Equality Act 2010

There are 6 posts tagged Equality Act 2010 (this is page 2 of 3).

Media Reports Chaos: Interpreters, Make Your Stand

In a previous post there was a description of the sheer number of spoken language organisations and campaigns and the resulting lack of unity. What is impressive now is the amount of interpreters taking a stand against the MoJ contract, whether individually or as part of these groups. The results of which have now started to filter down to the press with the rightful backlash causing chaos.
The ALS contract rolled out on 30th January. In the last two weeks there has been report after report of mismanagement, cases being delayed, defendants held in custody overnight as there is no interpreter, court staff being harangued by ALS staff, Indian call centres not being able to fulfil requests. That’s a short summary of what has happened and these events have happened repeatedly around the country.
Before each roll out of a contract, whether it was NHS, Police (CPS) or courts, there would be a local press report detailing the horrific expense. The worst of it has been in the national press with the xenophobic Daily Mail amongst others asking why all the foreigners can’t just learn how to speak English?
We’ve seen what the government’s media machine has done to Disabled people, labelling them as benefit scroungers to the point where they have been attacked in the street.
A piece in The Evening Standard pointed out, ‘There is nothing wrong in stopping fraud or imposing cuts at a time of austerity. But it is revolting to see politicians and the media collude to target people who just want to join society.’ The same applies to those who need interpreters whether they are ‘foreigners’ or Deaf. We have an EU directive 2010/64/EU, the UNCRPD and specific to the UK the Equality Act 2010, all of which are being willfully ignored.
Disabled people are less likely to speak out just as users of interpreters can often not speak out, for obvious reasons. The provision of an untrained interpreter is hardly going to help. Would it be so cynical to suggest this is why these groups have been targeted by the government?
So in the case of this MoJ contract, it is left to the interpreters to make the first stand. Congratulations should go to those that have refused to work under the contract over the last few weeks. Lawyers, barristers, magistrates and judges are now seeing the effects. Where we had reports of the expense of interpreters, the media tide has turned. We now have reports of chaos with the Beeb and The Law Gazette picking up the news too.
Furthermore there have been postings on blogs by lawyers and magistrates about their concern.
The MoJ are sticking to the theory that these are just teething problems. They are not and this contract is costing the taxpayer more:
Cost to hold defendant for 24 hours in custody: £769
Average daily cost of a magistrate trial: £800
Average daily cost of a crown court trial: £1,700
(figures from The Daily Mail and The Guardian)
Justice is not cheap. When you introduce delays into the system costs escalate. Rather than paying £85-£150 (half day) for an interpreter so the case can be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible, the actual cost starts to run into the thousands. What exactly is the chaos surrounding this contract?

  • More than half of trained and registered interpreters have refused to work under the contract – most people ‘interpreting’ are not trained or NRPSI registered (in my view*).
  • This has left some regions devoid of an interpreter – the agency is asking interpreters to travel further distances, which without travel costs many are refusing to do so.
  • There are some language groups with no trained interpreters willing to work.
  • Interpreters were asked to undergo a £100 assessment and CRB check – as so few did, the agency is now using ‘interpreters’ – speakers of other languages who have not undergone any interpreter training, have not been independently assessed (as promised) and have had no police checks (as promised).
  • Agency staff have asked exasperated court staff, when a booking is not fulfilled, to enter a cancellation on their systems rather than a failure to provide – this will skew the monitoring information for the MoJ’s review of the contract or any future Freedom of Information requests made.
  • There are reports of basic interpreter errors – ‘perversion of the course of justice’ becoming ‘charge of being a pervert’ and ‘charged by the police’ as owing the police money (BBC).

The above points show that the contract is not only nonsensical but also fundamentally wrong. It goes against legislation, against human rights. It has caused and will continue to cause delays, inefficiencies and extra cost to the taxpayer albeit hidden rather than included in the cost of the interpreting contract. There are huge risks being taken of a mistrial and a lack of access to justice. We have seen two weeks of chaos so far. The Sign Language Interpreting part of the contract is reported to be completely rolled out from March.
If you haven’t been affected yet, you will be. We saw what happened in the North West as a Procurement Hub was set up and later as part of this set up ALS took over interpreting services with police forces. Work disappeared for trained and registered interpreters, including sign language interpreters or was offered at a ridiculous and unsustainable rate. Work was taken up by those untrained and unregistered as the cheaper though unsafe option. Some interpreters had to leave the profession or take on second jobs to survive. One police force eventually terminated their contract with ALS as they could not carry out proper investigations.
As the contract and the chaos continues to roll out will you stand up for your profession? As a Sign language interpreter you may think you have been unaffected. You are wrong.
Reports are already coming out of an erosion of standards (there is evidence of interpreters booked for part trials/tribunals), there is a reduced cancellation fee (from 7 to 3 days) and you will effectively be contributing to the possible demise of the profession especially if you are not experienced in this type of work. SLIs have RSLI as standard. Don’t be fooled. Spoken Language ‘Interpreters’ did not even get assessed, it may only be a matter of time before this standard slips along with the others.
Rather than collude with the providers of this contract, whether you are being sub-contracted or not, like spoken language interpreters we should be sticking together and voting with our feet. If you don’t make this stand, you will see what happened in the North West coming to an area near you…
*added after threat of defamation from ALS, see comment.

