Justice CommitteeWritten evidence from Involvis Ltd
Executive Summary
The Ministry of Justice’s Framework Agreement contract for the provision of public service interpreting came into effect on 30 January 2012. This report provides the results of a UK-wide online survey (conducted between 1 August–26 August 2012) designed to elicit the opinions and experiences of interpreters working under this Framework Agreement as well as those who refuse to register with the chosen Contractor, Applied Language Solutions (ALS).
The findings shed light upon the ways in which the contract has been breached by ALS and of the abysmal administration of the Framework Agreement itself. It has also confirmed anecdotal evidence of unqualified, un-vetted, and inexperienced persons being sent to court to interpret by ALS, in a bid to fulfil bookings by any means possible.
Applied Language Solutions (ALS) has been widely criticised by courts, the judiciary, solicitors and the media with recent comments from the Judiciary including the following:
Judge Toby Hooper QC, Worcester Crown Court:
“The absence of an interpreter was becoming a serious problem in the Worcester and Hereford courts and was an impediment to the administration of justice.” (Worcester News, 6 March 12)
Judge Ticehurst, Bristol Crown Court:
“Since ALS took over the contract, the courts have been plagued by a failure of interpreters to turn up, and not be as good at English as they should be.” (This is Bristol, 27 August 12)
Judge Robert Bartfield, Leeds Crown Court:
“The cost of this now aborted trial is likely to run into thousands of pounds. The attempt to show a saving of a few pounds has led to an entire hearing going up in smoke.” (Private Eye, 22 March 12)
In addition to unprecedented press coverage of chaos in courts up and down the country (see Appendix A), the problematic Framework Agreement has also been heavily debated in the House of Lords (9 July 2012) with Baroness Butler-Sloss asking:
“Is the Minister aware of the extent of disruption and delay to criminal trials as a result of the serious inadequacies in court interpreting? Not only does it lead to considerable cost but concerns have been raised by judges across the country.”
When presented with statistics from ALS regarding the language services provided, Baroness Jean Coussins said:
“these figures come without any independent verification or audit and tell a very different story from the complaints we hear daily from judges and others about the failure to supply interpreters, or the sending of unqualified people with no experience of simultaneous interpreting and some people who were simply incompetent—in one case not understanding the difference between murder and manslaughter”.
In the same debate, Lord Harrison asked:
“Has the Minister revised the original estimate of a £12 million saving as a result of implementing the framework agreement because of all these additional costs? Have we not arrived at a situation that is no longer just succumbing to teething problems but is wholly poorly structured in the first place?”
965 interpreters responded to the online survey; 84.9% (818) of whom are registered with the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) and 11% (106) of whom are registered with Applied Language Solutions (ALS).
Key Findings
95.7% of NRPSI interpreters refuse to register with Applied Language Solutions, representing a significant loss of highly qualified, experienced interpreters from the sector.
The most common reason for refusing to register with ALS was due to the agency lowering the standards of professional interpreting (95.1%), closely followed by the low hourly attendance rate (90.9%) and the lack of quality assurance/poor assessment process (85.1%).
79.8% of NRPSI’s continue to receive direct calls from courts wishing to book an interpreter, highlighting the inability of ALS to supply.
Despite the persistent direct calls from courts, 61.4% of all respondents continue to turn down these requests with just 18.1% of interpreters accepting bookings outside of the Framework Agreement.
Almost a third of interpreters (30.3%) currently registered with Applied Language Solutions (ALS) are not currently accepting jobs.
27.5% of those currently registered with ALS stated that whilst they did some work for the company, they have since ceased accepting jobs.
42.1% of ALS interpreters were not required to undergo the mandatory assessment.
Furthermore, 86.8% of ALS interpreters stated that they had been offered work despite not having undertaken the required assessment.
Just over a quarter of respondents (25.3%) stated that while they were registered with ALS, they had not been asked to undergo vetting/CRB checks.
90.3% (28) of ALS interpreters stated that they were still offered bookings for legal interpreting despite not having been vetted/CRB checked.
