The second London demonstration against the MoJ’s framework agreement for interpreters and translation was on 16th April. A mini-flurry of texts just before I arrived at Petty France outside the Ministry of Justice heralded the arrival of another six Sign Language interpreters (SLIs), a Lip Speaker and a big squeaky horn.
We shouted along with the 400 or so other interpreters gathered for about an hour or so. We then moved along the street to Westminster outside the Houses of Parliament to shout some more, wave placards and pass around the squeaky horn. There was an impressive array of MPs who came to speak to us and offer support. Last time one, Andy Slaughter (a long time supporter of the abolition of this contract, and now seven MPs. Most reported that their constituents had been approaching them with worrying stories of miscommunication at hearings and trials.
A couple of us networked furiously letting people know there were Sign Language Interpreters in their midst and there were some of us who were also boycotting the contract. We all shared information about what we had seen and experienced whether we were employed to use sign or any number of spoken languages. Regardless, everyone had a terrible story to tell of interpreters with no CRB checks, use of Google Translate, the general erosion of standards. It is quite odd to find people you have been emailing, tweeting and facebooking, to eventually meet them face-to-face. Strange how gratifying it is to meet for the first time, to congratulate each other on the work we have been doing, to swap hugs and handshakes like you’ve known each other for years, united with the same belief that this contract is fundamentally wrong.
Amongst all the camaderie there was a definite low point. There was absolute shame when I found out the majority of lip speakers via the Association of Lip Speakers are refusing to work under the contract. There are apparently only a couple of lip speakers ruining the boycott for the rest and the Deaf people who use them. Were it a 100% refusal to work under the framework agreement it would certainly strengthen the case. That clearly goes for Sign Language Interpreters too. Were there to be a blanket ban by us all by not working in courts and the police authorities who have signed up, for something so detrimental to our communities the contract would never have lasted this long. Three months in and we are only just hearing the real effects of the contract for Deaf people and I am sure it is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Later, there was a meeting after the demo with lawyers supporting the ban which was attended mostly by spoken language interpreters and two SLIs regarding a Judicial Review. The two of us worked hard to network and dispel some myths about SLIs. Although this contract seems better for us, it really is only a matter of time until our terms and conditions are eroded further. I say further as it has already happened. A slippery slope does not take long to get down and the effects will be felt by more SLIs sooner rather than later.
More worryingly it is not our T&C’s we should be most concerned about but the inevitable erosion of standards. Reports I have been receiving over the last few weeks only add to the examples with the most surprising received today. I had been wondering how long I would maintain this blog. It seems I will have to be here a while yet, there is more to be told and there will definitely be more to come.
Ministry of Justice
There are 12 posts tagged Ministry of Justice (this is page 3 of 6).
How to save money on Court Interpreters: Don’t book them
We are approaching the end of April, the time at which the contract between ALS and the MoJ for provision of interpreting and translation is due to be reviewed. To mark this occasion the spoken language interpreters have organised another London demo.
Without monitoring information being made public we do not know the real effect of this framework agreement. In fact neither do ministers. A recent question in the House of Commons to the Attorney General highlighted this problem. When asked what the cost was of delays and adjournments due to late or non-attendance of interpreters the answer was the cost of collecting data would be disproportionate.
This lack of centralised data is, of course, why the contract was awarded and why savings are not materialising in the way they should have been. The figures the government have used were based on estimates and extrapolations. The result has been an unworkable agreement and a refusal by NRPSIs to work under the contract. Interpreters are being sent miles to work (the promise was interpreters would come from a 25 miles radius, the reality is up to a 564 round trip, 366 miles, you can find many more examples on LinguistLounge.org). And the personnel are not necessarily, also as promised, qualified interpreters either but anyone who says they can speak another language with speakers being sourced from the streets outside of court, pizza delivery boys and Google Translate being used in emergencies.
The more worrying trend is that due to this debacle courts have just given up trying to book an interpreter. An irony as the new system was supposed to make it all easier. A Sign Language Interpreter sent in this experience:
‘I attended a Crown Court the other day having been booked by the defence. I have already, last month, been to a family court where I was the only interpreter booked when there should have been four and had strong suspicions that there would be no court interpreter present.
On arriving in Crown Court I discovered quickly there were indeed no court interpreters and I was expected to interpret all consultations outside of court for the defence as well as the court proceedings. In my previous experience the court books interpreters and for a pre-sentencing hearing such as this a court interpreter can interpret consultations for defence too or there would be two interpreters present, especially for a difficult case such as the one I was there to do. After five hours of interpreting inside and outside of court the defendant was sentenced. The judge addressed the defence Barrister and thanked him for the use of his interpreter and explained to the court that since the new contract had come into force the court was finding it was nearly impossible to get an interpreter through this new system. The judge then thanked me for my hard work and left the court.’
With the three month review period approaching and a government who is only concerned about cutting costs it would not be surprising if the MoJ states how the new framework has saved them rather a lot of money:
– When interpreters are booked by Counsel, rather than by the courts, the cost is covered by Legal Aid. These are still funds from the public purse but as the costs will not show up under the framework agreement the MoJ will assume they are spending less.
– When court cases go ahead with Google Translate there is no cost to the public purse. But unlikely a fair and just result will occur.
– When speakers of other languages are dragged in off the street, are they paid? Probably not.
– When adjournments and delays occur there is great cost to the public purse. As these are not centrally recorded there will be only anecdotal and no statistical evidence. And, again, they will not be reflected as costs under the framework agreement.
– There are reports that the booking system which is supposed to provide a one-stop shop is not working and courts can barely get through to talk to someone. Oh and the call centres are in various parts of the world where they do not understand geographical distances. If courts can not use a system to book an interpreter the MoJ, again, saves money.
In reality this framework agreement maybe appearing to save the MoJ costs but this is unlikely to be the case. Instead of making interpreter bookings more efficient it has made more work for court staff, reduced efficiencies for court personnel including barristers and judges and has taken away good quality access by trained and registered interpreters in favour of a hodge-podge of workarounds when a qualified interpreter is not sourced. Which is more frequently than not. No, this framework agreement is surely saving the MoJ money. They are no longer booking Court Interpreters.