Justice CommitteeWritten evidence from EULITA (European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association)

Introduction

EULITA (European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association) was founded under an EU Criminal Justice Programme project and has been representing the interests of interpreters and translators working at courts and other judicial settings since its inception in 2009. In the UK, APCI (Association of Police and Court Interpreters) and ITI (Institute of Translation and Interpreting) are full members of EULITA (European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association), and CIoL (Chartered Institute of Linguists) is an associate member of EULITA. Since October 2010 EULITA has followed developments concerning the Framework Agreement in the UK and expressed its opinion at various stages of the process. EULITA therefore wishes to respond to the Justice Committee’s call for evidence in order to support the position of its UK members in connection with the inquiry.

The comments below especially address one specific area that the Justice Committee is seeking to explore:

1. The rationale for changing arrangements for the provision of interpreter services

1.1 In a letter to Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke dated 19 October 2010 (with a copy inter alia to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Crispin Blunt) EULITA expressed its concerns over the UK’s outsourcing plans, referred to the EU Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (EU Directive 2010/64/EU) and warned against premature steps to change the existing system of providing interpreting services to the judicial system. The reply by Richard Mason, Head of Better Trials Unit, of 13 December 2010 stated inter alia that “… the justice system in England and Wales needs high quality interpreters and translators—it is in no-one’s interest to deter highly qualified and experienced people from this role. But we also need more efficient and effective provision of these services. We believe that outsourcing can deliver the service we require.”

1.2 In a letter to the Better Trials Unit dated 03 May 2011 EULITA commented on a paper by the aforementioned Unit dated 30 March 2011 entitled “Reforming the provision of interpretation and translation services”. EULITA’s comments referred again to the EU Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (2010/64/EU) and expressed its concerns that the UK Government’s plans for reforming the provision of interpretation and translation services across the justice sector would not serve the objectives of the EU Directive, as expressed inter alia in

Articles 2 and 3 (quality of interpreting and translation services sufficient to safeguard the fairness of proceedings),

Article 5 (concrete steps by EU member states to ensure the quality of these services), and

Article 5 (endeavours to establish a register or registers of independent translators and interpreters who are appropriately qualified).

There was no reaction or follow-up on the part of the Better Trials Unit or any other UK judicial authority or MoJ entity.

1.3 On 26 July 2011 EULITA commented on information by Martin Jones, Deputy Director for Crime (Crown), Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service dated 6 July 2011 about a Written Ministerial Statement of 5 July concerning “the new delivery model” for the provision of interpretation and translation services. EULITA especially expressed doubts

about the savings which the Framework Agreement was to achieve,

about the effectiveness of outsourcing the provision of interpreting and translation services to one large company, and

about the quality of the services that would be obtained with the outsourcing agreement.

On that occasion, EULITA invited representatives of the UK Ministry of Justice to the first TRAFUT (Training for the Future) workshop in Ljubljana, Slovenia, in November 2011, organized with EU funding, on the steps to be taken by EU member states for the transposition of the EU Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (2010/64/EU). Regrettably, there was no response to this invitation and no representative of any UK judicial authority attended the workshop. (A report about the workshop can be supplied on request.)

1.4 On 15 April 2012 EULITA wrote to Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Crispin Blunt deploring the situation that had emerged since the entry into force of the Framework Agreement, suggesting consultations with the UK professional associations of legal interpreters and translators in order to find a solution to the service-provision problems, and expressing the hope that the steps that the UK Ministry of Justice was taking in the course of implementing the EU Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings would withstand any challenges under Article 8 of the EU Directive (2010/64/EU). No response has been received to date.

(Copies of the correspondence can be provided on request.)

Executive Summary

In EULITA’s opinion the only rationale for changing the arrangements for the provision of interpreter services was to cut the costs of these services. It would have been sensible to involve the service providers, ie the representatives of the legal interpreting and translating professions, in the reform plans and to engage in an in-depth analysis of the UK service provision regime. A constructive dialogue, which EULITA and EULITA’s UK members have repeatedly offered to engage in, would certainly have led to arrangements that would have been in the interest of all parties concerned and would have been in compliance with the EU Directive on the right to interpretation and translation, which the UK needs to transpose before October 2013. Steps to rectify the current service provision situation are urgently called for, so as to avoid any risk of being in violation of Article 8 of the EU Directive1). After all, the European Court of Justice has issued clear rulings that an EU Directive takes precedence over local law upon publication of a Directive in the EU Journal.

EULITA will not comment on the other areas that the Justice Committee is seeking to explore as the information available to EULITA in these matters is derived from secondary sources and will certainly be submitted in a more appropriate form by the UK’s professional associations of legal interpreters and translators.

August 2012