MoJ

There are 28 posts tagged MoJ (this is page 13 of 14).

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.

Self Regulation in the Interpreting Profession

The trend of awarding interpreter provision contracts or framework agreements to the cheapest bidder has brought to mind the topic of self regulation.
Professions can be self regulated or by government. Interpreters are neither protected nor regulated by legislation, which leaves us regulated only by ourselves.
We have the NRCPD but it should not stop there. Self regulation comes in many guises and does not and should not stop at the yellow badge for many reasons.
Before interpreting became so focussed on business and profits, we were the preserve of the Deaf community.
We were cherry picked to be interpreters as Deaf people recognised the special heady mix of potential from the right attitude to ones ability to sign. Researchers have tried to pin point and formally record what this mix of attributes are. Interestingly, Deaf people rated different attributes higher than the ones interpreters did. Deaf people now have interpreters who are self selected and those who are not necessarily right for the job.
Along came BSL qualifications and the mainstream NVQ. With less Deaf people being used to teach interpreters and the focus on profit for course providers, people were encouraged to train regardless of aptitude. Quite often students of interpreting have been on training courses without this input from Deaf tutors leaving gaps in many interpreters’ skills.
I had a memorable conversation with someone after a booking where she broke down in tears. She had spent £6,000 on training and had finally realised after repeating many qualifications that she didn’t have the right mix of skills or the aptitude for sign language. Through her tears she asked why no-one had ever told her.
Another element of self regulation is that it engenders trust from the community and the clients we serve. The better our self regulation and abilities as individuals to allow for that to happen the more able we are to be trusted, to work with others and to gain the recognition we deserve.
If you are not yet convinced of the need for more self regulation, ask yourself the following:
How many newly qualified interpreters have you experienced gaining their full registration status and on the back of that fling themselves headlong into a booking they are not neccessarily ready for with the bravado of someone who has finished their long training? N.B training never finishes.
How many interpreters have you heard say, ‘I think I’ll do legal work now’? The thought of a court or tribunal booking, where accuracy is vital, more so than in any other booking, should send fear into the hearts of anyone not registered and fully qualified for at least five years. Sadly it no longer does. Do not take on assignments for the status and privilege of doing them, or because the agency wants you to do it, but because you are safe and experienced enough to do them. Tribunals where a panel may decide to keep someone under a section or a court case where someone’s child may be taken into care is not the place for you to practice your skills but where someone fully competent and experienced should be working.
How many interpreters have you seen, even though they have been working for a few years, refuse to engage in meaningful CPD activities? Throwing money at training courses excluded, try videoing yourself and critiquing the clip. With the sound off.
Have you worked with an interpreter who is not self-reflective? Either whilst working or one who is unable to have those open conversations and exchange feedback afterwards.
So how do we further our own self regulation? The obvious is compulsory CPD but as we, as a profession have voted that in and rightfully pushed it onto the NRCPD agenda, I shall leave that as a given. Additionally our other responsibilities should be to:
1) Seek feedback from clients and each other.
2) Debrief after assignments and discuss how we can make improvements.
3) Do not accept work until you are ready and safe to do so with the appropriate experience, skill set and support in place.
4) Do not assume you are safe and ready because you think so, the agency offered you the job or you have convinced yourself but by checking with mentors, peers, clients and friends.
5) Engage the services of a mentor should you want to enter a new domain of experience and ask them to tell you if you are ready for a particular assignment.
6) Complain. Or rather talk to each other if problems occur in bookings, if you can not resolve them submit a complaint to the NRCPD. We are still reluctant to do this to our peers but should an inrerpreter not practice in a safe way, complain we must.
6) Learn what it is to co-interpret properly. This does not mean interpreting for 20 minute stretches each but watching each other for mistakes, correcting them or offering support. Especially inside a courtroom.
Without extra certification in place for interpreters who want to work in legal and mental health settings the above ways of working become even more important.
Ultimately, if we are too fearful or defensive about having these conversations about our own work as practitioners and are unwilling to engage in more self regulation there is usually a reason. It can be an indication that an interpreter is either fearful of what they might be told or understand on some level that what they are doing is wrong or worse, unsafe.