| 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
|
|---|
Dear colleagues,
I wonder what legal interpreters (and public service interpreters in general) think of the decision of the UK Ministry of Justice to privatize/outsource the provision of legal and police interpreting and translation services to a commercial interpreting agency?
The National Agreement (the document that sets our rates and terms and conditions) is being scrapped and the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NPRSI) will become redundant.
... See more Dear colleagues,
I wonder what legal interpreters (and public service interpreters in general) think of the decision of the UK Ministry of Justice to privatize/outsource the provision of legal and police interpreting and translation services to a commercial interpreting agency?
The National Agreement (the document that sets our rates and terms and conditions) is being scrapped and the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NPRSI) will become redundant.
The agency will be in charge of regulating the profession, testing/assessment interpreters and translators, setting rates, disciplinary action, maintaining a register, CPD, etc.
Taking into account that medical and local government interpreting have already been outsourced/privatized and agencies pay peanuts (even though they get millions from the government), I don’t see any future for public services interpreters and translators in the UK.
There is a group of interpreters campaigning against outsourcing and boycotting this agency, but is there really any hope for the profession?
I wonder what other public service interpreters in the UK think about this situation?
Thank you. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Rad Graban (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:24
English to Slovak
+ ...
| Mateusz Kiecz
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:24
Member (2008)
English to Polish
+ ...
In general PIA (Professional Interpreters' Alliance) is now taking steps to tackle the matter from legal point of view.
In cooperation with other interpreters' organisations they have made a joint submission to the MOJ.
Here's the full text of the submission:
Submissions to the Ministry of Justice
This document is being submitted to the Better Trials Unit of the Ministry of
Justice in response to an invitation for submissions. It is submitted jointly b... See more In general PIA (Professional Interpreters' Alliance) is now taking steps to tackle the matter from legal point of view.
In cooperation with other interpreters' organisations they have made a joint submission to the MOJ.
Here's the full text of the submission:
Submissions to the Ministry of Justice
This document is being submitted to the Better Trials Unit of the Ministry of
Justice in response to an invitation for submissions. It is submitted jointly by the
following organisations;
• The Association of Police and Court Interpreters (APCI)
• The Association of Sign Language Interpreters (ASLI)
• National Union of Professional Interpreters and Translators (NUPIT)
• The Professional Interpreters Alliance (PIA Ltd)
• The Society of Official Metropolitan Interpreters (SOMI UK Ltd)
• The Society for Public Service Interpreting (SPSI Ltd)
• Visual Language Professionals (VLP)
This document does not represent the totality of views of all interpreters'
organisations, but those held in common. Therefore, in making these joint
submissions, each organisation reserves the right to make its own further
submissions in its own right, which may enlarge upon views contained here, or
express further views not alluded to here. Individual members of all
organisations have been encouraged to make their own submissions also.
These submissions do not constitute consultation but give an illusion of it, and we
do not accept that there has been a properly constituted consultation process. We
are very happy to open a process of dialogue and to maintain it through regular
meetings aimed at improving service and increasing the quality of delivery.
1. The stated aim
The stated aim of the Interpretation Project is to save 10% of current spend. Yet in the
MoJ's own admission there exists nothing better than a guess as to total current
spend, so whether anything will be saved at all is open to question. Simple procedural
changes will lead to more significant savings and anecdotal evidence suggests this is
already occurring. The following points should also be considered:
a. Responses from interpreters and their membership bodies who
attended the "OCJR Roadshows" in 2009 appear to have been
ignored. No report containing a considered response, nor any
feedback has ever been seen;
b. Whilst some of the views of sign language interpreters appear to have
been taken into account following the points made by interpreters'
membership bodies at the meeting on 15 September 2010, those of spoken
language interpreters have not been answered;
c. The "Alternative Strategy" prepared and submitted by the APCI
in December 2010 has not had a single point answered;
d. The lack of adequate enquiries into alternatives, including the
provision of language services in other countries, is strange and
suggests less than thorough research. The UK is not alone in having
substantial immigrant communities and foreign visitors, and it would
be helpful at least to know what happens elsewhere. Other nations
come here to find out what we do and the APCI knows this since it is
contacted for help in this area: its EULITA and FIT memberships
allow exchange of news, developments and progress elsewhere;
e. The Interpretation Project is disproportionate as to size and expense in
order to save just 10% of an already vague initial spend;
f. We have been informed that several commercial intermediaries are
wondering about the transparency of the competitive dialogue phase.
