testing. The reader was so incompetent she could not read the words in Urduor Punjabi. Totally illiterate reader. Computer system/recording broke down every minute. No recordswere kept for qualifications, no records checked, no ID checked or copies kept. No results have beendisclosed to me. A complete shambles. It is a very, very, dishonest way to mislead the Courts thatinterpreters are qualified. Total lie, when assessments are not checked how do they know ifinterpreters have qualified or they are competent? No fairness is practised .Human Rights are beingviolated .There is no complaints procedure in place.

The assessment wasn’t of the same level as DPSI exam. The spoken part was pre-recorded. I am notcertain whether it was prepared by professionals. I felt that the body language of one of the Englishspeakers was actually quite threatening. The written assessment was carried out after receiving emailwhile present at home; and it was just a case of personal integrity and honesty whether theinterpreters undertook the assessment without any outside help.

ShamblesThe written assessment was a straightforward witness statement. I do not think that the part of oralassessment where I was required to interpret from my mother tongue into English was translatedvery well. It felt like someone had just done literate translation of a text. I found the second part(interpreting from English into another language) slightly confusing. The topic was immigration andfrom the very beginning the immigration judge was talking about a Sikh. It took me a while to



understand who she meant and it was only when she referred to Sikhs in Afghanistan. I speak EasternEuropean language and expected the topic to be more general and related to my tongue. However,the second part about articles of the Convention was probably applicable to any language. Generallydo not think that this assignment assessed my skills better than DPSI exam.

A short test. Not sure what it has proved.

Interpreting consecutive and simultaneous through lap top and a microphone to record yourinterpreting, the worst type of assessment. The written assessment was done online at 6:00pm totranslate witness statement in a specified time.

Assessment partially completed as (a) miscommunication on ALS’ part and (b) wrong variant oflanguage on one of the oral tests.

Complete fiasco. They do it just to tick the T’s and I’s. No result of assessment was given to me.Complete nonsense.

The overall experience was positive in terms of the exercises completed although not so rigorous asthe DPSI exam.

The assessment was fast. I did well but ALS put me in Tier 2.

Rubbish. Very unfair. Both oral and written assessment not carried out properly. I have heard ofcheating in the written part. Result not given.

A jokeAt University of Central Lancashire organised by other university—using equipment needed forassessment—unaware of the outcome.

I was given a test page by ALS for English into Urdu Translation for MoJ work. Despite manyrequests I was not provided with any feedback about the test but was told that the same is underreview. Two months later on 09 Jan 2012 I noted at the assessment centre that my translated English-Urdu test was being used for the assessment of new Urdu Interpreters without giving me thefeedback. I reported this to the Examiner who said that she will communicate it to the ALS. Notinghappened after that.

The assessment wasn’t conducted in a professional way.

6.3 A large percentage of ALS respondents were sent on assignment without having been notified of theirresults (and therefore allocated an appropriate Tier as required by the Framework Agreement), clearlydemonstrating that the quality of interpreting was not being monitored or ensured:86.8% (33) stated that they had been offered work despite not having undertaken the required assessment:

Q. 15. If you have not undergone the ALS assessment process, have you been offered bookings for legalinterpreting by ALS?Answer Percent Count

Yes 86.8% 33No 13.2% 5

September 2012

APPENDIX A

The Contract with Applied Language Solutions (ALS) and the abysmal administration of the FrameworkAgreement has resulted in unprecedented press coverage. Press articles of note are listed below:

Print

Bristol Post, 27 August 2012 Judge criticises interpreter firm for trial delays

Huffington Post, 26 August 2012 Cost Cuts “Pressure Court Services”, According To Union

Express.co.uk, 26 August 2012 Justice in the dock as cuts unleash chaos

Channel 4 News, 22 August 2012 Who really runs the public sector?

Oldham Evening Chronicle, 11 August 2012 Translate in court? Me? Ow?

Financial Times, 10 August 2012 Claws out for pet hates

BBC News, 9 August 2012 Court interpreter checks “non-existent”

The Guardian, 5 August 2012 Interpreters in courts: lost in translation

Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 2 August 2012 Anger after interpreter problems delay hearing

Ipswich Star, 1 August 2012 Suffolk: Parliamentary inquiry into court interpreter shambles welcomed

Private Eye, 25 July 2012 Well done, Wheeldon



Southern Daily Echo, 22 July 2012 Hampshire police insists it won’t use Applied Language Solutions forintepreters

Birmingham Mail, 21 July 2012 MPs launch inquiry into translation shambles which let suspects walk free

The Times of India, 21 July 2012 Fake interpreter turns up at Indian woman’s murder trial

The Gulf Times, 21 July 2012 Interpreter farce halts trial, causes huge loss

The Daily Mail, 21 July 2012 Trial stopped as murder case translator was only there because his wife—thereal interpreter—was “too busy to show up”

The Daily Telegraph, 20 July 2012 Trial suspended as bogus interpreter stands in for wife

The Independent, 20 July 2012 Unqualified ALS interpreter revealed to have halted Rajvinder Kaur trial

The Guardian, 20 July 2012 MPs to investigate “underperforming” firm awarded £300m court monopoly

Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 20 July 2012 Judge demands anwers from court interpreter suppliers

The Lawyer, 20 July 2012 House of Commons launches probe into MoJ interpreting contract

Oldham Evening Chronicle, 20 July 2012 Interpreters welcome ALS probe

Littlehampton Gazette, 20 July 2012 Unqualified interpreter halts trial

Daily Echo, 20 July 2012 Interpreter fiasco at murder trial

Law Society Gazette, 19 July 2012 Courtroom interpreter “savings” evaporate

Ashford Herald, 19 July 2012 Man kept in cells for days as translator unavailable

Law Society Gazette, 18 July 2012 MPs to probe interpreter deal

www.parliament.uk, 18 July 2012 New Justice Select Committee Inquiry: Interpretation and Translationservices and the Applied Language Solutions contract

New Statesman, 12 July 2012 Cost savings on court interpreting services are anything but

Birmingham Mail, 11 July 2012 Government admits controversial ALS interpreter contract will not save £12m

UK Press Association, 9 July 2012 £12m interpreter savings “unlikely”

The Guardian, 30 June 2012 Justice? Not if defendants can’t engage fully with the trial

Law Society Gazette, 14 June 2012 CPS delays rollout of ALS interpreters

Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 11 June 2012 Company to carry out investigation after interpreter fails to turnup at court

Criminal Law & Justice Weekly, 2 June 2012 Court interpreter woes continue

Private Eye , June 2012 ALS, Alack

Law Society Gazette, 31 May 2012 “Self-serving” interpreter figures slammed

The Independent, 24 May 2012 Chaotic start for company that clinched multimillion pound deal to providetranslators for courts and inquests

The Telegraph, 24 May 2012 MOJ to monitor court interpreters after one in ten fail to turn up or gettranslation wrong

Law Society Gazette, 24 May 2012 Official statistics reveal ALS performance failure

Oldham Evening Chronicle, 24 May 2012 Solicitor-General rejects call for inquiry into ALS

Interpreters for Justice, 22 May 2012 Judiciary expresses concern about court interpreting

The Independent, 21 May 2012 Plan to cut spending on court interpreters leads to farce. Rethink promptedafter solicitors resort to Google Translate to understand their clients

Law Society Gazette, 17 May 2012 ALS interpreters contract facing renewed scrutiny

Spend Matters, 14 May 2012 Southampton run into procurement conflict of interest issues

The Public and Commercial Services Union, May 2012 Threats to justice: How the cuts are placing a hugestrain on vital judicial functions

The London Advocate, May 2012 It’s all Greek to Me: the Interpreter Debacle

Police Life, May 2012 Interpreters claim Framework Agreement is killing justice

Leicester Mercury, 9 May 2012 Jury discharged



Yorkshire Post, 5 May 2012 Prison vow over sham marriages as Yorkshire gang sentenced

Plymouth Herald, 3 May 2012 Interpreter request is refused by court because man has “been in UK longenough”

Law Society Gazette, 3 May 2012 Letters: Voicing concern at the Applied Language Solutions/Capita farce

EULITA, 30 April 2012 The UK dilemma over interpreting services for the justice sector continues

Croydon Guardian, 29 April 2012 Court backlog in interpreter shortage

Law Society Gazette, 26 April 2012 Court interpreter situation “improving”

Fair Trials International Declining UK court interpreting standards are difficult to comprehend

Croydon Guardian, 25 April 2012 Court backlog in interpreter shortage

Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 24 April 2012 Huddersfield man in court accused of sex offenders’ registerbreach

Law Society Gazette, 19 April 2012 How long before we end up with a serious miscarriage of justice?

Manchester Evening News, 19 April 2012 Court official left in tears after outburst at Rochdale sex gang trial

Law Society Gazette, 19 April 2012 Interpreter “bite” mistake causes trial collapse

Private Eye, 17 April 2012 Applied Language Solutions billed by judge for failing to supply a court interpreter

The Lawyer, 17 April 2012 Interpreting error leads to £25,000 retrial costs

BBC News, 13 April 2012 Trial collapses at Snaresbrook court after interpreter error

Law Society Gazette, 13 April 2012 Grieve: interpreter failure “not contempt”

Halifax Courier, 12 April 2012 Is it quicker if I learned Czech? Lawyer’s quip as interpreter fails to show

Ipswich Star, 11 April 2012 Ipswich: court interpreter service is a lottery in any language

Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 11 April 2012 Judge blasts interpreters firm for court no-shows

15min.lt, 10 April 2012 British judges, Lithuanian defendants, and Google Translate

Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 7 April 2012 Interpreter service “disrupting court work”

Politics.co.uk, 4 April 2012 Comment: Outsourcing interpreters has turned the courts into a freak show

Politics.co.uk, 2 April 2012 Court interpreter cuts “leading to miscarriages of justice”

Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 29 March 2012 Courts need to be clearly understood

BBC News, 29 March 2012 Concern over translation in court by Peterborough magistrates

Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 29 March 2012 Bradford Judge demands firm explain after it failed to provideinterpreter in case

BBC News, 28 March 2012 Interpreter travels 560 miles for Ipswich court case

The Daily Mirror, 28 March 2012 Lost in translation: Court interpreter travels 564 miles for EIGHT minutes’work

Metro, 28 March 2012 Court translator travels 564 miles for just eight minutes

The Telegraph, 27 March 2012 Court staff forced to rely on Google translate

East Anglian Daily Times, 27 March 2012 Ipswich: it’s a farce! fed-up defence solicitors blast court interpretersystem after translator has to travel from Newcastle to Ipswich for hearing

Luton & Dunstable Express, 25 March 2012 New Courts service lost in translation Also see The Telegraph,18 January 2011: Police translator bombarded inspector with suggestive emails

The Guardian, 25 March 2012 In praise of... judicial interpreters

Channel 4 News, 23 March 2012 Court chaos as interpreter service goes private

BBC News, 21 March 2012 Ministry of Justice translation firm accused of data theft

The Guardian, 19 March 202 Private Court interpretation company “should face contempt proceedings” ReadEmily Thornberry MP’s letter to Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP here

The Independent, 17 March 2012 Privatisation of court interpretation services is causing problems, admitsJustice minister Crispin Blunt

Law Society Gazette, 16 March 2012 “Grossly overpaid” interpreters to blame for courts fiasco, says minister



Oldham Evening Chronicle, 16 March 2012 Demo as minister says ALS is best for the job

BBC News, 15 March 2012 Court translators protest against new contract system

The Telegraph, 15 March 2012 Privatisation of court interpreting “had problems”, admits Justice minister

Yorkshire Post, 15 March 2012 Judge considers making privatised interpreters pay for court failings

Manchester Evening News, 15 March 2012 War of words as interpreters blast court translation firm AppliedLanguage Solutions

Law Society Gazette, 15 March 2012 Unite joins interpreting campaign

The Guardian, 15 March 2012 Violent clients, traumatised victims, late payment—the life of a court interpreter