JSC Terms of Reference
The key terms of reference this document seeks to address are:
5. The steps that have been taken to rectify under-performance and the extent to which they have been effective,
and
6. The appropriateness of arrangements for monitoring the management of the contract, including the quality and cost-effectiveness of the service delivered.
5. The steps that have been taken to rectify under-performance and the extent to which they have been effective
5.1 Applied Language Solutions (ALS) have not only proved incapable of fulfilling requests for interpreters but also of rectifying their under-performance.
Courts and solicitors have been bypassing the Framework Agreement and have resorted to making direct calls to NRPSIs, as evidenced in the responses to Q.7 of the survey:
Q7. Since the Framework Agreement came into effect, have you been contacted directly by courts attempting to book an interpreter?
75.5% (639) of all respondents stated that they have been called directly by courts wishing to book an interpreter:
Since the Framework Agreement came into effect, have you been contacted directly by courts attempting to book an interpreter? |
||
Answer |
Percent |
Count |
Yes |
75.5% |
639 |
No |
24.5% |
207 |
5.2 This bypassing of the FWA has not been particularly effective, as evidenced by the responses to Q.8 of the survey:
Q.8 Are you accepting these bookings made through direct calls?
Despite the persistent direct calls from courts, 59.8% (389) of all NRPSI respondents continue to turn down these requests with just 18% of professional interpreters accepting bookings outside of the Framework Agreement:
Are you accepting these bookings made through direct calls? |
||
Answer |
Percent |
Count |
Yes |
18.0% |
117 |
No |
59.8% |
389 |
Sometimes |
22.2% |
144 |
5.3 Attempts by ALS to rectify their underperformance have resulted in several breaches of the Contract, most notably the requirement for all interpreters to be appropriately assessed and vetted.
86.8% (33) of ALS interpreters stated that they had been offered work despite not having undertaken the required assessment, as evidenced by responses to Q.15:
Q.15 If you have not undergone the ALS assessment process, have you been offered bookings for legal interpreting by ALS?
If you have not undergone the ALS assessment process, have you been offered bookings for legal interpreting by ALS? |
||
Answer |
Percent |
Count |
Yes |
86.8% |
33 |
No |
13.2% |
5 |
This is in direct conflict with the Framework Agreement which states that all interpreters must have a pass at the assessment centre to the relevant Tier to which they have been allocated, see Appendix A, page 106 of Ministry of Justice and Applied Language Solutions Agreement relating to Language Services (dated 19 August 2011).
5.4 In addition to this, ALS’ attempts to fulfil bookings have led to a large number of interpreters being sent to court without undergoing security vetting or CRB checks, as evidenced by responses to Q16 and Q17:
Q.16 Have you been required by ALS to undergo vetting/CRB checks?
Just over a quarter of respondents (25.3%) stated that while they were registered with ALS, they had not been asked to undergo vetting/CRB checks.
Have you been required by ALS to undergo vetting/CRB checks? |
||
Answer |
Percent |
Count |
No |
25.3% |
19 |
Yes |
74.7% |
56 |
Q.17 If you have not undergone vetting/CRB checks have you been offered bookings by ALS?
Furthermore, 90.3% (28) of ALS interpreters stated that they were still offered bookings for legal interpreting despite not having been vetted/CRB checked:
If you have not undergone vetting/CRB checks have you been offered bookings by ALS? |
||
Answer |
Percent |
Count |
Yes |
90.3% |
28 |
No |
9.7% |
3 |
Again, this is in direct conflict with the Agreement which states:
3.10 The Contractor shall comply with the Authority’s procedures for the vetting of Contractor’s Personnel in respect of all persons employed or engaged in the provision of the Services. The Contractor confirms that all persons employed or engaged by the Contractor have been vetted and recruited on a basis that is equivalent to and no less strict than the Contractors’ Personnel Vetting Procedures. (See p 25 (point 3.10) of the Agreement)
6. The appropriateness of arrangements for monitoring the management of the contract, including the quality and cost-effectiveness of the service delivered
6.1 The poor quality of the service delivered by ALS has been evidenced on numerous occasions and documented in a dossier published by Interpreters for Justice as well as in newspapers throughout the UK.