These points propel us to a surprising position where we wonder whether the motives
of the Interpretation Project may be following an unclear agenda.
2. The Interpretation Project
a. We say this project has been conducted hastily and some stakeholders appear to
have been excluded from parts of the process. Indeed, the Project itself may be
procedurally flawed, with no Equality Impact Assessment being conducted until very
late in the process;
b. There appears to a limited understanding of how PACE operates, which is
worrying. For example, the descriptors the author uses for Tiers 1 and 3 are based on
procedures and situations which do not exist, stating that a Tier 1 interpreter should be used
in a "PACE compliant interview which requires an immediate translation of a written
statement". Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 sets out the requirements for
the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects not related to terrorism in police
custody by police officers. An interview under caution, with an interpreter present,
never requires a translation. The only statements that would require a translation
would be those of a non-English speaking witness to or victim of a criminal offence;
c. In a conversation with the Chairman of the APCI on 9 March 2011, Mr Graham
Anderson, Senior Category Manager in the Procurement Directorate, stated that
"We have arrived at a model for delivery of the service" and "It is now
appropriate to consult with interested parties". This information was distributed
by email to APCI members and Mr Anderson included in its distribution. We argue
that this shows that the model was decided before consultation and its lawfulness
questionable.
3. MoJ documents of 30 March 2011
a. The assessment process
Why should qualified people, already having passed stringent examinations, be forced
to do so again? And to undergo annual appraisals? These will be complex and
difficult to arrange and manage. The proposed assessments do not appear to be backed
by any academic requirements or credibility and may have a completely different
aim, which is opaque to us.
Quite apart from being cumbersome and unwieldy, it will also be expensive. Who will
pay? The MoJ? They apparently wish to save money, not enter into further open
ended costs. The agency? Maybe, but to whom will they pass on the costs? The MoJ
perhaps? Or, more likely the interpreters. So, for them the outcome of this project
will be greater cost, lower income, frequent retests... Who on earth will wish to stay in
this environment and how will it attract quality interpreters?
The idea of an "assessment centre" is wholly unnecessary; NRPSI and MRSLI
interpreters have been assessed as competent at point of qualification and registration
and no further accreditation is needed. Further, this would involve the same assessors
who awarded the initial qualification and add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy.
Often the demands of the CJS bodies are unrealistic and CJS agencies do not realise
this because their officials have very little if any understanding of how PSI operates.
They wish to have all languages serviced at low cost by interpreters within 25 miles,
which is unrealistic. The use of commercial intermediaries will never make rare
languages less rare.
It must be understood that the numbers of interpreters and their location are governed
by supply and demand dynamics. If there are no interpreters in particular languages in
particular areas, it is for a very good reason; there is very little or no work for them.
How often do Police or Courts in North Yorkshire need a Yiddish interpreter? How
often is a Mongolian Interpreter required by the Cumbria Constabulary? How much
demand is there for Farsi interpreters in North Wales?
The answer to the last question is this: according to FoI figures disclosed by North
Wales Police, they required Farsi interpreters on 6 occasions between July 2009 and
September 2010 inclusive. In a period of 15 months, a hypothetical Farsi interpreter
who happened to live in North Wales would, on average have only one assignment
every 2.5 months. Would such a meagre workload enable a hypothetical Farsi
interpreter to make a living out of his profession in North Wales?
b. Management, Supervision and Monitoring
Who will oversee the implementation of all the measures in these proposals? How
will accountability be enforced? If it is the responsibility of the MoJ, then that will be
expensive, with a dedicated mobile team required. If it is the agency then, well, that is
an exhibition of naivety which defies description; commercial imperatives will always
overcome unmonitored legal or procedural requirements. This area of responsibility is
that of the regulator, ie the NRPSI and NRCPD.
c. Discrimination
We say discrimination is built-in to the MoJ proposals in their treatment of spoken
language interpreters as compared with visual/sign language/lip speaking interpreters.
