| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] > | Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK Thread poster: Trans_Interp
|
|---|
| Judicial review? | Feb 22, 2012 |
Thanks to everyone who has been posting articles/comments, etc. on this issue and providing the latest news. The questions and concerns raised are legitimate. So I'm just wondering if this is worthy of judicial review and/or whether any of the interested parties are seeking such an action? The system has been suspended until the end of this week, and then? There are lots of interested parties in this - interpreters/lawyers/judges/defendants/ taxpayers - and more than just a waste of taxpayers' m... See more Thanks to everyone who has been posting articles/comments, etc. on this issue and providing the latest news. The questions and concerns raised are legitimate. So I'm just wondering if this is worthy of judicial review and/or whether any of the interested parties are seeking such an action? The system has been suspended until the end of this week, and then? There are lots of interested parties in this - interpreters/lawyers/judges/defendants/ taxpayers - and more than just a waste of taxpayers' money (I'm sure most of the people needing an interpreter pay taxes too) and undermining the work and value of interpreters, doesn't this undermine the criminal justice system itself?! And by the Ministry of Justice? Concerns were raised before the beginning of this month too (hence this thread started last July).
More than just who to pin the blame on, all of the questions posed here and probably elsewhere on the matter need answering and this would perhaps be a speedier (relatively speaking!) and more independent/unbiased solution.
Just a thought, Aisha ▲ Collapse
| | | | | It rumbles on.... | Feb 23, 2012 |
| | | | | Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK | Feb 23, 2012 |
| | | | |
|
|
|
| Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK | Feb 23, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I believe the figure going around is that 60% of those who used to do this work have refused to do so for Absolute Language Shambles / Crapita.
60% of registered public service interpreters (i.e. registered on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters - http://www.nrpsi.co.uk/ ) have signed the list “Say no to agency”. You can see the statistics here: http://tiny.cc/hljd7
And many non-registered interpreters are also refusing to work for the agency.
| | | |
If I were a betting man, I'd lay you 5-1 that when the new arrangement ends, whether on schedule or sooner (I suspect sooner), the MoJ will blame the interpreters for the problems rather than anyone else. The interpreters' argument is that the rates have pushed them out of their profession, but I don't see how the government can agree with that argument without losing face. After all, you don't award a multi-million-pound contract to someone without asking to see the business plan first and find... See more If I were a betting man, I'd lay you 5-1 that when the new arrangement ends, whether on schedule or sooner (I suspect sooner), the MoJ will blame the interpreters for the problems rather than anyone else. The interpreters' argument is that the rates have pushed them out of their profession, but I don't see how the government can agree with that argument without losing face. After all, you don't award a multi-million-pound contract to someone without asking to see the business plan first and finding out how your money will be spent, do you? And if the government approved the business plan despite having at least some idea of the rates, it could be argued that it should have been able to predict what would happen, making it at least jointly responsible. When the game of "pass the blame" starts in earnest, I don't see the government being willing to take the rap for what has happened, so to save face, it can only accuse the interpreters of being unreasonable and holding it to ransom. Of course, in my opinion that argument would defy all logic, but that's what I think it will find itself forced to say! And that would explain why the MoJ is still insisting, even now after what has happened, that the new arrangement is better for everyone. If the government has to pay a whopping penalty to end the new arrangement early (I have submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the MoJ to find out if there is a penalty clause, but I'll be surprised if that information isn't confidential), again, I predict it will point the finger at the interpreters for that outcome, rather than itself for agreeing to an early termination clause, if there is one.
So, does anyone fancy a wager with me?  ▲ Collapse
| | | | Neil Coffey 
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:28
French to English
+ ...
| MoJ arguments... | Feb 24, 2012 |
Peter Shortall wrote:
The interpreters' argument is that the rates have pushed them out of their profession, but I don't see how the government can agree with that argument without losing face.
On the other hand, I'm truly truly baffled as to how they can argue that it is reasonable to expect to hire competent legal interpreters at £8/hour...
Incidentally, there was a piece of news yesterday that approx £100million is going to be spent on filters to stop 4G signals interfering with TV signals. Sort of shows you where the priorities are: ensuring people get fair judicial process is seen as a terrible overspend, whereas facilitating people's viewing of Ready Steady Cook is seen as a social necessity...
[Edited at 2012-02-24 10:15 GMT]
| | | | | Political expedience | Feb 24, 2012 |
Neil Coffey wrote: Peter Shortall wrote:
The interpreters' argument is that the rates have pushed them out of their profession, but I don't see how the government can agree with that argument without losing face. On the other hand, I'm truly truly baffled as to how they can argue that it is reasonable to expect to hire competent legal interpreters at £8/hour... [Edited at 2012-02-24 10:15 GMT]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the rates are £22/hour (Tier 1), £20/hour (Tier 2) and £16/hour (Tier 3), plus a £5 bonus for self-booked jobs and an allowance of 40p per mile (though is that only after the first hour of travel? I'm not sure.) To you and me, of course, the new pay arrangement may look unrealistic when you factor in the travel, but to your average tabloid reader, whose opinion is far more important to the government and who is enraged by the idea of taxpayers' money being spent on foreign criminals (never mind foreign witnesses or victims of crime), is blissfully unaware that interpreters often have to travel long distances that can more than wipe out any earnings they now make, are paid per job and don't receive a guaranteed salary, and may do something like 0-2 jobs on an average day with some jobs lasting an hour or less, those rates might actually look quite generous on the face of it, when you consider that the national minimum wage is just over £6/hour. When you present rates in a per-hour format like that, people unfamiliar with the profession, and people whose sole concern is to see less money spent on Johnny foreigner who has gotten himself in trouble with the police, may assume that interpreters can still earn a lot of money and are simply being greedy if they turn down any extra concessions made.