The Times online, 15 March 2012 Court interpreters protest over pay cuts

Norwich Evening News, 14 March 2012 Judge hits out at interpreter delays

Unite the Union, 14 March 2012 Campaign launched to reverse the privatisation of court interpreting, asservice descends “into chaos”

Manchester Evening News, 12 March 2012 Boss of court translation firm Applied Language Solutions hitsback after judges blast service

News.co.uk, 11 March 2012 Rabbit enrols as court translator

The Lawyer, 09 March 2012 Government’s court interpreting agency hit with wasted costs orders

The Birmingham Mail, 09 March 2012 Jajo the Rabbit “hired” as translator at Birmingham courts

BBC News, 08 March 2012 Court and police interpreters in Birmingham Protest

The Law Society Gazette, 08 March 2012 ALS offers cash to beat interpreting boycott

Private Eye, 09–22 March 2012 Lost in Translation

Yorkshire Post, 07 March 2012 Missing interpreter costs day in court case

Worcester News, 06 March 2012 Judge: Absence of interpreters becoming problem

Linguistlounge.ORG, 06 March 2012 ALS fact check: almost 70 percent of courts hit by interpreter chaos

Lackuna.com, 05 March 2012 As UK Interpreters Strike, Google “Scabs”

Politics.co.uk, 05 March 2012 Outsourcing forces untrained translators on courts, campaigners say

Family Law Week, 04 March 2012 90% of interpreters boycott new “flawed” system, claims campaign group

The Sunday Times, 04 March 2012 Dragon reject “sparks court chaos”

The Sunday Express, 04 March 2012 Interpreter system “waste of money”

The Daily Mail, 03 March 2012 Foreign suspects are being released from police custody due to lack ofinterpreters

The Independent, 03 March 2012 Court translation service in crisis after cost-cutting deal

The Daily Express, 03 March 2012 Hopes of snaring foreign suspects lost in translation

The Guardian, 03 March 2012 Suspects freed as a result of court interpreters’ boycott

Channel 4 News, 02 March 2012 Court translation service in crisis after cost-cutting deal

The Daily Mail, 02 March 2012 Foreign suspects are being released from police custody due to lack ofinterpreters

The Folkestone Herald, 02 March 2012 Uninsured driver is lost until court translation

The Law Society Gazette, 02 March 2012 Interpreting the interpreters’ strike

The Telegraph, 02 March 2012 Police let foreign crime suspects go due to lack of interpreters

The Law Society Gazette, 02 March 2012 Court clerk turns to Google to fill interpreting gap

The Lawyer, 02 March 2012 Tory minister admits new court interpreter system is “unacceptable”

The Birmingham Mail, 02 March 2012 Foreign crime suspects walking free on bail in Birmingham due tointerpreter crisis

The Guardian, 02 March 2012 Interpreters stay away from courts in protest at privatised contractThe interpreter’s story: Mirela Watson: “a lot of the new interpreters have no understanding of legalterminology, which is vital in our profession”



The Law Society Gazette, 01 March 2012 MoJ must address the chaos

Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 01 March 2012 Court interpreter service criticised

The Law Society Gazette, 01 March 2012 MoJ warned two years ago over interpreters

The Law Society Gazette, 29 February 2012 Lost in Translation

The Londra Gazete (London Turkish Gazette), February—March 2012 Interpreting chaos in courtsTurkish interpreter fails to appear for arson hearing Woman pleads guilty to starting flat fire

Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 24 February 2012 Court interpreters hit out at changes

The Law Society Gazette, 24 February 2012 Interpreter problems “unacceptable” says ministry

Private Eye, 24 February 2012 Words of Warning

Yorkshire Post, 23 February 2012 Judge lost for words as trial halted over lack of interpreter

The Law Society Gazette, 23 February 2012 Firm in interpreter storm offers better deal

This is Somerset, 23 February 2012 Case delayed for interpreter

The Lawyer, 23 February 2012 MoJ ditches new court interpreting system in face of major backlash

The Law Society Gazette, 23 February 2012 The unavoidable impression is of a department which is beingrun on the hoof

Mancunian Matters, 22 February 2012 Decision by courts to only use translators from one agency causeswidespread disruption to judicial system

Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 21 February 2012 Court frustration over missing interpreters

Legal Expenses, February 2012 MoJ admits “teething problems” with interpreters

The Lawyer, 20 February 2012 Lost in Translation: Court interpreters row raises spectre of miscarriagesof justice

Northampton Chronicle and Echo, 18 February 2012 Courts left in “chaos” by interpreter mix-up

The Guardian, 16 February 2012 Courts given green light to hire own interpreters as ALS struggles to cope

BBC News, 13 February 2012 Court chaos follows interpreter change

Private Eye, 10 February 2012 Lost in Transition

The Law Society Gazette, 9 February 2012 MoJ interpreting hub a “false economy”

Private Eye, 14 October 2011 The £60m question

Oldham Evening Chronicle, 12 October 2011 Lost in Translation: MP in Commons attack on Delphinterpreter service

ITI Bulletin, September-October 2011 Slash and Burn (a practising interpreter’s views)A Sea change (ALS’ PR offensive)

The Law Society Gazette, 8 September 2011 Unite campaign backs public service interpreting

Birmingham Post, 8 September 2011 West Midlands Police to cut £750k from budget for translators

Lincolnshire Echo, 24 August 2011 “Major pay cut” for court interpreters in Lincolnshire

News & Star, 16 August 2011 Cumbrian Court Interpreters Protest at Shake-Up

The Yorkshire Post, 13 August 2011 Tribunals Translators walk out in row over contracts

Private Eye, 12 August 2011 ALS Well?

Unite The Union, August 2011 Speak up, Speak out

Private Eye, 22 July 2011 Lost for words

Law Society Gazette, 14 July 2011 MoJ in line of fire over interpreters contract

Private Eye, 1 April 2011 Lost for words

Preston Citizen, 14 March 2011 Lancashire police interpreter contract is scrapped

Law Society Gazette, 10 March 2011 Defence solicitors warn MOJ over interpreter outsourcing

Manchester Evening News, 7 March 2011 Police rip up contract with interpreter agency after claims it washampering investigations

Former GMP interpreter: “one wrong word could mean justice isn’t done”



Private Eye, 4 February 2011 Speaking Cock

Law Society Gazette, 3 February 2011 Row erupts over police interpreters

Private Eye, 21 January 2011 Speakers Cornered

TV/Radio

BBC Radio Lincolnshire, 9 August 2012BBC on ALS: Full radio report with follow-up interview

BBC News, 9 August 2012Court interpreter checks “non-existent”

BBC Look East, 7 August 2012BBC Look East reports on ALS’ failure to supply court interpreters(Available on BBC iPlayer to users in the UK only, Time slot: 11:45–13:35)

BBC Radio 4, 1 May and 7 May 2012Word of Mouth: Interpreters

Michael Rosen investigates the world of interpreting. We meet interpreters in business, sport and evenpsychotherapy, discover how there’s more to the job than just language skills, and hear a report on the workof interpreters in the new Russia.

BBC Radio Wales, 19 April 2012Continuing problems with court interpreting contractor ALS Ltd Item is from 06:48 to 06:51

PressTV, 10 April 2012“A simple question”: Privatization of the UK justice system

Channel 4 News, 23 March 2012Court chaos as interpreter service goes private

BBC London News, 21 March 2012Translation firm accused of misleading law courts

BBC Radio 4, Today, 15 March 2012Crispin Blunt: “Interpreters were on six-figure salaries and were abusing the system”

BBC Points West, 09 March 2012Police forces in the West are considering signing up to a translation service which has borne the brunt of heavycriticism from the Ministry of Justice; Item from 09:03–11:48 [no link at present]

BBC News West Midlands, 08 March 2012Protesters outside the Birmingham courts

BBC Asian Network, 08 March 2012Asian Network Reports Item starts at 04:24

BBC Coventry and Warwickshire, 07 March 2012New system for booking court interpreters costing one region an extra £30,000 per week.

BBC WM, 05 March 2012Law Society Member: “There is only one way out of this and that is to cancel the contract.”Part 1; Part 2.

Channel 4 News, 02 March 2012Court translation service in crisis after cost-cutting deal

BBC Radio 5Live, 24 February 2012

BBC Lincolnshire 15 February 2012Part 1 ; Part 2

BBC Radio 5Live, 12 February 20125Live Investigates: Court Interpreting



Written evidence from Cintra Ltd

Summary

— This Memorandum submits evidence under area 2 of the Committee’s Inquiry: “the nature andappropriateness of the procurement process”.

— Cintra Ltd is an interpreting and translation company, incorporated in 1997 as a not-for-profitcompany limited by guarantee with no shareholders.

— Cintra Ltd has supplied interpreters and translators to the police forces of Norfolk (since 2000),Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire (since 2005) andSuffolk (since 2009).

— Cintra Ltd also supplies interpreters for first appearance in court for these police forces, and forProbation Trusts in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk.

— Cintra Ltd was invited to submit a pre-qualification questionnaire for the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)tender in October 2010, and was subsequently one of 12 companies invited to participate in the“competitive dialogue” procedure in November 2010.

— Cintra Ltd was not invited to tender or to participate further.

— Cintra’s view is that the tender process was well designed in its early stages to engenderunderstanding of interpreting and translation services and potential contract solutions among thepartners in the procurement (we are not able to comment on later stages as we did not participate).

— Cintra’s view is also, however, that advice given to the MoJ and partners at the dialogue stage—especially on quality of interpreter supply, interpreter pay rates and the benefits of regionalprovision—was not taken, to the detriment of the final contract currently in place.

1. About Cintra Ltd

1.1 Cintra Ltd offers a complete interpreting and translation service, mainly to the public sector. Cintra’smission statement is “widening access to public services”, and we have extensive experience in meeting therequirements of public sector organisations for the provision under contract of interpreting and translationservices. We manage our contracts to the exacting standards required, in terms of response times, quality ofinterpreting provision and cost-effectiveness. We are happy to provide additional information to the Committeeon our contractual performance if required.

1.2 Every year, Cintra manages nearly 40,000 interpreting and translation assignments, in over 100languages, on a 24/7/365 basis. We work with professionally qualified, UK-based interpreters and translatorswho are qualified to DPSI/DipTrans standard, and possess the professional, cultural and interpersonal skills tomeet the standards of our clients. All our interpreters and translators are vetted to at least enhanced CRBstandard and abide by our Code of Conduct of confidentiality and impartiality.

1.3 Cintra has in-house capacity and experience to train interpreters to Diploma in Public Service Interpretinglevel, to grow interpreter supply. We also provide coaching for staff working with interpreters and interpretertraining for bi-lingual staff. As a social enterprise, we are able to plough back a higher percentage of ourincome into training and development of interpreters, thus ensuring a higher quality of interpreters.

1.4 Cintra’s contracted clients (won via competitive tender) include the seven police forces in the EastMidlands, Norfolk and Suffolk; Probation Trusts in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk; hospitals,Primary Care Trusts and Mental Health Trusts in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire; county and districtcouncils and the voluntary sector in Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire. Most of these have been clients forat least seven years.

2. Ministry of Justice Tender Process

2.1 This tender was advertised in summer 2010 as an “invitation to dialogue”, unusual in that the clientsweren’t sure of what the possibilities and issues were and wanted to explore these with some prospectivesuppliers.

2.2 We completed the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) in October 2010 and were subsequently advisedthat Cintra was one of 12 companies that had passed this, out of the 67 that completed the PQQ. Cintra wasthen invited to participate in the “competitive dialogue” process.

2.3 A supplier open day was held in London on 3 November, which we attended. This was a useful meetingfor us as a prospective tenderer, clarifying various points about the potential contract participants, the rationalebehind the contract, the probable contract requirements and the procurement timetable.