ALS registered interpreters have provided further evidence of the low standards of interpreting required by ALS in their responses to Q.14 of the survey:
Q.14 Have you undergone the ALS assessment process? (please share your experiences of this in the box provided and skip to question 16)
42.1% (32) of ALS registered interpreters had not even undergone the mandatory assessment process, required before being sent to courts for assignments:
Have you undergone the ALS assessment process? |
||
Answer |
Percent |
Count |
No |
42.1% |
32 |
Yes |
57.9% |
44 |
6.2 Comments left by those who did take part in the assessment process demonstrate the poor quality of assessment and its irrelevance to real-life court scenarios:
Descriptions of ALS Assessment Process (negative)
It was based on simultaneous one-way interpreting: this mode is not the usual working situation which means that the results are not applicable to the job that we are supposed to do.
Not reflecting real work conditions and tasks.
I took their professional tests to see what they were like. The one online was a shambles because the document I was supposed to translate was blank and was made available only in the last 15 minutes of the test. Although I completed the test I still have not heard the results six to seven months after.
The tests at their offices were worse. There were supposed to be two interpreting tests following videos played on the laptop. The first one would not play and I was told that they will send me a link so I could do it at home. I did the second one and I still haven’t had the results six to seven months later.
This was two 15 minutes verbal test only. This was more like a day to day conversation rather than having a strong legal component to it. Anyone with an average knowledge of English is able to pass it.
It was done by computer only. So the assessment was not for language skill only, but on how fast you can operate the computer program. I did not receive the results of my oral tests. Written assessment was not carried out.
Some of it was done on-line, ie the written test. This was sent to my home office computer so anyone could pass it if they had someone with them who had good language skills. The assessment at Aston University with ALS representatives watching bore no relation to what court interpreters actually do so was pointless and not a good judge of the language skills required in the actual job. I met people there who just could not do the test, but they still passed and are working as interpreters.
The process in itself and the evaluation in particular where thorough, however it seems that even if you fail you are accepted on their books albeit at a lesser level and that is the whole problem.
Extremely poor way of testing. The reader was so incompetent she could not read the words in Urdu or Punjabi. Totally illiterate reader. Computer system/recording broke down every minute. No records were kept for qualifications, no records checked, no ID checked or copies kept. No results have been disclosed to me. A complete shambles. It is a very, very, dishonest way to mislead the Courts that interpreters are qualified. Total lie, when assessments are not checked how do they know if interpreters have qualified or they are competent? No fairness is practised .Human Rights are being violated .There is no complaints procedure in place.
The assessment wasn’t of the same level as DPSI exam. The spoken part was pre-recorded. I am not certain whether it was prepared by professionals. I felt that the body language of one of the English speakers was actually quite threatening. The written assessment was carried out after receiving email while present at home; and it was just a case of personal integrity and honesty whether the interpreters undertook the assessment without any outside help.
Shambles
The written assessment was a straightforward witness statement. I do not think that the part of oral assessment where I was required to interpret from my mother tongue into English was translated very well. It felt like someone had just done literate translation of a text. I found the second part (interpreting from English into another language) slightly confusing. The topic was immigration and from the very beginning the immigration judge was talking about a Sikh. It took me a while to understand who she meant and it was only when she referred to Sikhs in Afghanistan. I speak Eastern European language and expected the topic to be more general and related to my tongue. However, the second part about articles of the Convention was probably applicable to any language. Generally do not think that this assignment assessed my skills better than DPSI exam.
A short test. Not sure what it has proved.
Interpreting consecutive and simultaneous through lap top and a microphone to record your interpreting, the worst type of assessment. The written assessment was done online at 6:00pm to translate witness statement in a specified time.
Assessment partially completed as (a) miscommunication on ALS’ part and (b) wrong variant of language on one of the oral tests.
