We’ve heard lots of opinion recently about the court interpreting contract fiasco, from all sides – here’s what we think. In our opinion, the court interpreting contract between the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Applied Language Solutions (ALS) was doomed to fail from the start. But this does not mean that the motivation behind the contract agreement was wrong, or that it cannot be salvaged. Echoing the comments of Labour justice spokesman Andy Slaughter last week, we are baffled that the contract was even awarded after the displays of vehement opposition from the interpreting community towards pilot schemes that took place last year. Without the backing of the Professional Interpreters Alliance (PIA) and its members, ALS did not stand a chance of meeting the contract requirements as the selection of qualified, experienced interpreters to choose from has been severely depleted. We’ve heard stories of interpreters being used in court that haven’t even been assessed or vetted, and interpreters turning up late to tribunal hearings or not even turning up at all. This is all obviously very worrying, but we should maintain some sympathy for ALS. The benefits of outsourcing interpreting services was, and still is, there for all to see: automatic allocations, consecutive assignments, a single pricing matrix and one point of contact. But did interpreters get a fair deal in terms of pay and protection of their industry? Absolutely not. In the current economic climate, nobody can argue that savings of £60m over five years isn’t an inherently good thing. However, questions must be asked immediately of both the MoJ and ALS before the contract turns into an expensive mess that the taxpayer will be forced to clean up after. Transcription Global feel the only option on the table is for both sides to enter into serious dialogue and essentially dissolve the current framework, looking to design a solution that balances quality against cost. By using a single supplier service, you eradicate competition for payment to qualified interpreters. Capitalism between suppliers can reduce expenditure yet maintain high standards of pay for qualified personnel. We want to hear your opinion.
Phil Muriel February 23, 2012 With reference to your comment: “The benefits of outsourcing interpreting services was, and still is, there for all to see: automatic allocations, consecutive assignments, a single pricing matrix and one point of contact.” – those benefits are a myth as proven by the last 3 weeks: it doesn’t and cannot work! It was only ALS’s sales pitch! “Consecutive assignments” – that’s a joke! Whoever thought of that concept hasn’t worked in the Courts… It remains that the most objectionable part of all this is the MoJ’s attitude towards DPSI qualified interpreters – i.e. not recognising us as skilled professionals but treating us like dirt as does ALS. The DPSI is a degree level (level 7) diploma that represents the ONLY guarantee that an interpreter has been tested at the highest level, knows and constantly updates his/her specialised legal vocabulary and therefore can reliably interpret what is said in Court. Reply
Administrator February 23, 2012 Thanks for your comment Phil. As a business, we can see where ALS where trying to go with their outsourcing model, but as I also state at the end of my post, their model has categorically failed and should be torn up. Do you think it’s a case of the MoJ attempting to fix something that wasn’t broken? Reply
Neil McCafferty February 23, 2012 Good question raised here.. it can’t be saved, it’s such a wreck. What I would say is that wholesale outsourcing with ‘a single point of contact with a single price matrix’ just does not work in this area. This contract tries to use the most inappropriate and flawed job matching system I have ever seen. In some cases you can bring in a little bit of automation, but not like this. Of course, it helps if the company had the capacity, which it doesn’t and never will have. The previous system actually worked and worked well. There were some silly practices, but they can easily be dealt with. Rather than bringing in an agency overhead, the courts could have looked at Cambridgeshire Police, who cut their interpreting bill by simply being smart about how they run the service in house. There already was a ‘single pricing matrix’ in the form of the National Agreement, which set very reasonable rates and conditions. Applied Language Solutions have brought nothing to the table apart from a case study of how not to run a public contract, how not to behave with skilled professionals and how to over-promise and under-deliver. It looks great on PowerPoint presentations but now we see the reality. Agencies/outsourcing are not the answer. In my experience wholesale outsourcing on this scale only leads to a serious drop in quality and an increase in costs to the customer, which is what is happening here. The answer to this will come from the interpreting profession, and there are some great solutions out there without the words applied language. Reply
Administrator February 23, 2012 Hi Neil, thank you for commenting. One question that keeps cropping up for me is, why did the MoJ even attempt to change a system that I’m now certain was perfectly fine to begin with? Also, it’s clear that one company could never hold the capacity to maintain such a large and demanding contract, so do you think the MoJ should have tendered for more than one supplier? Reply
Tomas February 23, 2012 It is strange that professional interpreters are treated so disrespectfully. You don’t treat Doctors, Solicitors, Engineers and other specialists that way. Let’s not forget that you could obtain most of the qualifications within 5-7 years, but in order to learn another language to such extent in order to become an interpreter you will have to spend decades. Reply
Administrator February 23, 2012 Very good point Tomas. Unfortunately, devaluing language services seems to be a commond trend in modern, supposedly ‘multicultural’ Britain, as can be seen with the recent report on translation costs in the NHS. It’s a constant struggle to remind individuals, businesses and industry that translation and interpreting are vital services, and like you and many others have said already, the professionals providing these services should be treated with alot more respect. Reply
Mariana Bell February 23, 2012 Consecutive assignments are, on the whole, unworkable in Courts mainly because nobody can predict the length of a hearing or what turn a hearing can take (emergency PSR, problems with relatives,solicitor availability, other cases taking more time then expected, lengthy consultations in cells, etc) Making a court wait for an interpreter from another court (some agencies do not even seem to be aware that any court will have many hearing courts!) to become available will waste court time, which is far more expensive then the £100, the average total cost for another interpreter to be available. Reply
Administrator February 24, 2012 Thanks for the comment Mariana. Do you think the MoJ should just tear up the contract and revert to the previous system? Reply
Administrator February 27, 2012 In case you haven’t seen it already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXqqOEctG6w&feature=youtube_gdata_player Reply
Anon March 08, 2012 On Friday last week I was unable to represent a client at court due to ALS not providing anInterpreter to cover that hearing, on Monday 05/03/12 the court awarded me the costs I incurred as a result of waiting and travelling at professional rates, on a non effective today I have informed the Law Society in a detailed letter and will in due course forward it to The Independant as to my views of the whole situation, some people in high places will have some serious explaining to do for themselves, as this contract was put in place to save £60 million pound over 5 years but if it left in place will cost nigh on a billion pounds of tax payers money. Reply
Administrator March 28, 2012 Hi there, thanks for your comment. I’m disappointed to hear that you were unable to represent your client at court due to ALS’s failings, and I’m sure you must be very angry. Would you like to send the letter to us as well? You can email it to info@languageinsight.com, or by all means send us your views in an open letter and we will gladly publish it. Reply
Mariana Bell March 11, 2012 We are already outsourced as we are all small businesses. Appointing a middleman, whose role is mainly to cream off interpreters’ earnings, will create about 3 millionaires and some 2000 paupers without any real economy or value for taxpayers. This is one of the reasons why the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. To boot, the selection of such a dodgy outfit, led by some crass wide boy, raises serious questions about the integrity of the whole process. Mariana Bell Reply
Administrator March 28, 2012 Hi Mariana, thanks for offering your views. I don’t necessarily agree that all outsourcing agencies are detrimental to the interests of interpreters. I do believe that it is possible for organisations to outsource interpreting services and still maintain top rates for interpreters. However, you are right that the way ALS have gone about things is completely wrong. Reply
Stranger March 12, 2012 There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that there has been corruption on the scale of a third world country and I hope it will come out soon. Reply
Lance March 21, 2012 The no-cost bit is interesting, patricularly given the high cost of health care in the US. I wonder if that’s just for emergency cases. It’s no-cost here most places, too although we do know that private health-care providers often on-charge interpreter fees. Reply
