Legal interpreting

Mr Ellis said Mr Grayling agreed to look into the matter.

He said: “Mr Grayling was concerned and said he would be looking into it and would take appropriate action in due course.”

Adjourning the hearing for two months, Mr Justice Flaux said: “I will be asking for a written explanation to explain what had happened. It is a complete disgrace.”

It takes more than having two hands to be a good pianist.
It takes more than knowing two languages to be a good translator or interpreter.

 

Courts say they are now having to bypass the system “more than 50 per cent of the time” as interpreters either fail to turn up, or are not qualified to do the job if they do arrive.

Instead courts are having to raid emergency coffers and revert to the old system of directly sourcing translators.

The campaign group Professional Interpreters for Justice has revealed that Capita is providing only 48 per cent of the interpreters required by courts.

"John Cummins, secretary of the East Anglian branch of NAPO, said he was concerned privatisation of the probation service could prove as disastrous as the decision to outsource the contract for court interpreters.
After the new service began last year there were stories across the country of interpreters not turning up for court cases, not being able to translate properly and defendants spending more time in custody on remand as they were unable to apply for bail."

Mr Turner warned: “[This contract] is wrecking the system and screw-ups are now endemic. It is a con on the taxpayer and a con on the victims of crime.” He added that when Capita’s interpreters do turn up in court, they often can’t speak English or do not speak the language that is required.

"People only look at interpreting as a cost but we save money because our purpose is to enable communication,"

Capita said in a statement: “In the past, interpreters were paid for travel time and travel expenses, which were then passed on to the [court service].”

“This is no longer the case.”

“Additional costs for travel time and travel expense are not being passed on, and will not be paid for by public authorities.”

Buckingham said: “There is great unhappiness at the removal of the payment of tickets for public transport.” The bid for the contract to supply translation services for courts “was unfeasibly low in the first place,” he added.

The discontent is part of wider unrest over government reforms to the justice system. Lawyers are gearing up to protest about a shake-up to legal aid by staging “strikes” nationwide that threaten chaos in courts in England and Wales.

The next chapter in this story will surely be that no-one will work for Capita at the proposed rates. £16 – £22 per hour for a court job, with many being classed at the £16 per hour level – if someone paid out more than they were allowed to claim and travelled far to attend a job, Capita’s so-called linguists would be working for less than the minimum wage. The MoJ surely could not expect professionals for those prices and professionals it does not get. The courts have seen a parade of second-jobbers standing in for professional interpreters including hotel staff walking out of courtsbefore hearings are finished to get back to their real jobs, reports of mis-interpretationsabound and ‘linguists’ who do not speak their stated languages.

The high court judge, Mr Justice Julian Flaux, hit out at the outsourcing company providing the interpreters, Capita, labelling them “an absolute disgrace”.

He said the firm indicated it was not worth sending one as they “would not make enough money” from the hearing.

Mr Ellis said: “In my view this is an outrage and a disgrace. That will have cost the public purse very large sums for the aborted hearing.

“It is something I am prepared to raise with the Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling. I think he will want to hear about it.

“The court interpreting system is out of control. The representations from solicitors about the cost of the interpreting service, coupled with this, very strongly outlines the need for urgent reform.

“There should be an inquiry about this.”

The ‘cost effectiveness’ argument for outsourcing assumes that a private ‘specialist’ can deliver a more efficient service than the public sector.  Or, as some in the trade might put it, deliver more for less.  The fact is that in most cases, while the bidding stage presents a short term saving, the longer term picture is quite the opposite.  But why is this?

Firstly, the profit motive.  The corporation is out to make a profit from the service they provide, unlike the public sector provider.  This means that all things being equal, the private provider will cost more.

Secondly, in the quest to make substantial reductions in costs, the brunt is most often met in the terms and conditions of the workforce.  Low pay, reduced job security, and fewer jobs might reduce the costs of the service, but ultimately create another bill for the government to pick up down the line.

Reading Crown Court has 2 sign-in books, one for Capita linguists and the other for NRPSI interpreters. A quick look in both books shows that for the month of April 2013 alone, the number of NRPSI members rescuing the courts here was very, very significant. The court staff who rang to book me in ADVANCE seemed to be extremely weary of Capita so has chosen the sure, safe old way of booking interpreters directly.

Legal and court interpreters aim to reverse outsourcing to commercial agencies, assure proper working conditions and gain statutory regulation of their profession.