This is a complex area and requires detailed consideration, but the MoJ is not entitled
to discriminate in this manner, and we refer you in particular to Chapter 2, Sections
13 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010.
The statement regarding registration with the NRCPD can be misunderstood. Only
BSL interpreters who are registered as MRSLI (ie fully qualified) should be used in
the CJS. The NRCPD also "register" lesser-qualified interpreters who are not
suitable for CJS work.
d. Code of conduct
Existing codes are more robust than this suggestion, and we point out those of the
NRPSI itself, NRCPD, SOMI and the APCI. A diluted code is a further act of
regression (see below, "Implications as to the recent EU Directive and the
Stockholm Roadmap").
e. The National Agreement
The National Agreement lies at the heart of the provision of language services to
Justice and we say it must be both preserved and strengthened. We believe its
abandonment or even its dilution to be unlawful (see below, "Implications as to the
recent EU Directive and the Stockholm Roadmap")
f. The place of the National Register for Public Service Interpreting (NRPSI)
The regulator of spoken language interpreting is hardly mentioned in these proposals
- why? The NRPSI is the primary means of safeguarding the integrity of the
provision of interpreting in the Justice sector and the Better Trials Unit should
support it. This is not just morally and ethically appropriate but it makes economic
sense. It is the regulator which makes no demand on the public purse at all, unlike the
complex and unwieldy procedures so laboriously laid out in the proposals, and it is
also well known to many work providers who trust the brand. The wheel is already
invented and it is a waste of time and public money to have spent time reinventing it.
g. The Society for Public Service Interpreting (SPSI)
The aims of this new society are well known, and a response to RPSIs' ambition
for a dynamic representative body to represent their interests to work providers and
market their services. The public interest and the interests of Justice will be well
served if both it and the Register are permitted to get on with their jobs. Every single
function of the commercial agency as laid out in the list of its responsibilities lies in
the domain of either the NRPSI or the SPSI; neither requires public funds and both
are accountable in ways that a commercial agency is not and never will be.
h. Tiers 1, 2 and 3
The tiered system as proposed is regressive in that it dilutes skill, experience and
qualification requirements. If the base tier were Full status on the NRPSI, that would
be a different matter, since any requirement to enhance knowledge and skills is to be
supported and interpreters would do so. But it is not, it is instead at the pinnacle of
requirement and therefore regressive. The proposals are designed to attract linguists
into areas where they are unqualified and inexperienced and so appear to drive down
costs, regardless of any consequences for the CJS and poor delivery of service.
i. Implications as to the recent EU Directive and the Stockholm Roadmap
The project is in direct contravention of the thinking of the "Reflection Forum"
instigated by Leo Orban, and which led to the Stockholm Roadmap and then to the
first EU Directive. At no time are any of the principles of either referred to nor are
any arguments put as to why they do not apply. There have been assertions that there
is no breach of the Directive and these may be tested appropriately in due course. But
for the moment we say that the project is self-serving and an act of regression. For example:
i) It is planned that the National Agreement be put to one side. Without it there will
be no procedure for the engagement of qualified, vetted and experienced Registered
Public Service Interpreters (RPSIs) within the Justice sector. We say it is
disingenuous to assert that this is anything other than regressive in both nature and
intent;
ii) The abandonment of the use of RPSIs in favour of less qualified and experienced
linguists is a further dilution of the protection of the rights of those accused in the UK
who speak little or no English and is regressive. This is the ambition of the
"tier" system;
iii) We argue that the proposals contravene Article 177 of the EC Treaty. Case law
shows a preliminary ruling of the ECJ no. 61996J0129 of 18 December 1997, which
states in paragraph 45: "Although the Member States are not obliged to adopt those
measures before the end of the period prescribed for transposition, it follows from the
second paragraph of Article 5 in conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 189
of the Treaty and from the directive itself that during that period they must refrain
from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed".