3. Competitive Dialogue Process and Cintra’s Advice

3.1 Cintra was invited to Wakefield on 15 November 2010 to discuss the tender, and I attended the meetingin my capacity as Chief Executive.



3.2 There were approximately 12 client partners at the meeting, and our discussion, which lasted over 2hours, was recorded. The key points for discussion had been notified in advance: a) a review of the clients’requirements; b) an overview of the bidder’s technical solutions; c) an overview of the bidder’s commercialsolutions.

We had a wide-ranging discussion around these issues. Three particular issues we discussed are highlightedin the following paragraphs.

(a) The importance of local recruitment and training of interpreters

3.3 It was clear from the beginning of the procurement exercise that high quality interpreters would be akey requirement of the contract. Before the contract with Applied Language Solutions replaced it, guidance forcourts, police forces and other criminal justice organisations was enshrined in the National Agreement on theUse of Interpreters in the Criminal Justice System (from the Home Office/Office for Criminal Justice Reform).The key recommended source of qualified interpreters was the National Register of Public Service Interpreters(NRPSI). The key qualification for NRPSI interpreters is the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI).

3.4 The vast majority of qualified interpreters on NRPSI are based in London and the south east, and thereare limited numbers of qualified interpreters outside the south east. Since this was to be a national contract,we advised the MoJ to seek suppliers with the ability to recruit language speakers in the regions with a shortageof qualified interpreters and train and develop them to qualify as DPSI-level interpreters.

3.5 Speed of supply, as well as quality, is a vital requirement for police forces—for example, Cintra’s targetfor its East Midlands Police contract is to supply 85% of interpreters within 2 hours. Having investedsignificantly in developing the supply of trained and qualified interpreters in the East Midlands, we are regularlyexceeding this target. We advised MoJ that it is therefore very important in a national contract to develop alocal supply, for each region, of qualified interpreters.

3.6 As an example, when Cintra first won the East Midlands Police contract in 2005, there were very fewqualified interpreters living locally. As a registered examination centre for the DPSI, with in-house trainers,Cintra was able to recruit, assess and train language-speakers new to interpreting, and over 200 have qualifiedwith DPSI in the East Midlands through Cintra since the contract began, ensuring a local, high quality supplyof interpreters for the contract.

3.7 Training provision at this level is very expensive, and most agencies don’t do it. Cintra’s mission, as acompany without shareholders, is not to drive profit, but to widen access to public services, which means weplough our profits back into developing our linguists and services. We advised the MoJ that without thistraining provision, it would be impossible to develop a high-quality supply of interpreters in regions wherethere are few.

(b) Interpreter pay and conditions

3.8 It had been made clear early in the tender process that the National Agreement on the Use of Interpretersin the Criminal Justice System, which set out recommendations not only on how interpreters should be sourced,but how much they should be paid, would be abolished and replaced by the new contract.

3.9 We advised that the MoJ should consider interpreter pay rates (and the ancillary package of minimumpayment, travel time and mileage payments) carefully in the context of wanting to ensure a high quality supplyof interpreters while also wanting major savings.

3.10 We advised that if there was a race to the bottom on price, and interpreter rates were to be cut severely,high quality interpreters would start to leave the profession. This was a national contract that was likely tochange the market, and therefore there was a high risk of losing—and not being able to replace—high quality,experienced interpreters if the rates were set too low. We advised that interpreting is a very skilled, professionaland sometimes emotionally difficult job and there needs to be sufficient incentive to retain good interpreters.

3.11 We suggested that suppliers should be required to state the rates they were intending to pay interpretersin their tender response. Our experience in the East Midlands demonstrated that it was possible to recruit andretain a highly qualified interpreter work force, conforming to the sourcing requirements of the NationalAgreement, while still making significant savings for our clients.

(c) The “one national supplier” option and a region-based alternative

3.12 MoJ had said from early in the process that their preference was to contract one national supplier (acompany or a consortium) with a single point of contact. We said, during the dialogue process, that weunderstood why they wanted this, because it would keep things simple, but it may not provide the best outcome.

3.13 We advised that one company or consortium to cover the whole country might seem attractive, but thecompanies aren’t used to working as consortia, which may cause problems, and smaller but better companiescould be ruled out.

3.14 This is a complex service that requires focused development and an active relationship between supplierand client to tailor the service, which would be difficult on a national basis. In our view there was no current



supplier who would be able to provide an excellent service across the whole country, bearing in mind thestringent quality requirements of the Criminal Justice System, from the beginning of the contract.

3.15 There is an equal need for the contractor to develop and maintain good relationships with the suppliers—the interpreters and translators—which we manage through regular meetings, continuing professionaldevelopment courses etc. This is also harder to manage on a national basis.

3.16 The contract would also require a contractor able to develop new sources of supply at the appropriatelevel of quality, which could be best focused regionally. This would also mean that there wasn’t total relianceon one supplier.

3.17 For all these reasons, we suggested MoJ consider breaking the contract down into smaller, better definedsegments—eg by geographical area, by agreed client list, or by types of service—face to face interpreting,telephone interpreting and translation.

4. Outcome

4.1 At the end of the MoJ’s competitive dialogue process we received a courteous letter with feedback onour discussion, the main point of which was that the MoJ had “determined that the optimal solution will be anational one-stop shop”. As we had made it clear during the discussion that we were unlikely to be able toprovide a national solution with interpreters available across the country at short notice from day one, CintraLtd was excluded from further consideration.

August 2012

Written evidence from Dennings LLP

A Health Warning

Some of the dates I shall be identifying are approximate but should serve and more to identify the issuesand to demonstrate the relevant patterns.

A Further Health Warning

Remembering the precise names of some of the Governmental bodies and quasi-Governmental bodiesconcerned is sometimes going to be a challenge after all the years but I shall do my best.

Iqbal Begum {R. v. Iqbal Begum; Court of Appeal: 22 April 1985 {1991} 93 Cr. App. R. 96}

In this case heard at first instance at the Crown Court in Birmingham before Leonard, J, on 5 October 1981the Court of Appeal on 22 April 1985 found that the Appellant’s trial had been a nullity in that the interpreterengaged by the defence had been far from competent in the Appellant’s languages and accordingly that herpurported plea of “Guilty” to her husband’s murder had not been a proper one. Her trial was declared a nullity;the conviction was quashed and with the concurrence of the Crown she pleaded “Guilty” to manslaughter andwas sentenced in a manner which resulted in her immediate release.

It is easy to be wise after the event but her defence Solicitor had engaged as interpreter a Client of his whowas fluent in English with a native tongue of Gujarati. He also possessed some knowledge of Urdu.

In contrast, the Appellant’s native tongue was a form of Punjabi together with some knowledge of Urdu.Customarily, she mixed up in a jumbled sort of way those two languages and moreover “in a dialect which isthe product of the rural area from which she emanates” [per Watkins, L J] (I surmise that that language, ratherthan dialect, was Mirpuri)]. The interpreter’s other native tongue was Hindu but, crucially, he knew no Punjabi.

Following her release this lady went into a rapid decline and distressingly she soon expired. It seems plainthat during her marriage she had been the victim of her husband’s domestic violence.

The community and to its credit the criminal justice system resolved to learn from this tragic anddisturbing case.

The Nuffield Foundation, the Institute of Linguists and the National Register of PublicService Interpreters

It will have been observed that for reasons to this day I but imperfectly understand it took a very long time,in fact from April 1985 until 1991, for the Iqbal Begum case to be reported. That notwithstanding, muchthought and effort went into a radical improvement in the arrangements for interpreting and translatingprovision in the wake of that case’s outcome and in advance of the report itself.

Circa 1990 as I recall, there was a major conference on the subject under the auspices of and funded by theNuffield Foundation. It can be asserted with reasonable certainty that the right people contributed and forexample the Law Society was represented by Roger Ede, the then Policy Adviser to the Society’s CriminalLaw Committee.



I believe that the Institute of Linguists had already been engaged for some time in this general field althoughequally I believe it would be fair to add more in relation to translating provision and conference interpreting,with its allied though far from fully comparable skills to those required of community or as otherwise describedpublic service interpreting.

Two key developments to emerge as a result of much anguished and co-operative thought and interactionwere the National Register of Public Service Interpreters and a national agreement concerning the optimummethod for the Courts, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Probation Service to secure theservices of public service interpreters and translators with some genuine prospect of their having the appropriateskills, experience and ideally accreditation to undertake the work. In essence, the exhortation was for allcriminal justice service agencies to engage interpreters and translators by reference wherever possible to theRegister featuring interpreters who had subscribed their particulars. In theory, interim accreditation was to beallowed to those with no or limited relevant qualifications or experience though working towards the attainmentof full status. In theory also, full status was to be assigned to those who had passed all heads of the examinationto lead to a Diploma in Public Service Interpreting.

No system is perfect and there developed for example an argument that too many registrants were thereafterpassported to full status merely by reason of their possession of impressive degrees in, to be frank, scarcelyrelevant disciplines. At least, however, all criminal justice service personnel had been enabled to identify somegenuine re-assurance that an Iqbal Begum scenario would be much less likely to arise on their watch.

It may be worth mentioning at this point that the National Register is still with us and thriving. Also, it hasbeen run variously by the Institute of Linguists and then by a body entitled the National Register of PublicService Interpreters and as I believe now essentially by interpreters, a decidedly valuable development.

It is also important as it seems to me to observe that the Register, previously accessible only on payment ofa subscription, is now available free of charge to our profession.

Clearly, no individual defence practitioner can be required to avail her/himself of this access but it is difficultin the extreme to construct a case for placing one’s trust in whichever agency deploying personnel of unprovenand often no real skill or proficiency. This must especially be the case as I would argue now that access comeswithout charge and indeed the Practice Note issued some time ago on this subject by the Society’s CriminalLaw Committee is helpful in its guidance on these issues.

Other Litigious Areas

Similar concerns do very much exist in relation to immigration appeal tribunals, employment tribunals andfamily and children cases. There are other categories of work where vigilance is necessary. No other tribunalsor Courts as far as I am aware have espoused the use of the National Register or the letter or the spirit of thenational agreement but it has been the view of many working in these fields that they should have emulatedthe criminal justice system in that regard.

The positive features described above are now in danger of becoming history with the framework agreementhaving been implemented from the first of February of this year.

Non-contentious Legal Work

I maintain that there are many circumstances where there are dangers in undertaking for example will writingservices or property buying for Clients without the services of an independent and accredited interpreter and/or translator rather than relying on the services of a family member or friend or acquaintance. Such a person,after all, is profoundly unlikely to have the necessary attributes to interpret or translate appropriately and mayfor that matter have some kind of vested interest in the transaction in question. That may be a debate foranother day but I thought it right to touch upon it.

East Birmingham (later City) College Birmingham; the Diploma in Public Service InterpretingCourse; and the West Midland Legal Interpreter Steering Committee

Quite coincidentally, circa 1992 my wife Yvonne’s career in education underwent a radical transformation.She took up a lectureship at the then East Birmingham College, later to be transformed into City College.From very early on, she created and with a colleague ran a course to lead to the attainment of the Diploma inPublic Service Interpreting (DPSI). Management at the College grew nervous about the continuance of thecourse given its personnel rich and long rather than short term success quotient for the students. The courseevolved and constituted one of a very few serious initiatives to inculcate the relevant knowledge and skillscalled for in an interpreter.

One of the exhilarating ideas to emerge from the Nuffield Foundation’s intervention was that of all criminaljustice service agencies having a seat regionally at a table where they might all identify, promote and maintainbest practice in the selection and deployment of interpreters and translators and indeed in the standards of suchservices delivered.

