Parliamentary questions that were being asked by the MP Andy Slaughter were published on a few forums this week. The answers by Minister Crispin Blunt were sent around today and are published below. The contract started on 30th January. Two weeks in, the MoJ were made aware of the difficulties in service delivery.
Mr Blunt uses an interesting word here: safeguarding. The very nature of this contract does in fact the opposite by renegading on a National Agreement that was previously in force to use only registered interpreters. Allowing a private company to set up their own register was folly. Many spoken language interpreters are saying their names are on the ALS database even though they never agreed to it giving the agency a falsely elevated figure of interpreters willing to work for them. The stories on the ground illustrate the fact that the rights of those needing a vetted, qualified interpreter were quashed with this contract.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) when he was made aware of problems with the provision of translators to the courts service by Applied Language Solutions; and if he will make a statement; [96653]
(2) whether (a) he, (b) other Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department had any involvement in the acquisition of Applied Language Solutions by Capita; and if he will make a statement; [96654]
(3) whether providers of interpretation and translation services to the courts are required to undertake Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks on their employees; and whether Applied Language Solutions undertakes CRB checks on its interpreters; [96655]
(4) what long-term measures he plans to implement to ensure that Applied Language Solutions provides qualified interpreters to the courts service. [96656]
Mr Blunt: The information is as follows.
(1) Ministers were made aware of difficulties with the service provided by Applied Language Solutions on 14 February 2012. We are committed to ensuring that the rights and needs of those who require interpreters are safeguarded and we have asked the contractor to take urgent steps to improve performance. I am receiving regular reports on progress.
(2) Neither the Secretary of State for Justice, nor Justice Ministers or Ministry of Justice officials had any involvement in the acquisition of ALS by Capita.
(3) The contractor is required to ensure appropriate Criminal Records Bureau checks are undertaken.
(4) The Ministry have made clear to the contractor that the problems must be addressed immediately. The contractor is taking urgent steps to improve performance including providing additional staff to deal with bookings, further targeted recruitment of interpreters
27 Feb 2012 : Column 72W
in key languages and improvements to the call handling and complaints process. The Ministry is monitoring performance on a daily basis.
interpreters
There are 14 posts tagged interpreters (this is page 6 of 7).
Remaining Anonymous…for Now
There has been a spate of enquiries, mutterings and one dig on an e-group as to why this blog should be anonymous.
Time to clarify the matter for those whom it sits uncomfortably with. Even though one would think it was obvious to anyone who read the first comment on the last post: Media Reports Chaos: Interpreters, Make Your Stand.
Predictably, a threat of defamation was made by ALS, which was promptly followed by support and comments from interpreters. Thank you. They called for ALS to provide evidence of their self-proclaimed exhaustive list of trained and assessed interpreters. There have been reports of the sheer amount of no-shows where requests by the courts for interpreters have remained unfilled. Other reports have filtered through of speakers of other languages turning up then trying but failing to interpret the more obvious legal jargon any court interpreter must understand.
Secondly, there is an e-group many interpreters subscribe too where a poster commented on the anonymous nature of this blog, inadvertently highlighting the other main reason for posting incognito. That particular e-group is renown for its negativity, back-biting and occasional venom. The real issues often get lost in a tide of personalities and politics with rants about perceived injustices and ‘what has happened’.
Identities will no doubt be revealed in the future, perhaps keeping the option for others to post anonymously. In the meantime it is a useful way to be able to post with the occasional in-fighting which is depressing to say the least, pointless at best. As a profession we all essentially want the same things:
- To legally protect the profession of interpreting.
- To maintain the standards we have strived for and to keep raising the bar.
- To ensure we strive for professional development, individually and collectively.
- To protect access for the Deaf/* communities we serve (*insert your language/nationality or linguistic group here if you are a spoken language colleague).
- To protect our livelihood and to enable us to go on working in the profession we love.
Sometimes it is important to find out why people care about ‘what has happened’, whatever that is for the individual. It may help foster that much needed sense of unity or be something that helps the rest of the profession.
Sometimes, it is nothing more than hollow reasoning to justify bad behaviour towards others or opinions that are completely out of date. If ‘what has happened’ is something that could be fixed or in some way improved for others, please approach someone and talk about it, albeit in a constructive way. If ‘it’ happened more than a year or two ago, was on a larger scale or is not something anyone can remedy now, for your own sanity, the sake of others and the unity of the profession as a whole: move on, the rest of us did.