Complete fiasco. They do it just to tick the T’s and I’s. No result of assessment was given to me. Complete nonsense.
The overall experience was positive in terms of the exercises completed although not so rigorous as the DPSI exam.
The assessment was fast. I did well but ALS put me in Tier 2.
Rubbish. Very unfair. Both oral and written assessment not carried out properly. I have heard of cheating in the written part. Result not given.
A joke
At University of Central Lancashire organised by other university—using equipment needed for assessment—unaware of the outcome.
I was given a test page by ALS for English into Urdu Translation for MoJ work. Despite many requests I was not provided with any feedback about the test but was told that the same is under review. Two months later on 09 Jan 2012 I noted at the assessment centre that my translated English-Urdu test was being used for the assessment of new Urdu Interpreters without giving me the feedback. I reported this to the Examiner who said that she will communicate it to the ALS. Noting happened after that.
The assessment wasn’t conducted in a professional way.
6.3 A large percentage of ALS respondents were sent on assignment without having been notified of their results (and therefore allocated an appropriate Tier as required by the Framework Agreement), clearly demonstrating that the quality of interpreting was not being monitored or ensured:
86.8% (33) stated that they had been offered work despite not having undertaken the required assessment:
Q. 15. If you have not undergone the ALS assessment process, have you been offered bookings for legal interpreting by ALS? |
||
Answer |
Percent |
Count |
Yes |
86.8% |
33 |
No |
13.2% |
5 |
September 2012
APPENDIX A
The Contract with Applied Language Solutions (ALS) and the abysmal administration of the Framework Agreement has resulted in unprecedented press coverage. Press articles of note are listed below:
Bristol Post, 27 August 2012 Judge criticises interpreter firm for trial delays
Huffington Post, 26 August 2012 Cost Cuts “Pressure Court Services”, According To Union
Express.co.uk, 26 August 2012 Justice in the dock as cuts unleash chaos
Channel 4 News, 22 August 2012 Who really runs the public sector?
Oldham Evening Chronicle, 11 August 2012 Translate in court? Me? Ow?
Financial Times, 10 August 2012 Claws out for pet hates
BBC News, 9 August 2012 Court interpreter checks “non-existent”
The Guardian, 5 August 2012 Interpreters in courts: lost in translation
Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 2 August 2012 Anger after interpreter problems delay hearing
Ipswich Star, 1 August 2012 Suffolk: Parliamentary inquiry into court interpreter shambles welcomed
Private Eye, 25 July 2012 Well done, Wheeldon
Southern Daily Echo, 22 July 2012 Hampshire police insists it won’t use Applied Language Solutions for intepreters
Birmingham Mail, 21 July 2012 MPs launch inquiry into translation shambles which let suspects walk free
The Times of India, 21 July 2012 Fake interpreter turns up at Indian woman’s murder trial
The Gulf Times, 21 July 2012 Interpreter farce halts trial, causes huge loss
The Daily Mail, 21 July 2012 Trial stopped as murder case translator was only there because his wife—the real interpreter—was “too busy to show up”
The Daily Telegraph, 20 July 2012 Trial suspended as bogus interpreter stands in for wife
The Independent, 20 July 2012 Unqualified ALS interpreter revealed to have halted Rajvinder Kaur trial
The Guardian, 20 July 2012 MPs to investigate “underperforming” firm awarded £300m court monopoly
Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 20 July 2012 Judge demands anwers from court interpreter suppliers
The Lawyer, 20 July 2012 House of Commons launches probe into MoJ interpreting contract
Oldham Evening Chronicle, 20 July 2012 Interpreters welcome ALS probe
Littlehampton Gazette, 20 July 2012 Unqualified interpreter halts trial
Daily Echo, 20 July 2012 Interpreter fiasco at murder trial
Law Society Gazette, 19 July 2012 Courtroom interpreter “savings” evaporate
Ashford Herald, 19 July 2012 Man kept in cells for days as translator unavailable
Law Society Gazette, 18 July 2012 MPs to probe interpreter deal
www.parliament.uk, 18 July 2012 New Justice Select Committee Inquiry: Interpretation and Translation services and the Applied Language Solutions contract
New Statesman, 12 July 2012 Cost savings on court interpreting services are anything but
Birmingham Mail, 11 July 2012 Government admits controversial ALS interpreter contract will not save £12m
UK Press Association, 9 July 2012 £12m interpreter savings “unlikely”
The Guardian, 30 June 2012 Justice? Not if defendants can’t engage fully with the trial
Law Society Gazette, 14 June 2012 CPS delays rollout of ALS interpreters
Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 11 June 2012 Company to carry out investigation after interpreter fails to turn up at court
Criminal Law & Justice Weekly, 2 June 2012 Court interpreter woes continue
Private Eye , June 2012 ALS, Alack
Law Society Gazette, 31 May 2012 “Self-serving” interpreter figures slammed
The Independent, 24 May 2012 Chaotic start for company that clinched multimillion pound deal to provide translators for courts and inquests
The Telegraph, 24 May 2012 MOJ to monitor court interpreters after one in ten fail to turn up or get translation wrong
Law Society Gazette, 24 May 2012 Official statistics reveal ALS performance failure
Oldham Evening Chronicle, 24 May 2012 Solicitor-General rejects call for inquiry into ALS
Interpreters for Justice, 22 May 2012 Judiciary expresses concern about court interpreting
The Independent, 21 May 2012 Plan to cut spending on court interpreters leads to farce. Rethink prompted after solicitors resort to Google Translate to understand their clients
Law Society Gazette, 17 May 2012 ALS interpreters contract facing renewed scrutiny
Spend Matters, 14 May 2012 Southampton run into procurement conflict of interest issues
The Public and Commercial Services Union, May 2012 Threats to justice: How the cuts are placing a huge strain on vital judicial functions
The London Advocate, May 2012 It’s all Greek to Me: the Interpreter Debacle
Police Life, May 2012 Interpreters claim Framework Agreement is killing justice
Leicester Mercury, 9 May 2012 Jury discharged
Yorkshire Post, 5 May 2012 Prison vow over sham marriages as Yorkshire gang sentenced
Plymouth Herald, 3 May 2012 Interpreter request is refused by court because man has “been in UK long enough”
Law Society Gazette, 3 May 2012 Letters: Voicing concern at the Applied Language Solutions/Capita farce
EULITA, 30 April 2012 The UK dilemma over interpreting services for the justice sector continues
Croydon Guardian, 29 April 2012 Court backlog in interpreter shortage
Law Society Gazette, 26 April 2012 Court interpreter situation “improving”
Fair Trials International Declining UK court interpreting standards are difficult to comprehend
Croydon Guardian, 25 April 2012 Court backlog in interpreter shortage
Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 24 April 2012 Huddersfield man in court accused of sex offenders’ register breach
Law Society Gazette, 19 April 2012 How long before we end up with a serious miscarriage of justice?
