You may not have noticed but there were some elections last week. The Conservatives have brought in Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to replace Police Authorities. PCCs are publicly elected to hold Chief Constables to account and the new PCCs were elected in 41 areas, 37 in England and 4 in Wales. No PCCs were elected in Scotland, Northern Ireland and London due to different governing procedures.
In an initiative supposedly brought in to increase local democracy, £100 million was spent yet the turnout was as low as 1 in 10 in some areas. At one polling station in Newport, Wales, there were no voters.
Why is this important for interpreting? Although the main aim of PCCs will be to reduce crime they will also be attempting to reduce ‘waste’, the catch-all Conservative term for spending. ‘Waste’ will inevitably include interpreting and translation. Any police force who has managed to escape the disastrous Ministry of Justice contract, a system that is more inefficient and wasteful than the previous, may not last much longer. Another criticism is that PCCs will politicise police forces. In Hertfordshire, Conservative candidate, David Lloyd won and was the only candidate to support outsourcing. The rest held a much more sensible view.
If Chief Constables were under extreme pressure before, that may have just got a whole lot worse. We may now see even more parts of police forces outsourced and auctioned off to the lowest bidder. David Cameron stated that the “turnout was always going to be low, when you’re electing a new post for the first time…” That is not a legitimate reason when in an election understood and supported by voters the turn out would have been higher. The media has called into question whether these posts are therefore even legitimate.
If you want to dispute the elections write to the party leaders online and write to your new PCC and explain why interpreting should not be outsourced causing a further privatisation of our police forces and putting users of interpreting services at risk.
police
There are 2 posts tagged police (this is page 1 of 1).
Police Procurement: Obtaining Less Value for Money for Interpreting Services
The deadline for the Home Office consultation is today. It is entitled Obtaining Better Value for Money from Police Procurement. This is the second consultation following on from the first which closed in September 2010. I did not necessarily have the knowledge I needed to fill out a consultation of this kind 18 months ago. I suspect many interpreters feel the same about this consultation. I suspect some interpreting agencies are too busy to consider responding to a consultation about the police when the tendering process for the framework agreement has long passed. And they may be trying to work out how to stay in business or whether to bother going for a NHS tender with a ridiculous unit cost per hour for interpreting services.
The consulation summary states that it will only be of interest to police authorities, unions and staff and businesses who contract to the police so has not been widely publicised. That sums up the attitude for me of a government ‘consultation’. It has become a byword for lip service, for pretending to listen, for ignoring the results whether it has been held locally or nationally.
Back to the consultation. There is already a framework agreement, there has already been pressure for police authorities to sign up to the agreement and many already have. The danger we have here is the consultation is about updating legislation. The proposed amendments to Regulations under Sections 53 (equipment) and Regulations under Section 57 (services) of the Police Act 1996 that would require specified equipment and services to be provided for police purposes through the use of specified framework agreements.
Translation and interpreters come under updates to the services part of the act. Other services include: some utilities, customer surveys, certain training services and certain consultancy services. Nothing else is so specialised as interpreting and no other involves ignoring other pieces of legislation namely: The Equality Act 2010, Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and EU directive 2010/64/EU 2010 on the right to interpretation in criminal proceedings. These laws state registered interpreters should be used, that no delays in provision should occur and interpreters should be of a sufficient quality or they must be replaced.
I have entered this legal argument into my consultation response alongside the explanation that this framework agreement does not obtain better value for money but rather reduces it. We have seen adjournments and delays in the courts and at tribunals. This is hardly going to improve no matter what precautions are put in place. It is an unsustainable contract and that is the simple fact of the matter.
Even though there is a perception that court work is the most important of all types of interpreting it is a myth. Interpreting at a police station is far more important. It has been drummed into me that ‘it all happens at the police station’. Having now done a smattering of police jobs and a lot of court work (before I started my boycott) I understand why the police station is far more important. It is where it all starts. It is where evidence is collected. It is where for cases it is make or break. If the interpreter makes mistakes at the police interview, whether this is for victim or suspect, it can mean abandoned court cases and expert witnesses being employed – do you really want another interpreter scrutinising your work and potentially having to agree in court that your work has been sub-standard.
Interpreting for the police can be the most important work you will ever do as an interpreter and where it has to be the most accurate. The proposed amendments to legislation means that the police have to use an agency which has not provided quality interpreters in courts and quite regularly does not manage to source one at all.
This is going to mean even more wasted public money. No, the Police Act 1996 should not be amended to regulate that police authorities should procure interpreting services. There is plenty of good practice and money savings initiatives by the forces who have resisted pressure to go over to the framework agreement, namely the London Met and Cambridgeshire Police forces.
What we need are best practice models, initiatives involving local interpreters, liaison with existing regulators – NRPSI and NRCPD. We need a way to future proof this profession and uphold standards in the face of a government who wishes to procure everything including specialist services to the now proven non-specialists and in the process waste millions of public money.