Exhilarating indeed it was when with the help of long term friends and colleagues in various of the agencieswith others Yvonne and I for over fifteen years ran a Committee consisting of representatives of all of the



relevant agencies. We had a Magistrate member, senior Magistrates’ Court Clerks, senior police officers, asenior Crown Prosecutor, at least one senior Probation Officer, a representative and sometimes more than onefrom the Brasshouse Centre which professionally deployed interpreters and translators, Yvonne and hercolleague representing City College and myself representing the Birmingham Law Society. At least asimportantly, we had members who were skilled and experienced interpreters and translators: without them, itwould have been an exercise in well meaning missionary work but missionary work nonetheless. We rejoicedin the name of the West Midland Legal Interpreter Steering Committee(WMLISC).

We strove to-and did-maintain standards both in terms of the actual provision of interpreters and of thestandards of delivery on their parts. We also strove to-and did-raise an awareness in the system of the vitalimportance of the involvement of professional interpreters. An increasing respect was paid to them and to theirwork by the Courts and the various other agencies.

We also advised upon and monitored the contents and delivery of the DPSI course. More than that, on anentirely voluntary basis Crown Prosecution Service, Court, police, Probation Service and Social Servicespersonnel ,accredited interpreters and defence practitioners contributed modules to the course in their own timeand free of charge. Those modules included our explaining our contrasting roles in the system and our engagingin roleplay exercises where the students had no hiding place: they had to contribute if they were to keep up.They on the whole acquitted themselves well and we estimate that as a result there are now some two hundredand fifty accredited interpreters working in police stations, the Courts and Solicitors’ offices when engaged.Again on the whole, they are proficient and dedicated to their profession.

From time to time, the course came under threat from the College’s management spine by reason of its beingso personnel and resource rich. Unhelpful in the extreme were the funding criteria imposed by the quasi-Government body in charge. I forget the name of that body but suffice it to say that so exacting was the coursethat the percentage of completely successful candidates upon which they insisted was infeasible for a courseof such complexity and intensity.

Whenever closure threatened, with no little display of alarm and with some asperity the senior agencypersonnel on WMLISC would summon the City College managers to attend and spell out to them in terms justhow essential they saw the continuance of the course to be. There were at that time after all very few evenremotely comparable courses largely by reason of the funding criteria described above; there are significantlyfewer now. The managers came; they listened; and they relented.

When failures arose whether by the police, the Court the Crown Prosecution Service or the defence, weintervened and to good, courteous effect. Standards were maintained; cordial relationships were developed. Thethen West Midlands Criminal Justice Liaison Committee (WMCJLC) and West Midlands Trials Issues Group(WMTIG) lent their support and the then West Midlands Chief Crown Prosecutor was a particular tower ofstrength. Magistrates on Saturday morning at the Victoria Law Courts in Birmingham gave freely of their timeto conduct mock trials where, again with no hiding place, the students were required to assume the rolesof Defendants, witnesses and interpreters. Crown Prosecutors and defence advocates also assumed their dayjob roles.

The Committee devised an aide-memoire for the guidance of Court and other personnel and this receivedthe enthusiastic blessing of WMCJLC and WMTIG.

A very interesting thing was happening: without their necessarily appreciating it fully at the time, all ofthose contributing became far more aware of the role of the interpreter and of their interactions with her/him.We were all learning together. We passed the time of day in the street and in Court corridors or wherever. Theinterpreters emerging with accreditation were to be seen frequenting the Courts with their shoulders back andtheir heads held high.

In recognition of the partnership which had been developed, the West Midlands police gave tens of thousandsof pounds to City College for the setting up of a language laboratory which had become a logistical necessityfor the course to continue, so anxious were the police to have it survive.

In recognition further of the tough regime they had survived WMLISC every year organised a diplomaceremony for the successful students and their families. Sometimes Birmingham Law Society hosted the event,once the Brasshouse Centre and thereafter the venue settled upon was West Midlands Police Headquarters withan Assistant Chief Constable as the host. The celebrants often came with their families, sometimes to the extentof three generations. Managers from City College, the Chief Crown Prosecutor, the Bench Chair, a Governorof City College, Yvonne and the Recorder of Birmingham and a representative from the Institute of Linguistswould speak and the audience would include Circuit and District Judges, many Magistrates, many CrownProsecutors and defence practitioners and many Court Clerks. The diplomas would be distributed by a localM.P. or on one occasion by my good friend Lord (Robin) Corbett of Castle Vale, now sadly deceased.

These occasions engendered and further cemented friendships and facilitated a better understanding of ourrespective roles. I have said it before: these were exhilarating times.



What Went Wrong

I think it was in the mid 1990s that some East Midlands Police Forces were induced to give contracts forinterpreting and translating services to CINTRA. Please forgive me: I cannot recall what the acronym standsfor. It ended as I recall very badly and messily because of all the complaints from Judges and others of defaultsover service delivery but eventually I believe that that all more or less fizzled out. However, it ought in myview to have served as a warning to the Ministry of Justice in particular that outsourcing in this area ofprovision was a perilous business where any and all professions to be able to deliver more cheaply than beforeshould have been viewed with much scepticism.

As to the DPSI course, City College suffered a calamitous inspection where its management was exposedas being seriously flawed. As a result, its Principal left rather precipitately and a temporary Director wasparachuted in to rescue or alternatively to condemn the whole shooting match. The failure had nothing to dowith individual courses, still less the DPSI course, but the funding body mentioned above no longer wanted toor, I dare say, could cut any slack over the funding criteria. The “quick win” courses were retained but anobvious casualty given its sophisticated nature was the DPSI course which ceased to be in 2008. Voluntaryredundancy beckoned and now Yvonne, of course at her own expense, is in the throes of a Phd at AstonUniversity in Birmingham on a related topic.

WMLISC continued for some time but part of its raison d’etre had of course disappeared with the closureof the course. Fifteen years was its duration where so very often it seemed to us that we were defying the lawsof gravity in keeping it going; WMLISC lasted rather longer.

The National Agreement(s) and the Framework Agreement

There was a second refined national agreement, actually. It had always, rightly, been viewed as a livingorganism and WMLISC contributed to the revised version. The constant factor was the clear direction whereverpossible to engage by reference to the NRPSI.

I understand that a hub of some type is about to be put into operation nationally by the police. Please let itbe understood that for all I know that is in principle a good idea if it should be adequately funded so as toprovide interpreters at the drop of a hat in a myriad different languages in whichever location throughout thejurisdiction. The beauty of the former system was that it worked with the police and the Courts and indeed theProbation Service and ourselves of the defence knowing where to locate accredited interpreters by referenceto the National Register and by a direct call to the interpreters themselves. That once said, by all means a hub.

But the mischief arises from the moving away from reference to the National Register and from theengagement of accredited interpreters. That way lies a disastrous sliding back to the pre-Iqbal Begum days.

Accredited interpreters will not have the least truck with Applied Language Solutions. First of all, theremuneration on offer is risible and secondly they value their individual reputations as professionals.

The Proposition of Overcharging by Accredited Interpreters

I am at a loss to understand this claim. The rates seem very modest to me and I shall shortly following uponthis paper detail the respective rates before implementation of the new framework agreement as contrasted withafter. I find it hard to identify any professional service provider who would consider the relative pittanceoffered by Applied Language Solutions anywhere near an adequate reward. Furthermore, before the first ofFebruary the scale of fees was a rigid one and had undergone no enhancement in as long as I can recall.

The Mischief

— Non-attendance or late arrival by the interpreters deployed;

— trials adjourned at vast public expense as a consequence;

— Defendants languishing in custody as a consequence whether of adjourned trials or other Courtprocesses or having their disposals otherwise delayed;

— Complainants, Defendants and witnesses whether for the prosecution or the defence having to bracethemselves all over again for the ordeal of giving evidence; and

— in cases for sentence, Defendants and their families and victims and their families having thecontinuing stress and uncertainty of justice being delayed.

It needs absolutely to be emphasised that this is far from being merely a numbers game, that is to say,someone sharing a language or thereabouts with the suspect at the police station or with the Complainant, theDefendant and/or witnesses for both parties in Court.

The received wisdom is that it takes five years of intensive training and experience to lead to a sufficientproficiency in community interpreting and translating for there to be a full reliance on those services. This maywell be the ideal and life, as we all know, is far from that. That once acknowledged, it is the very reverse of areason to opt out of striving for better rather than mediocre or worse.



Many examples of dismal inadequacy have abounded from the first day of the new framework agreement.Common in the extreme are inadequate English, leading to such gaffes as “bitten” rather than “beaten” with afour day trial having to be aborted as a direct result and a Hungarian interpreter who did not know what aporch was so that but for the defence advocate having extensive knowledge of Hungarian himself the wholecase would have proceeded on an entirely false premise. Do I hear Iqbal Begum?

Two more examples for the present may suffice:

— There was the interpreter who told the Defendant that being charged with an offence meant thats/he was being fined by the Court; and

— then there was the interpreter who in respect of an allegation of an act tending to pervertthe course of justice conveyed the message to the Defendant that s/he was being accused ofbeing perverted.

I could go on, and on.

The Family Silver

The above was a telling phrase of Harold and by that time Viscount Macmillan in a different context but weas citizens paid good money through our taxes for suchlike courses as that at City College so that proficientinterpreters might emerge at the other end to the enhancement of our criminal justice and as we all hoped indue course of the justice system as a whole.

These accredited interpreters are with heavy hearts leaving their chosen profession in droves. They havehomes to maintain and families to feed and with their other attributes they are likely to find alternativeprofessional niches in which to deploy their very real strengths.

All of this is such a waste and an avoidable one at that. Consultation by Government with the variouslegitimate representative interpreter bodies had been the obvious line to take, but no.

What to do about all this

I do believe it to be important for me to say that as a constituency Council member I owe a duty to myconstituents: under the new arrangements they are routinely being prevented from communicating in accordancewith their professional obligations with those requiring interpreting services. This applies equally to prosecutorsand defence practitioners and, as earlier remarked, to those representing in Courts and other tribunals leavingaside the criminal justice sphere. I have also earlier touched upon the distinct potential for the exercise ofcaution in non-contentious fields of practice.

Additionally, in many of these fields deferred decision making is costing our practitioner colleagues moneyespecially in legal aid spheres of practice and that is to leave aside for the present the additional stress andfrustration for an already beleaguered profession.

There is also the human rights aspect to be considered with clear Article 6(4) ECHR applications.

I am for the making of representations to Government .Individual challenges in individual cases are forpractitioners to pursue on an individual basis and I propose joining forces with Solicitors’ groupings such asthe Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association.

To Conclude

My anxieties over these regressive developments have already been identified as above. I certainly maintainthat some really serious consideration needs to be given as to precisely where we should go form here.

August 2012

COMPARISON BETWEEN PAYMENTS RECEIVED WHEN PAID DIRECTLY OR PAID BY ALS/CAPITA

Example 1

To attend Birmingham Court, 10 miles away from home, for 1 hr hearing plus waiting time and conferenceswith defendant/barrister/solicitor:

Waiting plus TravelInterpreting conferences Time Expenses Net

formerly paid £85 included up to 3 £15 reimbursed £100by Court hourspaid by ALS/ £20 not paid not paid car park= £11.20 £5.60Capita petrol: £3.20

or orpublic transport= £3.80 £16.20



Example 2

To attend WM Police Station for 2 hours, 10 miles from home:

Interpreting Travel Time Mileage Net

formerly paid by £63 £25.20 £7.14 £92.14WM Police spent in petrol: £3.20paid by ALS/ £32 not paid not paid £28.80Capita spent in petrol: £3.20

Notes

Professional interpreters must not commit themselves for more than one job per day due to the uncertainty ofthe duration of the assignment.

Much has been said about NRPSI interpreters earning £30 per hour. This is true, but we do not work eighthours per day every day. In fact, the vast majority of us do not have jobs every day.

NRPSIs have not had increase in payment rates for over eight years; moreover, as freelancers, NRPSIinterpreters do not have paid holidays.

As professionals, NRPSI interpreters have to pay annual renewal for the Register, membership of severalorganisations such as the Chartered Institute of Linguists, Institute of Translators and Interpreters, Associationof Police and Court Interpreters, apart from Indemnity Insurance for Interpreters and Translators and coursesfor CPD—Continuous Professional Development.