No amendments to procedures put into place after the adoption of a Directive may
detract from its aims; the "Interpretation Project" achieves little else but detracts
from existing arrangements.
EULITA and FIT-Europe both wrote to the BTU to draw to their attention the potential
for tripping over the EU Directive with the Interpretation Project before the
implications of the Directive were fully understood. The EULITA approach was
politely brushed off.
We say this was misguided and short-sighted and a further indicator that no
arguments counter to the BTU's would be listened to. However, the Directive is
not going away, and a programme of awareness as to its implications and the
responsibilities of MSs is being launched to assist them in the transposition process.
Part of this process has been labelled TRAFUT.
TRAFUT is an EU funded programme of seminars to be held during 2011 and 2012,
training MSs on their responsibilities in respect of transposition of the EU Directive
and will be delivered by EULITA. It is being suggested that the UK be invited to the
seminar in Slovenia in autumn 2011 rather than be allowed a presence at a seminar a
year later. From being a leader in this field, the UK is now regarded as being
"exposed" and an early attendance therefore being encouraged.
4. Conclusions
a. The failure to answer so many points interpreters' representatives
have made as detailed in 1 a. to d. above leads us to the unhappy
conclusion that little we say in this document will elicit any response
either.
This procedure is familiar to any viewer of "Yes Minister" and it is worrying
that such techniques are still used in the twenty first century. If legitimate questions
remain unanswered by the Head of the Better Trials Unit or his superiors then they
may have to account for their actions elsewhere. Nevertheless, interpreters' bodies
are at all times ready to enter into dialogue in the hope that proper consultation may
develop.
b. Proper consultation with interpreters and their representative bodies
achieves results without the need for imposition of the unworkable.
This is evidenced in the case of Cambridgeshire Constabulary, which
has resisted the perceived but superficial advantages of links with
commercial intermediaries, involved itself in quarterly meetings with
interpreters and their representatives and has retained control of the
resource. This process has been able to deliver considerable savings
for the Constabulary (understood to be in excess of several hundred
thousand pounds on previous years) and allowed it to negotiate with
interpreters in an environment of trust and mutual understanding whilst
retaining a business relationship.
c. An early opinion from HMRC states that a shift to Schedule E
(employed) status is an inevitable step, but we do wonder whether the
Ministry of Justice has considered the extra burden upon the public
purse from employing interpreters, since it is the very opposite of
"outsourcing".
d. Any Minister signing off these proposals will expose the UK to
potential embarrassment at best and substantial financial cost at worst.
The political fallout may be unwelcome.
5. Recommendations
A proper supply and demand study should be commissioned, which should take
account of shifting demographics and intergenerational transfer - the children of
immigrants generally learn English and so demands fade with time. This should be
linked with government immigration policy to enable a degree of forward planning
but should always recognize the unpredictability of world events. For example, the
flow of migrants from north Africa due to the present anti-government environment
and persecution of the population, and the movement of population wrought by
changes of government such as in the Ivory Coast so recently. Deaf people however
remain deaf throughout their life and cannot learn to hear. They therefore
remain reliant on BSL interpreters at all points of contact with the CJS. The proposed
abandonment of the National Agreement could significantly prevent their access to
the legal system.
In conclusion, we can do no better than to reiterate the recommendations from the
"Alternative Strategy" document as previously submitted to the Ministry of
Justice by the APCI with a couple of amendments:
• The vision of the MoJ "Interpretation Project" should be widened to
incorporate alternatives to wholesale privatisation to large corporations;
• Implementation of the "Interpretation Project" should be delayed until such time
as the impact of the EU Directive has been assessed and a plan drawn up for its
transposition into UK legislation;
• Regulation of the profession should remain in the hands of the new
independent regulatory body being set up by NRPSI Ltd jointly with the NRCPD;
• There should be one central list of qualified public service spoken language
interpreters who meet competence requirements and have been security checked;
• The National Agreement should remain in force and adherence to its
provisions made compulsory for all commercial intermediaries;
• There should be a mechanism for checking the quality of interpreting in public
service settings with a proper audit trail and exception reporting;
• Provisions should be built into the framework agreement to allow for penalties
to be applied if quality standards are not met;
• Regular service meetings facilitated by reference to a single representative
body, which would represent all RPSIs, totalling around 2,300 at present, would
enhance service to PSOs;
• The reformed NRPSI should be supported and encouraged.