Manchester Evening News, 19 April 2012 Court official left in tears after outburst at Rochdale sex gang trial
Law Society Gazette, 19 April 2012 Interpreter “bite” mistake causes trial collapse
Private Eye, 17 April 2012 Applied Language Solutions billed by judge for failing to supply a court interpreter
The Lawyer, 17 April 2012 Interpreting error leads to £25,000 retrial costs
BBC News, 13 April 2012 Trial collapses at Snaresbrook court after interpreter error
Law Society Gazette, 13 April 2012 Grieve: interpreter failure “not contempt”
Halifax Courier, 12 April 2012 Is it quicker if I learned Czech? Lawyer’s quip as interpreter fails to show
Ipswich Star, 11 April 2012 Ipswich: court interpreter service is a lottery in any language
Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 11 April 2012 Judge blasts interpreters firm for court no-shows
15min.lt, 10 April 2012 British judges, Lithuanian defendants, and Google Translate
Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 7 April 2012 Interpreter service “disrupting court work”
Politics.co.uk, 4 April 2012 Comment: Outsourcing interpreters has turned the courts into a freak show
Politics.co.uk, 2 April 2012 Court interpreter cuts “leading to miscarriages of justice”
Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 29 March 2012 Courts need to be clearly understood
BBC News, 29 March 2012 Concern over translation in court by Peterborough magistrates
Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 29 March 2012 Bradford Judge demands firm explain after it failed to provide interpreter in case
BBC News, 28 March 2012 Interpreter travels 560 miles for Ipswich court case
The Daily Mirror, 28 March 2012 Lost in translation: Court interpreter travels 564 miles for EIGHT minutes’ work
Metro, 28 March 2012 Court translator travels 564 miles for just eight minutes
The Telegraph, 27 March 2012 Court staff forced to rely on Google translate
East Anglian Daily Times, 27 March 2012 Ipswich: it’s a farce! fed-up defence solicitors blast court interpreter system after translator has to travel from Newcastle to Ipswich for hearing
Luton & Dunstable Express, 25 March 2012 New Courts service lost in translation Also see The Telegraph, 18 January 2011: Police translator bombarded inspector with suggestive emails
The Guardian, 25 March 2012 In praise of... judicial interpreters
Channel 4 News, 23 March 2012 Court chaos as interpreter service goes private
BBC News, 21 March 2012 Ministry of Justice translation firm accused of data theft
The Guardian, 19 March 202 Private Court interpretation company “should face contempt proceedings” Read Emily Thornberry MP’s letter to Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP here
The Independent, 17 March 2012 Privatisation of court interpretation services is causing problems, admits Justice minister Crispin Blunt
Law Society Gazette, 16 March 2012 “Grossly overpaid” interpreters to blame for courts fiasco, says minister
Oldham Evening Chronicle, 16 March 2012 Demo as minister says ALS is best for the job
BBC News, 15 March 2012 Court translators protest against new contract system
The Telegraph, 15 March 2012 Privatisation of court interpreting “had problems”, admits Justice minister
Yorkshire Post, 15 March 2012 Judge considers making privatised interpreters pay for court failings
Manchester Evening News, 15 March 2012 War of words as interpreters blast court translation firm Applied Language Solutions
Law Society Gazette, 15 March 2012 Unite joins interpreting campaign
The Guardian, 15 March 2012 Violent clients, traumatised victims, late payment—the life of a court interpreter
The Times online, 15 March 2012 Court interpreters protest over pay cuts
Norwich Evening News, 14 March 2012 Judge hits out at interpreter delays
Unite the Union, 14 March 2012 Campaign launched to reverse the privatisation of court interpreting, as service descends “into chaos”
Manchester Evening News, 12 March 2012 Boss of court translation firm Applied Language Solutions hits back after judges blast service
News.co.uk, 11 March 2012 Rabbit enrols as court translator
The Lawyer, 09 March 2012 Government’s court interpreting agency hit with wasted costs orders
The Birmingham Mail, 09 March 2012 Jajo the Rabbit “hired” as translator at Birmingham courts
BBC News, 08 March 2012 Court and police interpreters in Birmingham Protest
The Law Society Gazette, 08 March 2012 ALS offers cash to beat interpreting boycott
Private Eye, 09–22 March 2012 Lost in Translation
Yorkshire Post, 07 March 2012 Missing interpreter costs day in court case
Worcester News, 06 March 2012 Judge: Absence of interpreters becoming problem