Written evidence from The Reverend Michael J Slade

Last Friday (31 August 2012, I attended North Shields Country Court, Tyne and Wear, to support an asylumseeker (I’ll call him AA here) on his appeal for leave to stay in the UK. In attendance were three parishionersof mine (one of whom has been heavily involved and supportive of AAs application), AAs barrister fromManchester, and a former MP from his country who lives in London and who had travelled by train to supporthim that day.

Although this date had been in our diaries for several months it soon became clear that the interpreter thathas been requested of Applied Language Solutions Capita (ALS) was not in attendance. Court staff checkedwith ALS and were told that one would be coming.

The judge asked us all to come into court where she apologised for the inconvenience and considerable costwe (the attenders) had been put to by the failure of ALS to do what they had been contracted to do. It becameclear that this was not a one off event. The judge and court official then had a conversation about ALS’slikelihood of providing for an interpreter for the new date of 12 October and I left with considerable doubtswhether they would be able to achieve this.

There were costs involved from the public purse here: a Home Office barrister sat there twiddling his thumbsand the wasted court time. In addition there is the emotional cost: yet further stress, sleepless nights and worryas we all have to go through this again in a few weeks’ time, with the possibility that once again an interpreterwill not be found.

Since then I have become aware that this is far from an isolated case. Clearly this state of affairs is completelyunacceptable and seems to me to be the direct result of government policy of trying to fix something that ain’tbroke and appointing a company that does not reach even the most basic standard of service, whereas beforeit seems the system worked perfectly well.

September 2012

Written evidence from thebigword

Introduction

Following thebigword’s appearance before the HOC Justice Committee on Tuesday 7 February 2012,thebigword has been asked to submit supplementary evidence on the experience of tendering for the MoJ’sInterpreting Contract. This document provides the responses to the questions raised by the Justice CommitteeInquiry Manager.



Question 1: How has the MoJ handled its outsourcing competitions? From your experience, what can theylearn from other organisations?

Competitive Dialogue Bidding Process Management

The competitive dialogue bidding process was adopted in order that the MoJ could fine-tune its ownrequirements and meet the needs of its end users by developing innovative and highly cost-effective approaches.

Changes to the requirement and process led to a number of concerns/difficulties in working within thistender process:

— Clarity on requirement may necessarily flex during a competitive dialogue process. However, usuallythis is iterative rather than major, giving continuity to the bid. In this bid the purpose and qualificationcriteria for each of the nine stages was not fully defined at the outset, resulting in less clarity andtransparency than in other tenders. This gave the impression that comparisons made between bidderswere unnecessarily subjective.

The PQQ was issued, withdrawn and reissued during this process. The decision making criteria andscoring matrix for each stage were not clear from the outset, particularly in terms of the balancebetween quality and cost. Therefore it is likely that this lack of transparency resulted in assumptionsbeing made which were not supportive of the MoJ’s aims.

— thebigword had no sight of a scoring matrix in place on issue of the OJEU notice and therefore notransparency on requirement, purpose and output.

— A visit to the Courts and Probation services to see interpreters in action to enable informationgathering and to inform solutions took place half way through the tendering process when somecompanies had already been rejected.

— Particularly on larger tenders, timescales between evaluation stages are clear from the outset;however, timescales between the evaluation stages here were extremely tight, in some cases allowingas little as three to four days to prepare a submission. Site visits by the Authority are common andcan be an informative part of this process for the Authority but in this case there was no evidenceof any site visits being undertaken by MoJ or any checks being made on the robustness of thebidders’ finances.

— thebigword was not aware that the final round would comprise just one bidder and this led toadditional work fine-tuning the innovation within the bid which was no longer part of the process.

— It is usual for comprehensive feedback against the qualification criteria to be available and sharedwith bidders. In this case post-bid feedback was less transparent and comprehensive than otherAuthorities’ and did not include a breakdown as to how the 80% “qualification” level had beencomprised or criteria to review bidders at any of the nine stages.

What can be learned from other organisations?

— Rigorous examination of the bidders’ financial position: This is particularly important for a contractof this value, £200 million.

— Contingency Planning and Secondary Suppliers: A secondary supplier is common in order to coverany failures in the primary service and could be seen as an essential element for a non-discretionarylegal service such as that provided by the MoJ.

— Evaluation Criteria: A focus on quality as well as value for money, and a clear indication of theimportance placed on each, enables bidders to propose a service that will effectively meet bothcriteria.

— Process Clarity: Clarity and transparency about the stages of the process and what is required fromthe bidders at each stage enables innovative solutions to be proposed and presents a clear routetowards achieving the contract aims.

— VSO’s, SMEs and thrid Sector: A contractual requirement to comply with an SustainableProcurement Strategy could lead to more contractual focus on working with the voluntary sector,SMEs and the third sector.

— Timescales: Adequate time devoted to the different stages within the process would ensure that theAuthority has absolute clarity on the impacts of the final tenders.

— Feedback: Effective feedback to failed bidders enables the Authority to ratify its decision processand scoring systems and enables bidders to improve future tenders.

Question 2: What achievements from other public sector delivery contracts can your company bring to theJustice system?

Sustainable Procurement

thebigword’s extensive experience of partnering with local suppliers, including SMEs and the voluntary andthird sector ensures that contract requirements can be fulfilled at local level.



For the MoJ, this would put money back into the local economy, create sustainable procurement within thelocation, and meet the tenets of the Localism Bill. For the service user, this would provide interpreters whounderstand legal terminology, are familiar with regional accents and the local history and geography.

Cost and Quality

thebigword is a world leader in technology to support language services, specifically the development ofTelephone Interpreting, used by the DWP among others. Also in booking technology which enables interpretersto be block booked and not booked back-to-back by different departments, thus reducing costs. This alreadyoperates effectively within other Government framework agreements

Question 3: Do you envisage competition driving improved standards as is intended by the MoJ?

Competition will only drive improve standards if the tendering process is revisited with this as the aim.Specifically in terms of the scoring balance between quality and cost, and the ability to include innovativesolutions such as the transfer of some work to Telephone Interpreting, which has proved highly successfulacross a number of Government agencies.

Question 4: Having been unsuccessful in a competition what further opportunities are there to work inpartnership with the MoJ, or a successful prime provider?

The secondary provider contingency planning could work extremely well with the MoJ in this instance.thebigword remains committed and immediately available to support the MoJ working as a secondary provider,partnering with like-minded businesses.

In addition thebigword holds three Government-approved frameworks through which our services can beaccesses: face to face interpreting (RM738/1), telephone interpreting (CAG/912/0181) and translation services(11/GEN/25).

Question 5: Why do you think you were unsuccessful in your respective applications?

Answered at the committee.

Question 6: Do you think the processes by which you competed for contracts were fair and transparent?

Please see response to Question 1 above.

Question 7: How should the MoJ balance the use of local and voluntary organisations with a requirement toprovide value for money?

Innovation has always been a cornerstone of thebigword’s approach and in this tender, thebigword presentedsome highly innovative and groundbreaking ideas within the competitive dialogue process.

Specifically, these focussed on thebigword’s proposal to partner with 52 language services providersincluding SMEs, voluntary and third sector organisations to provide service at local level.

For the MoJ, This would put money back into the local economy, create sustainable procurement within thelocation, and meet the tenets of the Localism Bill. For the service user, this would provide interpreters whounderstand legal terminology, are familiar with regional accents and the local history and geography.

the partnering option was proposed by thebigword in order to ensure that the contract requirements werefulfilled at local level and thebigword still believe this is both a commercial and sustainable solution for theMoJ to balance the use of local organisations and VSOs.

Question 8: Is it feasible and desirable from your perspective for smaller firms to act as subcontractor tolarger organisations?

Please see response to Question 7 above.

Question 9: What contractual commitments should the MoJ put in place to encourage contractors to work inpartnership with smaller firms?

Please see response to Question 1 section 2 and Question 7 above.

Summary

thebigword hopes this further information proves useful for the HOC Justice Committee and remainscommitted and available to support this committee and the MoJ in any way.

September 2012



Written evidence from Dr Zuzana Windle

I write to submit evidence to the Justice Select Committee in support of its impending investigation intocertain aspects of the contract between the MOJ and ALS Ltd, which was implemented in the Justice Sectorfrom the 30th January 2012. The main focus of my evidence is my contention that the MOJ was aware thatALS was unable to deliver a similar contract in the North West as early as September 2010, and that theychose to ignore documentary evidence and relevant factors before and during the tendering process, which ledto ALS being awarded the contract.

I am a professional interpreter and translator and a former director of the Professional Interpreters’ Alliance,PIA. In 2010, the PIA under my directorship, applied for a Judicial Review of the contract for the provisionof interpreters between four North West police forces and ALS. During the execution of the Judicial Review,I became privy to evidence that ALS was unable to fulfil its contractual obligations, which led to the taxpayerincurring unacceptable costs and foreign suspects being subjected to breaches of Articles 5 and 6 of the ECHR.

The North West contract commenced on the 2nd August 2010 and involved Greater Manchester Police,Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria constabularies. It became obvious from the inception of the contract thatALS was unable to provide qualified interpreters within a reasonable time. As a matter of fact, ALS was oftenunable to provide any interpreters at all, which resulted in suspects having to be kept in custody unnecessarily,or being released on bail. Complaints from the North West Magistrates’ Courts also showed that ALS wasfailing to provide interpreters for defendants, who had been remanded in custody and brought to courtafterwards. The situation in the North West displayed the same problems as are currently afflicting the JusticeSector as a result of the MOJ’s contract with ALS.

In my capacity as a director of the PIA, I contacted officials from the MOJ and those responsible forprocurement and made them aware of all the problems and failings of ALS’s contract with the North Westpolice forces. I submitted to the MOJ a large dossier of concrete incidents, which showed that ALS was unableto deliver in the NW. I attach some of these communications for your attention.

In 2010 I also submitted to the MOJ a petition of over 600 qualified interpreters registered on the NationalRegister of Public Service Interpreters stating that they refused to work for ALS. I also made the MOJ awarethat ALS was operating a racially discriminatory contract in the NW, where they afforded much less favourabletreatment to foreign language interpreters than British Sign Language Interpreters. This included a differencein rates of over 70% as well as more favourable conditions for BSLIs in the way of travel expenses, cancellationfees, car parking etc. Regrettably the MOJ chose to ignore this evidence and implemented the samediscriminatory conditions in the Justice Sector Framework Agreement with ALS. As a result, five professionalinterpreters issued legal proceedings against the MOJ alleging a breach of Sections 13 and 19 of the EqualityAct 2010. I am one of them. The proceedings are ongoing and are currently sub-judice.

Prior to ALS being awarded the MOJ contract, I also submitted to them evidence that ALS was financiallyunstable and burdened by debts and other encumbrances. ALS’s credit rating in February 2011 was only sixout of a 100 and its turnover far too low to accommodate a contract worth £60 million per annum. Indeed thesize of the company made it unsuitable for a contract of this nature.

I would like to summarise my submission by stating that the MOJ was well aware that ALS would not beable to deliver the contract and that it was unsuitable for a contract of this nature before and during the tenderingprocess. They had at their disposal abundant evidence, which should have alerted them to the inevitability ofthe problems and wastage of taxpayer money, which we are currently witnessing across the justice sector inEngland and Wales. There is no doubt that some of the other agencies, which took part in the tendering process,were far more suitable and much better equipped to deliver a contract of this magnitude. Agencies such asLanguage Line and Wessex Translations, which have an excellent record of supplying interpreters in the justicesector, would have been much more suitable as the suppliers of professional interpreters for the MOJ contract.It is in the interest of the taxpayer to establish exactly what criteria were used during the tendering processand why the MOJ rejected bona fide contractors with a proven track record in favour of an agency, whichfailed to deliver a contract of a similar nature on a much smaller scale.