If the "Interpretation Project" has the wisdom to continue its retreat from the
position it held in August 2010 and earlier, and enter into properly constituted
consultation with interpreters, there is no reason why they may not look forward with
confidence to better service delivery and a reduction in overall spend. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ania Heasley
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:24
English to Polish
+ ...
| Foregone conclusion | Jul 18, 2011 |
This is already happening, the outsourcing has started and I believe it will continue.
Also telephone interpreting is likely to gradually replace most of f2f interpreting, including magistrates' court cases, and more and more police assingments. The unthinkable has begun.
| | |
|
|
|
| how to cope? | Jul 19, 2011 |
hi Ania and everybody..
in light of recent events may i ask how do other face to face NRPSI interpreters cope with such change? if you know?
the ones mainly rely on Court & police work like myself that is..
many thanks
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Removed on poster's request | | Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK - More information | Sep 10, 2011 |
In case anyone is interested here is more information about what is going on:
... See more
| | | | |
|
|
|
| | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | According to twitter.... | Feb 16, 2012 |
Attila Piróth wrote:
- John Storer, from the law firm Criminal Defence Associates (Boston, UK)
.... that very same John Storer has tweeted this morning that the contract has been suspended, thus:
@rodwhiting HM Courts & Tribunal Service have suspended contract with Applied Language Solutions re interpreters at court
Haven't heard it from anywhere else yet, though.
Meanwhile, another legal source has a moan about it all:
http://www.thelawyer.com/lawyers-slam-government’s-new-court-interpreting-system/1011420.article
[Edited at 2012-02-16 13:20 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| | | Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK | Feb 17, 2012 |
Thank you Atila and Charlie. From what I can see you are not interpreters, I am surprised, but very grateful, to see that you are supporting interpreters. Thank you.
The contract has been only "partially abandoned". Please see this letter: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50165963/Interpreters.doc
The Ministry of Justice is giving the agency time to get their act together, bu... See more Thank you Atila and Charlie. From what I can see you are not interpreters, I am surprised, but very grateful, to see that you are supporting interpreters. Thank you.
The contract has been only "partially abandoned". Please see this letter: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50165963/Interpreters.doc
The Ministry of Justice is giving the agency time to get their act together, but on 24th February they will apparently go back to the contract.
Watch this space, the great majority of Registered Public Service Interpreters will not accept working for peanuts.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/letters/language-barrier-1
Discussion on BBC Lincolnshire Radio - 15th February
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p001d75z
1:06:55 – 1:15:50 and 2:05:50 - 2:14:05 ▲ Collapse
| | | | | If you pay peanuts... | Feb 17, 2012 |
This promises to be a very expensive lesson for the government, and one that I hope MoJ officials will learn from. It will take them a while to accept that the new arrangement can't work, but I'm sure it will happen eventually - the only question is, how much extra money will be wasted in the meantime?
From the email quoted above: "the primary problem seem to be matching interpreters to jobs rather than insufficient supply"
Can anyone explain that one to me? If the supp... See more This promises to be a very expensive lesson for the government, and one that I hope MoJ officials will learn from. It will take them a while to accept that the new arrangement can't work, but I'm sure it will happen eventually - the only question is, how much extra money will be wasted in the meantime?
From the email quoted above: "the primary problem seem to be matching interpreters to jobs rather than insufficient supply"
Can anyone explain that one to me? If the supply is sufficient, why would it be difficult to match interpreters to jobs? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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 | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