Spoken Myths

Myths some, a small minority of, spoken language interpreters may hold about sign language interpreters:
Myth 1: We earn twice as much.
If only. Maybe we earn more some areas or for some contractors. Mostly we are facing reductions in fees just as you are. The large agency is king and is taking its cut more than ever. See previous post on One Stop Shopping.
Myth 2: We are known as Deaf or Deafblind interpreters.
No. There are Deaf (Relay) Interpreters and Intermediaries. They are often to be found working in courts and mental health. These are working interpreters who are Deaf. As native users of the language they are more adept at working with Deaf people who have additional communication needs and they work alongside Sign Language Interpreters. For more information see this article.
Myth 3: We are called BSLs.
No. You are not called Mandarins or Russians. You are interpreters as are we. A correct term would be Sign Language Interpreters. If you must shorten it SLIs would be better.
Myth 4: You are being discriminated against because in the MoJ contract we are being paid higher fees (well for now anyway). This is discrimination because we are mostly white and British and you are mostly not.
No. Well yes to the last part. But no. If I spoke Cantonese and I was white and got the job but you were Chinese and didn’t, that would be discrimination. But you are doing your job and I am doing mine, which is a confusingly different but yet similar. The fees were decided, in my understanding, on the basis of standards. I will come to this one next…
Myth 5: Spoken Language Interpreters have just as high standards of training etc.. as SLIs.
Really? It takes us 5 – 10 years to become fully qualified and registered. This can cost a minimum of £6,500. More if you came through the university route. This is mostly because we are not native users of the language and we have to take this long to become proficient. Plus there is the Level 4 or Postgrad training in interpreting to complete which takes a minimum of a year on top of all the language training.
This is not to say you don’t have these things. You have great skills and courses with the potential for study at MA level and doctorates. The whole standards thing boils down to the minimum requirement needed to interpret for a public service and the perception of this by the authorities. The minimums for NRPSI registration take less time to study for, partly because you are already fluent in the language. This is unfortunately seen as lower standards and this has been used against you. Which brings me nicely to my last point.
Myth 6: We look down at you.
A categorical no. I have the utmost respect for you. I have marvelled at stories of your stamina in court where there has been one of you for a whole day and we normally have two interpreters working together. We normally have an interpreter working for defence barristers and separate ones for the court to avoid conflicts of interest. I have heard stories of you having to do both. I am not sure this is physically possible.
So let us talk Truths…
Truth 1: We have all been shafted. The contract has gone to… well we all know don’t we. They have effectively ripped up the NRPSI and the National Agreement. Standards and quality have now gone out of the window on the basis of saving costs.
Truth 2: You got shafted again. In order to register for the aforementioned agency you have to pay £100 for an assessment even though technically you have already been assessed. Correct me if I am wrong. Rumour has it there has been a reduction in price as not enough interpreters signed up for it. Not surprised. I love your ‘Say no…’ campaign. Over half of NRPSI interpreters won’t work for them. I shudder to think at who they will get to work. I know. Perhaps one of the legal clerks who happens to know a bit of Gujarati? Well that will see justice done.
Truth 3: The media are not helping. All this talk of interpreter costs and how bad it all is really does take away from the bankers and their continued fat bonuses, doesn’t it? If only the FSA had some muscle. Anyway…
Truth 4: We really all should be working together rather than finger pointing and laying blame. When we do, it works really well. I’ve seen the questions in Parliament. I know it can be done. And there is strength in numbers. So can we all please dispel these myths and look at the truths? Stop wasting cash on expensive legal fees for Judicial Reviews (unless they are founded). Stop setting up alternative organisations. Stop blaming and let’s all please do a bit more work together.