Just like in the NW, ALS constructed its model on making savings purely by cutting foreign interpreters’rates by over 70%. This unsustainable cut in rates is clearly set out in the FWA, as it was in the NW FWA. Itshould have been obvious to the MOJ that qualified interpreters would not accept such an unreasonable cut inrates and that ALS would not be able to provide a sufficient number of interpreters for the justice sector. I alsoinvite the committee to examine the value of the contract and the sum ALS is charging for the provision offoreign language interpreters. Information obtained from the North West police forces during the JudicialReview revealed that ALS only charged £34 per hour flat fee for foreign language interpreters. I do not believeit is possible to deliver the contract successfully at such a low value and the MOJ had an obligation toinvestigate the feasibility of the contract, the value of which was clearly too low to sustain.

Whilst ALS clearly appears to be the cheapest participant in the tender on paper, the excessively low valueof the contract leads to significant hidden costs incurred through unacceptable delays in court proceedings,cases having to be abandoned, unnecessary adjournments and delays in investigations into criminal offences.

September 2012



Written evidence from Gonul Ekmekci

I am sure you’ve already received much information on this subject, therefore I am only writing a few linesto avoid repetition.

I’ve been working as a proffessional public service interpreter for many years up until 12 January. I stoppedattending magistrate and crown courts as a result of ALS being granted contract.

The previous system had it’s weak points. A court list office staff would phone individual intepreters forevery single case where an interpreter was required. They would then pay individual cheques to each interpreterwhose services was used.

The solution to this inefficiency was very simple: a call centre. One already existed, having set up by APCI(Assoc. of Police and Court Interpreters. Also several interpeter organisatins offered the MInistry of Justice toform one in collaboration with them but the suggestion was refused.

I will not work for ALS as they have been completely disregarding our qualification and professionalregulations (DPSI-Law and registration aspect).

September 2012

Written evidence from Dev Rajasansi

There have been reported incidents of no Criminal Record Bureau checks being made before some ALSinterpreters have turned up for work. Please note that Capita, ALS’s parent company, is into business processoutsourcing and runs public sector databases. Is this not a conflict of interest? Capita acquired ALS soon beforethe national roll-out of the MoJ contract. Is this a co-incidence?

Similarly, some ALS have no suitable qualifications and experience, nor been assessed before they are sentfor assignments. ALS is involved with Middlesex University in these assessments. Again, is this not conflictof interest?

There have been reported incidents of Tier 3 linguists turning up for Tier 1 cases, endangering the deliveryof Justice.

A two-hour “assessment” is no substitute for the Diploma of Public Sector Interpreting (DPSI), which is theculmination of rigorous professional exams, spanning two or three years’ of intensive study. This was theoriginal requirement before entry on to the National Register of Public Sector Interpreting (NRPSI).

A few years ago, ALS acquired the list Qualified Interpreters from the NRPSI, lock stock and barrel, whichit showed to the MoJ in order to win this contract. This is in contravention of data protection legislation, asrelatively few NRPSIs positively applied to join ALS, despite threats that “your career will be over if youdon’t join”.

ALS employs overseas staff for call centre and personal record keeping functions, such as in India. Whatare the repercussions for data protection and security, if sensitive records reach terrorists or hostile regimes?

How can you use one company (ie Monopoly) for all MOJ assignments nationwide? Especially when it is asmall-time company, which only recently was struggling to service police stations in the North-West?Especially when it is the Assessor, the Vetter, the Examiner and the Employer?

Is this not against the Government’s ideals of Competition, and on a broader level, the Big Society? How canthe Government absolve itself of its responsibilities?

Capita acquired ALS (in December?) for £7.5 million before the Contract was rolled out nationwide. Wasthe Government aware of this intention when the MOJ was negotiating with ALS?

In summary, this situation is arising because the majority of Qualified NRPSI Interpreters are flatly refusingto work for the Framework Agreement, and the whole saga seems to have gone well beyond “teethingproblems”.

Applied Language is not providing Solutions! (Just Confusions!)

Please refer to linguistlounge.org, which is a handy summary of hundreds of incidents which have takenplace across the country since the contract was rolled out on 1 February 2012.

This website highlights numerous incidents of late attendance and non-attendance, which have led toadjournments and collapsed trials. This in turn has resulted in the following:

— Failure in delivering justice. Dangerous suspects have been released into the open. Other defendantshave been remanded in custody due to no fault of their own. Victims and witnesses have been sentaway and asked to return at a later date.



— Escalation in costs. Precious time of Judges and Barristers is being wasted waiting for the long-expected ALS linguist. Solicitors are applying for Wasted Court Orders and busy court staff arebeing inconvenienced. Additional prison costs are being borne due to defendants having to be sentback to prison from courts and police stations. Witnesses, defendants, police officers and professionalexpert witnesses have to take more time off work so as to return to court.

As you may be aware from press coverage, the following has taken place:

— ALS often cannot find linguists local to an assignment, and are then compelled to find them fromfurther afield:

Reported incidents include Belfast to East Midlands (£389.20 air fare!); Newcastle to Suffolk(560 miles); Manchester to Aylesbury(round trip 340 miles); Stirling to Bradford (440 miles);Winchester to Liverpool (470 miles); Birmingham to Peterborough (only 170 miles); Stirlingto Cornwall (1,100 miles!)

— Solicitors are applying for wasted Cost Orders (£885—London 2/3/12).

— ALS Representatives are being called to explain repeated non-attendance by Crown Court Judges,but they are not attending! (eg Luton 22/3/12); Judge demands written explanation from ALS (Bolton14/3/12).

— Defendant reportedly threatened to kill himself, and start hunger strike (Derbyshire 29/2/12).

— Court has to release Suspect as no ALS interpreter when “custody clock” expired (York 2/3/12).

— Mentally unstable detainees released on bail, one rearrested (Lincoln PS 11/2/12).

— 10 interpreters missing from York House, Hatton Cross, per RIG Barristers on 9/3/12.

— Repeated non-attendance and defendant reportedly turns out to be ex-ALS linguist (Preston 28/2/12).

— Cases are being often adjourned. Defendant couldn’t plea until fifth time (eg Chelmsford 19/3/12).

— Attorney General—Judges or Magistrates could potentially take action against interpreters.

— Abu Qatada hearing delayed by lack of interpreter (Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAChearing, London 17/4/12).

— Four-day trial collapses due to interpreting error, retrial costing £25,000 (Snaresbrook 13/4/12).

— Staff and ALS translator failings in cell death ordeal (Coroners hearing Preston 16/4/12).

September 2012

Written evidence from Pawel Nalewaj

This is personal submission and explains my experience from the 20 March 2012 when at SkegnessMagistrates Court I met ALS, Tier 3 Linguist.

This person was absolutely unprepared. He was not dressed properly and his service quality was very poor.

He claimed that at the time he had been working for ALS for three months and was not assessed and/orvetted. He said he had never had any qualifications and was not planning to get one as he was offered jobswithout them. He has driven all the way from Northampton as this was the furthest booking he could get toearn some extra for travelling.

Case Details— Case date: 20.03.2012.

— Court building: Skegness Magistrates Court.

— Case name and number: Tomasz Mejlum/1100106929.

— URN: URN 32C90345811.

— Judges name: (district judge).

— Lawyer’s name and their firm’s details: David Clapham, Eager & Co. Solicitors 33 Algitha Road,Skegness, Lines. PE25 2AJ. Telephone: 01754 766688, Fax: 01754 610049.

— CPS prosecutor: David Beal.

— ALS interpreter’s name: Leslaw Fiutowski (booked for one language, Polish).

I have visited Skegness Magistrates Court yesterday (20.03.2012) where I have worked for the CPS andtheir three witnesses. The defendant, Polish national, had an ALS linguist present to interpret for him. It wasa male, wearing black trainers, mudded jeans, long sleeved sweat shirt and a cardigan. He was not wearingany id badge and was absolutely unprepared as he didn’t even have a notepad.

I have spoken to this ALS linguist and he has informed me that he has been working for ALS for the pastthree months and they were sending him to courts from the very beginning. Mr. Leslaw Fiutowski has registeredhimself with ALS and was allocated to tier 3 because he has no qualifications. He told me that because ALSis short of interpreters they offer him tier 2 jobs and he is ever so happy to accept them. He told me he has no



qualifications what so ever, he has not been vetted, and/or assessed in anyway (oral or written). He told me heonly has an old CRB certificate but ALS has not seen it.

Mr. Fiutowski was interpreting for the defendant when he was giving his own evidence from the witness’box, which took about 20 minutes. From the very beginning Mr. Fiutowski wasn’t behaving very professionaland was omitting up to 30% of the message he meant to interpret. Things that he was interpreting were onlyabout 60% accurate. He was discussing matters with the defendant (maybe trying to establish the facts) andnot informing those present what was going on. He was adding a lot of things from himself and clearly makingsome things up. When he was trying to interpret he was not making any notes and obviously he was omittinga lot of things eg he didn’t interpret one thought of the defendant when the later said, he was talking with hisfriend Krzysztof, present at that time. Mr. Fiutowski was gesticulating with his whole body to describedefendant’s movements and he has not interpreted some of the prosecutor’s questions to the defendant.

Some other examples of his performance:

— Defendant (D): she sat at my table with her feet on the table, where I kept my lemonade.ALS linguist (ALS): she sat at my table and she was holding my lemonade.

— D: I was talking to my acquaintance.ALS: I was talking to my accountant.

— D: she was staggering.ALS: she was moving funny.

— D: it happened at night.ALS: it happened in the evening.

— D: a moment later.ALS: after a while.

— D: a week ago I had been to Poland, where I have stayed for two weeks.ALS: two weeks ago I had been in Poland.

— D: she has hit to my face.ALS: she hit in my face.

— D: few minutes later.ALS: two minutes later.

— D: two minutes later.ALS: 20–30 seconds later.

Luckily the defendant could understand some English and therefore was replying to the questions that hewas asked and not the ones that were interpreted to him.

After the case was over I have spoken to the legal adviser and to the District Judge and rose above concerns.Both, the District Judge and the legal adviser, were worried and under the impression that the ALS linguistwas not up to the job. Despite they could not speak or understand Polish language they were convinced thatthe quality of ALS linguist’s services was not satisfactory. The legal adviser has made a note in the case fileabout all above mentioned concerns and was told by the District Judge to report this to HMCS Manager.

September 2012

Written evidence from Ligia Xavier

The ALS contract has thrown the provision of legal interpreting to the courts in the UK into total chaos andas an experienced Portuguese Public Service interpreter, I deeply regret that our profession has been treatedwith such disregard and disrespect by the MoJ.

I have been working for the courts, police and immigration for the last 12 years and, since the ALS contractstarted last February, I have several times gone to my local Crown Courts (Isleworth and Kingston uponThames) to observe the performance of ALS “linguists”.

I have reported all the instances of non attendance, poor performance and absence of a strict code of conductto one of the sites created for interpreters to report their observations. I am sure that the Justice Committeewill have access to all the material that has been compiled regarding ALS appalling record.

I do hope, together with most of my National Register colleagues who, since day one, have refused since towork for ALS, that your committee will have sufficient evidence to recommend the end of the ALS contractand enable only professional and National Register interpreters to work in the UK courts.

September 2012



Written evidence from Amjad Parvez

I am a professional Interpreter working in CJS from last 15 years. Since MOJ outsourced Interpreting toALS I have stopped working in court, because of the rates ALS is paying to the Interpreters. ALS ownInterpreters are unqualified, inexperienced and not vetted. that,s why a lot of cases have been collapsed incourts. It’s a very embarrassing situation for the MOJ.

