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.

MoJ Interpreting Contract: Parliamentary Questions Update

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.

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 30^th 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.

Interpreter Cost Cutting: A False Economy

In these times of fiscal belt tightening funds have to be cut. It’s a given. For statutory bodies it must be hard. So where does the funding get cut and how can they save money?

Cut the stationery budget. There will be fewer pens. Don’t provide sandwiches at meetings. Staff and visitors will feed themselves. Take away the water cooler. There’s a tap.

Say you’re a nurse or a doctor within an NHS trust. Or you are staff in a local authority, the police or the courts. How about trying the following options. What would happen if you did?

Don’t provide an interpreter:

We know the US has a more litigious culture. Here’s what happened there:

Failure to use an interpreter ended in a $71m malpractice lawsuit in the U.S where a Latino boy was suspected to be a drug user but actually had a brain aneurism. A late diagnosis left him a paraplegic.

£400k was awarded to a Deaf woman who was not afforded an American Sign Language Interpreter and could not understand the side effects of her Lupus medication.

Last year, a Sheriff was sued for keeping a Deaf man in custody for 25 days without an interpreter.

What about here in the UK?

In 2004, Mr Tran Quang Tung died at Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre. He hung himself. There was a continued lack of interpreters used by doctors and other members of staff even though they could have done due to systems that were in place.

In summary, a professional is breaking their own code of conduct if they cannot communicate with their patient or service user. Guesswork does not amount to being able to care, treat or diagnose them. Crossing your fingers will not work either. Primum non nocere is the benchmark of medical ethics: “First, do no harm”. If you are court staff, justice is unlikely to be achieved. Local authorities, you are not filing your statutory duty.

Use an unqualified or unregistered interpreter:

It is quicker and cheaper to get someone who you think can do the job but is not qualified or registered. Perhaps use someone’s spouse or another member of family?

In 2000, in an A&E department, the wife of a profoundly Deaf man, Sarwat Al-Assaf, was used to interpret questions to her husband such as do you have thoughts of harming your wife or children? Mr Al-Assaf was suffering from severe mental illness. He later went on to kill his wife’s new partner.

Perhaps you get someone who says they have some sign language qualifications or in the case of a spoken language get in, say, the Polish-speaking porter.

One interpreter points out that “The English translation for the word ‘hit’ in Punjabi and Hindi is ‘maar’, but it also means ‘to kill’,” she explains. “So if I’m in court I have to ask the person: are you saying ‘I’m gonna hit you’, or ‘I’m gonna kill you’?” You don’t want to mess around with that distinction, whether it’s in court, for the local authority or a medical appointment.

Every registered interpreter has a tale of how there was an ‘interpreter’ booked but they got called in a week later to sort out the mess, usually to find out that the ‘interpreter’ was someone unregistered who took the payment because they could. It is obvious that in these cases, the service provider has to pay out more. Like getting in a cowboy builder, it ends up costing twice as much to get the mess sorted out afterwards.

It is illegal to employ an unregistered nurse or doctor who will not have to adhere to a Code of Ethics. It is not yet illegal for an unregistered ‘interpreter’ to work as one. Still, it stands to reason that if you use someone who is untrained and unregistered there is no legal recourse when it all backfires as it did in the cases above.

Commission an agency to do it for you:

Perhaps you are an NHS trust, a council or the MoJ and your commissioners are responsible for purchasing interpreting provision. In times of financial austerity, commissioners of services generally tend to care more about costs than quality. In that case, allow them to award an agency a contract or framework agreement with built in standards to ensure quality but ultimately, said agency will not follow them. The agency can not, as it is too costly to get in the appropriate practitioners, i.e. registered interpreters. In order to win the contract, they had to go in too low. The unit costs, if too cheap, can not add up to someone who does the job right and in a professional manner.

So what do you end up with? See the first two options. Rather than not providing the interpreter or getting in someone who is untrained and unregistered, the agency will be doing that instead. You’ll still be paying for it anyway. Freedom of Information requests show agencies are charging the cost of a registered interpreter but not necessarily providing one.

Not much of a cost saving then. Unless the commissioner chose a reputable agency. They normally charge more though so the likelihood is the statutory organisation or commissioner did not make that choice.

The Solution:

Pay for a trained and registered interpreter to:

Avoid – malpractice, misdiagnosis, wasted time, wasted cost orders, being sued and the distress of those to whom you are supposed to be providing a service.

Ensure – you are abiding by the code of ethics of your profession, you are providing the service you are supposed to, you are getting value for money, and you are able to complain or simply to trust that the proper communication is taking place.

How to save money:

Book and pay for a trained and registered interpreter.

How to check if an interpreter, from an agency or one that is booked direct, is registered:

Check the interpreter’s name against the lists held by NRPSI (spoken languages) or NRCPD (sign language). On their arrival ask to see their ID card.

These registers have been in existence for a while for good reason. Avoid the cowboy, avoid the lawsuit, avoid paying out twice.

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.