My feeling is that the government will argue, as it did last year in parliament (see link below), that "a large number of interpreters have registered" for the new scheme, so I expect that sooner or later, it will accuse the interpreters of reneging on their commitment to keep working for them. It may also reiterate that having a single provider coordinating everything means that since the provider will know about all the bookings for a given language in a given city on a particular day, it can hire one interpreter to take them all, meaning that the interpreter's travel expenses will be minimised (a bit like the Trados argument of lower rates being offset by the capacity to do larger volumes of work in a given timespan). Of course, this ignores the fact that courts can't predict how long each job will take, and that even if there are multiple bookings for a single language in a single city on one day, the timings may overlap and prevent one interpreter from taking more than one job, but what tabloid reader will care about insignificant details such as those?! Yes, it's an argument riddled with bad logic, but superficially it may look convincing to voters who are incensed by the idea of foreign criminals getting a free service courtesy of the British taxpayer and aren't willing or able to appraise the situation any more intelligently than that; and in the end, voters are the people who matter most to the government.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-10-10a.154.0
And let me qualify my prediction slightly: the government would only blame those interpreters who refuse to work under the new system if it fails, not all of them. According to what I have read (and please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm in no position to verify this myself), there are around 2,300 interpreters on the NRPSI, but around 3,000 interpreters reportedly signed up for the new arrangement. If those figures are both accurate, this would mean that if 60% of NRPSI interpreters didn't sign up, that only makes around 1,380 - a minority when compared with the 3,000 who reportedly did sign up. If you rely on a system where a central body coordinates all bookings nationally, it only takes a few people quitting to make things harder for everyone else, because then the others will have to travel even longer distances for bookings - so jobs become increasingly less profitable for them, they in turn stop working, and so on and so on until the whole thing crashes. So if all the interpreters had signed up (*arguably* - this is not my opinion), it would have been in their collective interest, because their travel expenses would have been lower. This is how the government could argue that the new system is better for everyone. How tempting it will be for the government to blame the "reckless actions of a selfish few", i.e. those who campaigned against the new system and encouraged others to join them, for bringing the whole shooting-match down, while at the same time magnanimously praising the "silent majority" for their willingness to cooperate! Talk about adding insult to injury!
[Edited at 2012-02-24 18:00 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Same old same old | Feb 24, 2012 |
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/interpreter-problems-unacceptable-says-ministry
While I freely admit I have no idea how this stuff works, I could easily believe that the MoJ a) had no idea what hourly rates the company were planning to charge, and even if they did, b) that they would have the foggiest whether the rates were good, bad or... See more http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/interpreter-problems-unacceptable-says-ministry
While I freely admit I have no idea how this stuff works, I could easily believe that the MoJ a) had no idea what hourly rates the company were planning to charge, and even if they did, b) that they would have the foggiest whether the rates were good, bad or indifferent. I see no reason for the MoJ not to point the finger squarely at the company in question for promising a service and failing to deliver - they trusted that company to do what it takes, the company knew what was going to happen in terms of the boycott, and still did nothing until the excrement/ventilation unit interface occurred. No need for MoJ to blame interpreters for the failings at all, IMHO.
But then perhaps I would say that.
[Edited at 2012-04-16 17:38 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | Care to put your (metaphorical) money where your mouth is? | Feb 24, 2012 |
I do hope you're right, Charlie, but the government certainly knew about the rates in October because they were mentioned during a parliamentary debate, so there was plenty of time for it to foresee what has happened. It could have pulled the plug at any time since at least that stage, but chose not to.
I was going to suggest we make a bet, but I've just had a better idea: why don't we make it official by signing a contract? With a BIG penalty if you decide to call the bet off early... See more I do hope you're right, Charlie, but the government certainly knew about the rates in October because they were mentioned during a parliamentary debate, so there was plenty of time for it to foresee what has happened. It could have pulled the plug at any time since at least that stage, but chose not to.
I was going to suggest we make a bet, but I've just had a better idea: why don't we make it official by signing a contract? With a BIG penalty if you decide to call the bet off early ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Empty post |
|
|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | More of the same | Feb 27, 2012 |
Peter Shortall wrote:
the government certainly knew about the rates in October because they were mentioned during a parliamentary debate, so there was plenty of time for it to foresee what has happened. It could have pulled the plug at any time since at least that stage, but chose not to.
Aye, well the debate was not well attended, if memory serves, & it would, I think, be wrong to think that because some MPs know something, the wonks in charge of spending our taxes also know that same thing. Plus, the deal was signed in August, (or July? - released in August anyway) so what was known in October is not necessarily germane. Conversely, there is a 3-month convenience termination clause so even if it DID become common knowledge in October, in theory yes, we could be being spared all this crap now.
So either they knew and didn't care, or didn't know.
Meanwhile:
http://thejusticegap.com/News/language-problem-the-controversy-over-the-court-interpreters-contract/
Also raises Attila's recent point about how this was supposed to even save money in the first place.
| | | | Attila Piróth
France
Local time: 19:28
Member
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| Legislation for statutory protection of title for legal interpreters | Mar 1, 2012 |
We are just a month into the National Framework Agreement for interpreting and translation services in HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Yet already the much-vaunted savings risk being dwarfed by the cost of adjournments, remands in custody, and applications by defence solicitors for wasted costs.
Read Madeleine Lee's (director of the Professional Interpreters’ Alliance) article in the Law Gazette, MoJ must address the chaos. The last paragraph shows the way out:
A more logical development than the retrograde step of creating a register with dumbed-down standards is to legislate for statutory protection of title for legal interpreters. To achieve this, RPSIs need the support of CJS stakeholders like you.
Best,
Attila
[Edited at 2012-03-01 10:11 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