September 2012

Written evidence from Brooke Townsley, Senior Lecturer Interpreting and Translation, Middlesex

University

1. In mid-December 2010, I was contacted by Mr David Joseph from Applied Language Solutions to ask ifI could come to the ALS offices in Oldham to review the part of their proposed bid to the Ministry ofJustice regarding interpreter assessment and training. As a Middlesex University consultant, I attended AppliedLanguage Solutions on 20 January 2011 for the afternoon. My brief was to inspect their plans for the screeningof interpreters and their interpreting skills and to give my candid evaluation of its validity or otherwise.

2. On occasion through the following months, I was contacted by Mr David Joseph from ALS with furtherquestions and clarifications on our discussions regarding the proposed interpreter assessment instrument on 20January. At some point in April, to the best of my recollection, David Joseph contacted me again to tell methat ALS was in a good position to win the MoJ contract and, if they did, would Middlesex University beprepared to design and implement the interpreter assessment/screening programme, as detailed in their bid.This request I passed on to my (then) Head of Department, Howard Chilvers, Associate Dean for BusinessDevelopment in the Arts and Education Faculty, who indicated that the University would be interested inthe work.

3. A meeting between Howard Chilvers, David Joseph and Richard Loyer from ALS, myself and the ActingHead of Programmes (Translation and Interpreting) Edgar Schroder from Middlesex University took place on9th May 2011 at the Trent Park campus of the University. At this meeting ALS outlined what they needed anda verbal agreement for Middlesex University to provide the specialist input required to design and run the testswas agreed.

4. 9 May—6 July: Everything remained on hold waiting for the MoJ decision on the bidding process. Myinstructions from Howard Chilvers were not to expend any staff time on the project until it was clear whetherALS had been successful or not. Once the University was informed by ALS that they had been selected as thesuccessful bidder, work on designing an interpreter assessment instrument started.

5. The assessment test that the translation and interpreting team at Middlesex University developed for ALSis a Quality Assessment (QA) test. It performed the function of checking that an interpreter was able to performat the level of interpreting competence indicated by their qualifications and required by the demands of theCJS. It was not a stand-alone qualification nor was it intended nor designed to qualify interpreters. It wasspecifically designed as an in-service quality check for interpreters who already held an accredited interpretingqualification. It was not designed or intended to replace or invalidate the full professional qualifications thatinterpreters already held. It was designed to be supplementary to those and to confirm that the levels ofcompetency indicated by those qualifications were still valid.

6. The content of the oral test was designed to diagnose an interpreter’s level of competence in:

— the simultaneous interpretation of legal discourse from English into their Other Language;

— the consecutive interpretation of the Other Language into English; and

— There were also appended to the test a short set of Situational Response type questions to beanswered in written English. This addition was insisted upon by ALS.

7. The interpreting performances captured by the QA test were assessed by assessors commissioned byMiddlesex University using an assessment matrix provided to them by the University.

8. Middlesex University also set up and ran assessment centres on behalf of ALS at the Hendon Campus ofMiddlesex University, Aston University in Birmingham and University of Central Lancashire in Preston onselected weekends in October and November 2011. The on-line interpreter quality check test was administeredat these centres. The interpreting performances captured at these test centres were then checked by assessorsengaged by Middlesex University, using an assessment form provided to them, and the results entered on to adatabase and made available to ALS.

Working with ALS proved to be difficult. Middlesex University decided to terminate the agreement withALS dated 10 October 2011; on the 3 January 2012 Middlesex University and ALS formally agreed to suspendtheir relationship under that agreement and the final signature from ALS on the agreement to suspect therelationship was received on 17 February 2012. ALS did receive a EULA from Middlesex University to use



the software designed for the quality check process themselves and carry out their own assessments in house.This EULA was signed and returned by ALS on 1 March 2012.

September 2012

Supplementary evidence from NRPSI Ltd

JSC—Interpreting and Translation Services and the ALS Contract

One of the main failures of the current ALS/Capita contract is that it is all inclusive and there is a lack ofindependence in the monitoring of quality, competence, qualifications and dealing with complaints. Theopportunity exists therefore for the contractor to cloud, fudge, miss or ignore some or all of these issues andas a consequence make it more difficult for the MoJ to be aware of and monitor the effectiveness of thedelivery of the contracted service.

Evidence that we and others have provided points to many examples of such failures, deliberate or not, andwe believe that whilst the present model continues efficiency and public safety will continue to be impairedbecause of the inherent lack of actionable accountability within the current contract approach.

We have stated that the solution needs to be based around a return to the basic elements of the NationalAgreement and have offered our support to the MoJ in working towards such a revision.

This means that whilst there are of course the issues of adequate remuneration and of rebuilding the massiveloss of trust between the MoJ and its stakeholders to be dealt with, there also needs to be a separation of someof the functions currently undertaken by the contractor within the FWA. In our view this requires anindependent registrar to vet and approve the qualifications of interpreters employed under the FWA, and todeal effectively and impartially with complaints.

Whilst of course we would point to the fact that such a regulator already exists with the NRPSI which isnow completely independent, has revised and improved its Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures andhas the trust and confidence of the interpreting profession, the main objective should be to separate theseregulatory functions from the contractor.

October 2012

Written evidence from Mateusz Kiecz following the evidence session on 30 October 2012

In the light of today’s statement by Mr Gavin Wheeldon that they had no information whatsoever regardingthe demand for interpreting services and that the Ministry of Justice made every effort to receive as muchinformation about it as they could possibly do, please find attached responses to my FOI requests made toMagistrates’ Courts in Barnsley, Doncaster, Grimsby, Hull, Rotherham, Scunthorpe, Sheffield and Wakefield,as well as Crown Courts in Bradford, Doncaster, Hull and Sheffield.

Despite my requests were limited to 5 most frequently and 5 least frequently used languages, it proves theinformation was widely available to general public and could have been gathered by the Ministry as part oftheir due diligence.

I obtained this information by sending a request in January 2012 and received most of replies by February2012.

October 2012

Supplementary written evidence from Zusana Windle

I write further to my previous correspondence with the committee dated the 28 August 2012. I have watchedthe Parliamentary Accounts Committee debate and wish to inform the Justice Select Committee that AnnBeasley, Head of Procurement at the MOJ, misled the PAC and provided it with inaccurate information, whichshe knew was inaccurate.

The information concerns the suitability of Applied Language Solutions as the sole supplier of interpretersin the justice sector.

In 2010, when I was a director of the Professional Interpreters’ Alliance, I supplied the procurementdepartment with specific information relating to ALS, which clearly indicated that the company was not suitablefor a contract of this nature. The documents, which I sent to the Procurement department and the MOJ showthat ALS’s credit rating was a measly 6 out of 100 in February 2011, which was the time the contract wasawarded to them, and that the company was liable for too many mortgages and encumbrances to make itviable. I also submitted to them information about the CEO of ALS, Gavin Wheeldon, which suggests that hehas a propensity to obtain contracts by deception. The Procurement department and the MOJ were in possessionof an interview with Mr Wheeldon, published by The Sunday Times, entitled “How I made it”, in which Mr



Wheeldon openly admits to obtaining a contract by pretending to be a large company, when in fact it was justhe with his mobile in his bedroom. Moreover, I submitted to the MOJ an extract from Companies Houserecords, which shows that Mr Wheeldon was a CEO of a company called “Future Builders”, which wasformed in 2008 and struck off and dissolved by Companies House in May 2010. The company never suppliedany accounts.

Ms Beasley clearly did not discharge her duty of due diligence during the procurement process when shechose to ignore and disregard extremely relevant information, which she should have taken into account.During her questioning by the PAC, Ms Beasley gave the impression that she was not aware of any factors,which made ALS unsuitable for the contract. This is not true. Ms Beasley was in possession of an expert reportadvising against awarding ALS contracts worth more than £1 million, as well as the documents relating to MrWheeldon’s activities and ALS’s financial position. I enclose these documents for your urgent attention. Itwould appear that Mr Wheeldon used the same modus operandi when applying for the MOJ contract that heused in respect of the contract with Hewlett Packard, to which he refers in the Sunday Times interview. Hesimply took on a contract, which he knew he could not deliver, and Ms Beasley and her department chose toignore accessible information that was supplied to them at the time.

October 2012

Written evidence from the National Audit Office

I understand that you were provided with supplementary evidence by Madeleine Lee on behalf ofProfessional Interpreters for Justice on or around 6 November 2012. We have had sight of this evidence asMadeleine Lee also sent the evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts.

I am concerned that although the evidence provided refers to the National Audit Office, we do not agreewith all the evidence attributed to us. We understand that Madeleine Lee, in her note, states that:

“For reasons that were set out in a thorough response to my Freedom of Information request (notincluded), the National Audit Office concedes that its report relied on financial information that wasnot the relevant information, and consequently made certain errors in its modelling of the lossessuffered by professional interpreters.”

We modelled the effect of the comparative wages under the previous and current systems to see what theeffect of the Framework Agreement was likely to be on the remuneration of interpreters. We were exploringhow likely it had been that ALS could attract interpreters to work for it (as their procurement bid relied onthis) and pay was one important aspect of that. Our modelling was based on the data that the Ministry ofJustice held at the time and had used in the procurement. There were no other data available and they werenot as comprehensive as we would have wanted, which we stated in the response to Madeleine Lee’s Freedomof Information request. We do not accept, however, that our report “relied” on this data. The modelling was aminor part of the Memorandum feeding into just two of the 56 paragraphs in the main body of theMemorandum.

We do not accept that we made errors in the modelling and did not say that in response to the freedom ofinformation request made by Professional Interpreters for Justice and others. The data we used provided therange of possible work scenarios for interpreters. Our model generates scenarios based on random numbersand so the results vary each time the model is run based on, for example, the number of interpreter bookingstaken, the length of appointments and travelling time and distance used in each scenario. The important point,that we make clear in paragraph 1,13, is that “the reduction in income varies by the amount and type of jobstaken but there is a marked reduction under all scenarios.” We believe that the infinite variability in the differentpay levels experienced under different scenarios sufficiently explains the difference between the results obtainedfrom our model and that produced by Professional Interpreters for Justice, Our technical experts advised on allaspects of the modelling exercise and on its use in the report.

I hope that if you plan to publish Madeleine Lee’s submission that you are also able to publish our views ofthis subject to provide balance.

November 2012

Supplementary evidence from the Chartered Institute of Linguists following the evidence session on

30 October 2012

The NRPSI was run under the auspices of the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL) until April 2011, whenit underwent a planned change to become an independent voluntary regulated body.

The Chartered Institute of Linguists wishes to take the opportunity to clarify some errors of fact andmisunderstandings which arose during the Justice Select Committee hearings.

1. Anne Beasley stated that some criminal justice services were using out-of-date paper copies of the NationalRegister of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI).



A subscription system was initially used for NRPSI, to cover costs, and regularly up-dated. If CJS agencieshad allowed their subscription to lapse, they should not have been using out-dated copies of the Register which,by definition, would be unsatisfactory.(Note. Since the organisational change, in April 2011, NRPSI has been freely accessible on-line.)

2. There was some confusion in the hearing regarding a code of conduct and disciplinary proceedings.

The NRPSI has always had a strict code of conduct binding on the registered interpreters, accompanied byDisciplinary Procedures to deal with instances where breaches of the code are alleged. Mr Sangster made clearthat this is the situation with the NRPSI now.

The CIOL would like to remove any doubt that this was the case previously, and has always been the case.The code of conduct and the disciplinary procedures were (and are) published on the NRPSI web-site.

Reference was made in the hearings to the “simple” removal of an interpreter from the list, in the presentarrangements. It was not clear where the authority for that lies, with the MoJ or with Capita; the discussionwas quite confused.

It will be understood that a voluntary regulatory body cannot, according to legal advice taken, suspendRegistrants until the due process of the disciplinary procedures is completed. This can take some time,particularly where written evidence from members of the judiciary and others must be gathered.

Furthermore, currently, even if Capita suspended an interpreter from their list, that interpreter would still befree to take work from elsewhere, including within the justice system. This is one of the factors motivatingNRPSI to acquire statutory regulatory status.

3. There appears to be confusion between an independent national professional register (which was intendedby the European Directive in principle but future legislation is anticipated to clarify that explicitly) and a “list”kept by a commercial company. There seems also to be confusion concerning who “owns” the list built andoperated by Capita; in the Public Accounts Committee hearings Mr Handcock stated that the MoJ owns thelist. It would be helpful if this could be precisely specified. It is worth noting that the concept of a ministry“owning” a professional register goes counter to practice in the UK.

4. There was also apparent uncertainty as to whether the aim of the contract is merely to act as a bookingsystem or to provide a quality of service, which includes monitoring the quality of interpreting and managingregulatory aspects as well as the logistics. It is, we believe, fundamentally important to define these functions,and to maintain the appropriate clear distinction between them.

It was most unfortunate that a funding proposal, prepared by a multi-disciplinary team, and submitted in2002–03 by the CJS Interpreting Working Group (IWG) was rejected. It was stated that no government moneywould be spent on this. The submission asked for £64 million tapering funding over five years to establishregional not-for-profit units, working under strict national guidelines, to administer not only 24/7 contactsystems but also to act as focuses for growth in terms of, for example, training towards incremental levels ofnationally recognised examinations, CPD, data collection, mentoring, monitoring and liaison. While this iswater under the bridge, the ideas would be worth revisiting.

5. Reference was made to the lack of management information concerning the demand for interpreting inthe justice system by language and geographical area.

It is true that the MoJ has not maintained a national and consistent statistical record of demand over theyears. Progress on data collection in this area was made by the IWG, although the outcomes will be out ofdate by now. It has been written about in UK and in the EU projects and was included in the informationhanded on to the Ministry and the OGC.

It will be obvious, and was clearly perceived by the Committee, that a “finger in the wind” estimate, withno data behind it, and apparently no attempt to seek data (for example from NRPSI), is totally inadequate.

November 2012

Written evidence from Geoffrey Buckingham

Last Friday (12 October 2012) I attended the Central Criminal Court and Aylesbury Crown Court inAmersham, after which I compiled a brief report. This may assist the Committee as to the continued failuresof Capita TI in providing interpreters, and I attach a copy (annex).

There appears to be a widely held view that “things are getting better”. The evidence may contradict this,and the continued failure to use qualified, experienced, vetted Registered Public Service Interpreters can onlyperpetuate the problems faced by Justice and HMCTS. It is our view that the FWA should be terminated.

October 2012



Annex

The Crown Court at Aylesbury Daily List for Monday 10 September 2012

Court 2T20120259 TRAN Dung V43SS6108812NGUYEN Chinh V43SS6108812*Early guilty plea scheme*

The Crown Court at Aylesbury Daily List for Friday 5 October 2012

Court 3SITTING AT AMERSHAM09:30 amFor ApplicationT20120154 CUSUTURA Dumitru43AA0082312No parties save for ALS and interpreter to attend.

T20120259 TRAN Dung V43SS6108812NGUYEN Chinh V43SS6108812No parties save for ALS and interpreter to attend

Notes on two hearings

1. Central Criminal Court Friday 12 October 2012 at Old Bailey, Court 16, heard by HHJ Joseph QC,U20120828 re costs. Miss McKinnon of Counsel represented ALS/Capita.

The case relates to an application by defence Counsel for a third party wasted costs against ALS/Capitafollowing the failure of ALS/Capita to provide an interpreter. Counsel for ALS states in defence of her clientthat the fault for the delay is to be ascribed to the list office of the Court

The matter was adjourned after a brief discussion where her ladyship stated she wished to see the originalbooking form with dates and times clearly indicated. ALS/Capita had created a report as a one off to assist theCourt, but her ladyship was insistent and gave ALS/Capita one week to obtain the original record with anyaccompanying notes made at the time.

Case adjourned.

2. Crown Court at Aylesbury, Friday 12 October, sitting at Amersham, heard by HHJ F Sheridan, forApplication, T20120154 CUSUTURA Dumitru and T20120259 TRAN Dung V and NGUYEN Chinh . MrSebastian Sayer of Counsel represented ALS/Capita.

Hearing commenced at 15.01.57.

In the first case, the Judge commenced by indicating that the ruling was lengthy due to public interest inCJS interpreting, and it is an important decision for a number of people, relating to a hearing, namely a PCMHwhich had been unable to go ahead due to the failure of ALS to supply an interpreter. The sum in questionwas £194 plus VAT, a total of £232.80. At that hearing the Judge directed the advocate to apply for wastedcosts and the Interpreters’ Service, ALS, had been given notice that they should prepare a defence as to whythey should not pay wasted costs.

The judge proceeded to a narrative, starting with the booking of an interpreter on 14 August 2012. He statedthat there existed a procedure whereby ALS could decline in the event of a real problem where they wereunable to provide, so that in the event that ALS cannot provide an interpreter within sufficient time limits, theyhave to give the court reasonable notice. This procedure gives time for a hearing to be vacated or find aninterpreter from an alternative source. He noted that every delay is against the interests of justice andincreases costs.

At 10.49 on the Saturday morning before the hearing, when the Court office is closed and there is no timeto take the case out of the list, the interpreter cancelled.

On Sunday 9 September 2012 at 14.00 an automated email was sent to the Court saying that the jobs wereunassigned and that the company would continue trying to assign the job “unless you cancel”.

On Monday 10 September 2012 at 10am, both Prosecution and Defence attended but there was no interpreter.The case was called and wasted costs were incurred.

The judge proceeded to consider submissions made on behalf of the company. Amongst these were anexplanation that the company had made 123 attempts to fill the job, but Romanian was one of the 5 most



difficult languages to fill, where ALS only has 56 Romanian interpreters registered with them in Englandand Wales.

The Judge went on to consider these submissions. He stated he was not concerned by the contractual positionbetween ALS and the government and could not comment on it. Breaches are for others to deal with, he said.The fact that the company had engaged Counsel showed they took the matter seriously. He stated that “thefailure is down to ALS and they should not retain a contract which is too difficult for them.” He stated thatthe suggestion made by Counsel in submissions that “courts should check” was “impertinent” and simplyunacceptable. There is no obligation for the court to check if an interpreter has been assigned. Courts areclosed at the weekend and we all know this. The judge also stated that if the procedure provided by the contractgave the opportunity for the courts to find interpreters directly then the contract “is totally redundant”, and“there is little point in having ALS”. To say, as Counsel had, that this was frustrating “is an understatement”,giving the example of transport and escort costs of £2,000 in the case of two defendants in custody in orderfor them to be produced at Court for a hearing, as it was in this case.

The judge went on to define serious misconduct, and found that “serious misconduct is proven”. He foundthat the submission made by Counsel that no costs had been incurred was “impertinent”, and that it was“incredible it could even be argued”. There was, he said “absolutely no merit in that submission” that the feestructure of the Legal Services Commission should allow for failures of ALS. He went on to say that Justice“may like to look at this contract again”, given that a Crown Court trial cost is £12,500 minimum per day andit is the taxpayers who pay for this, and “some people may think the middle man is unnecessary”. He stated“ALS didn’t act in time, and the way they dealt with it represents serious misconduct”. He said, “you can’tgive notice to a Court on a Sunday, and still hold to a promise to deliver”. This is absolutely preposterous andhe cannot sanction this conduct. He noted that other submissions were “irrelevant”, and invited the NationalAudit Office to consider whether “the contract was even viable”. In their email, ALS explained that it does notemploy interpreters, they are self-employed and ALS cannot force interpreters to work. However, ALS holdsthe government contract, he said. Although it wasn’t ALS’ fault that they did not have enough interpreters, but“if they didn’t they should say so”. The courts may as well book interpreters directly; “Justice delayed is justicedenied”, he added.

In summary the judge restated that Counsel should not suffer financial loss due to ALS failure and confirmeda third party costs order against them in the sum of £137, saying they were fortunate that no court time hadbeen lost.

In the case of Tran and Nguyen, the judge stated that he found the interpreter, Miss Wilson, who sent anemail saying that “she was busy on that day” and gave no proper notice that she was not attending , guilty ofmisconduct and she had accepted liability to Counsel’s costs. However the order made that day (previousFriday) was reduced due to her low level of means.

This is one of the first few wasted cost orders for failing to provide an interpreter and the first cost orderagainst an interpreter, who normally offered prompt and efficient service. The figure is a contribution, not thefull cost.

These are examples of why wasted costs need to be reviewed. The failure of ALS to supply interpreters mayincur colossal costs if a case is privately funded. There is no reason as to why a Barrister should pay justbecause there is no interpreter—it would not be fair. ALS has a duty to deliver and an interpreter a duty toattend when booked.

Supplementary written evidence from Brooke Townsley, Senior Lecturer Interpreting and Translation,

Middlesex University

I write to correct what appears to have been a misunderstanding of the written evidence I supplied to theSelect Committee prior to the commencement of the hearings. In the final paragraph of the statement I suppliedthen, on 9th October 2012, I stated the following:

“Working with ALS proved to be difficult. Middlesex University decided to terminate the agreementwith ALS dated 10th October 2011; on the 3rd January 2012 Middlesex University and ALS formallyagreed to suspend their relationship under that agreement and the final signature from ALS on theagreement to suspect the relationship was received on 17 February 2012. ALS did receive a EULAfrom Middlesex University to use the software designed for the quality check process themselvesand carry out their own assessments in house. This EULA was signed and returned by ALS on 1March 2012”.

I note from the recordings of the hearing that this appears to have been misconstrued by the panel, whostated:

“The date that we have is that the decision by Middlesex to terminate the agreement with your thencompany was 10 October 2011, and then it was on 3 January 2012 that your former company andMiddlesex agreed to suspend their relationship under that agreement, with a final signature on thatagreement to suspend being received from your former company on 17 February.”



I’d like to clarify that the contract was dated 10 October 2011, not the decision to terminate. The contractwas finally signed and officially started on 10 October 2011. The final signature on the agreement to terminatethe contract was indeed received on 17 February 2012. As I have shown in a previous submission, however,the problems with ALS that led to the termination of the contract started earlier.

I’d like to add a further clarification regarding the advice I gave to ALS regarding their proposed tieringsystem for interpreters.

On 20 January 2011, I attended the offices of ALS in Oldham by invitation as a consultant from MiddlesexUniversity. I was at the offices for, I would estimate, about 4 hours. I was briefly introduced to Mr GavinWheeldon by Mr David Joseph, who had invited me to come to ALS and collected me at the station. MrJopseh and I then retired to a private room to work. I would note that Mr Wheeldon was not present during myworking meeting with Mr Joseph nor at any other meetings I attended between ALS and Middlesex University.

My brief for the consultancy visit was to inspect and comment on ALS plans for the screening of interpretersand their interpreting skills. During this visit, I was asked for my evaluation of their plans for a three tiersystem for interpreters. I made it clear to Mr David Joseph that I did not think the three tier system wasappropriate or functional. I gave my reasons for this view. I was told by him that a tiered system for interpreterswas required by the MoJ and that it was non-negotiable. Having understood that, I then suggested, in that case,that the least worst option would be a two tier system based on a pass in oral AND written components of theDiploma in Public Service Interpreting (DPSI), or a pass in the oral components of the DPSI exam only.Regarding the proposed Tier 3, I made it clear that, in my opinion, it was a nonsense and should not beinstituted.

I would like to point out that the meeting in January was the sum total of my “consultancy” work for ALS.When they later approached Middlesex University in the summer of 2011 for help with the design of aninterpreter assessment system, the agreement made for work to be carried out was between MiddlesexUniversity and ALS, not with me as a consultant or otherwise. I was the member of Middlesex University stafftasked with carrying out the technical side of the work the University undertook to perform; other aspects ofthe contract were dealt with by other University staff. Nor was I being paid any fees by ALS, contrary to whatmight be inferred from comments I gather were made to the Committee.

November 2012

The Stationery Office Limited02/2013 024767 19585