Linguistlounge.ORG, 06 March 2012 ALS fact check: almost 70 percent of courts hit by interpreter chaos
Lackuna.com, 05 March 2012 As UK Interpreters Strike, Google “Scabs”
Politics.co.uk, 05 March 2012 Outsourcing forces untrained translators on courts, campaigners say
Family Law Week, 04 March 2012 90% of interpreters boycott new “flawed” system, claims campaign group
The Sunday Times, 04 March 2012 Dragon reject “sparks court chaos”
The Sunday Express, 04 March 2012 Interpreter system “waste of money”
The Daily Mail, 03 March 2012 Foreign suspects are being released from police custody due to lack of interpreters
The Independent, 03 March 2012 Court translation service in crisis after cost-cutting deal
The Daily Express, 03 March 2012 Hopes of snaring foreign suspects lost in translation
The Guardian, 03 March 2012 Suspects freed as a result of court interpreters’ boycott
Channel 4 News, 02 March 2012 Court translation service in crisis after cost-cutting deal
The Daily Mail, 02 March 2012 Foreign suspects are being released from police custody due to lack of interpreters
The Folkestone Herald, 02 March 2012 Uninsured driver is lost until court translation
The Law Society Gazette, 02 March 2012 Interpreting the interpreters’ strike
The Telegraph, 02 March 2012 Police let foreign crime suspects go due to lack of interpreters
The Law Society Gazette, 02 March 2012 Court clerk turns to Google to fill interpreting gap
The Lawyer, 02 March 2012 Tory minister admits new court interpreter system is “unacceptable”
The Birmingham Mail, 02 March 2012 Foreign crime suspects walking free on bail in Birmingham due to interpreter crisis
The Guardian, 02 March 2012 Interpreters stay away from courts in protest at privatised contract
The interpreter’s story: Mirela Watson:
“a lot of the new interpreters have no understanding of legal terminology, which is vital in our profession”
The Law Society Gazette, 01 March 2012 MoJ must address the chaos
Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 01 March 2012 Court interpreter service criticised
The Law Society Gazette, 01 March 2012 MoJ warned two years ago over interpreters
The Law Society Gazette, 29 February 2012 Lost in Translation
The Londra Gazete (London Turkish Gazette), February—March 2012 Interpreting chaos in courts
Turkish interpreter fails to appear for arson hearing Woman pleads guilty to starting flat fire
Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 24 February 2012 Court interpreters hit out at changes
The Law Society Gazette, 24 February 2012 Interpreter problems “unacceptable” says ministry
Private Eye, 24 February 2012 Words of Warning
Yorkshire Post, 23 February 2012 Judge lost for words as trial halted over lack of interpreter
The Law Society Gazette, 23 February 2012 Firm in interpreter storm offers better deal
This is Somerset, 23 February 2012 Case delayed for interpreter
The Lawyer, 23 February 2012 MoJ ditches new court interpreting system in face of major backlash
The Law Society Gazette, 23 February 2012 The unavoidable impression is of a department which is being run on the hoof
Mancunian Matters, 22 February 2012 Decision by courts to only use translators from one agency causes widespread disruption to judicial system
Peterborough Evening Telegraph, 21 February 2012 Court frustration over missing interpreters
Legal Expenses, February 2012 MoJ admits “teething problems” with interpreters
The Lawyer, 20 February 2012 Lost in Translation: Court interpreters row raises spectre of miscarriages of justice
Northampton Chronicle and Echo, 18 February 2012 Courts left in “chaos” by interpreter mix-up
The Guardian, 16 February 2012 Courts given green light to hire own interpreters as ALS struggles to cope
BBC News, 13 February 2012 Court chaos follows interpreter change
Private Eye, 10 February 2012 Lost in Transition
The Law Society Gazette, 9 February 2012 MoJ interpreting hub a “false economy”
Private Eye, 14 October 2011 The £60m question
Oldham Evening Chronicle, 12 October 2011 Lost in Translation: MP in Commons attack on Delph interpreter service
ITI Bulletin, September-October 2011 Slash and Burn (a practising interpreter’s views)
A Sea change (ALS’ PR offensive)
The Law Society Gazette, 8 September 2011 Unite campaign backs public service interpreting
Birmingham Post, 8 September 2011 West Midlands Police to cut £750k from budget for translators
Lincolnshire Echo, 24 August 2011 “Major pay cut” for court interpreters in Lincolnshire
News & Star, 16 August 2011 Cumbrian Court Interpreters Protest at Shake-Up
The Yorkshire Post, 13 August 2011 Tribunals Translators walk out in row over contracts
Private Eye, 12 August 2011 ALS Well?
Unite The Union, August 2011 Speak up, Speak out
Private Eye, 22 July 2011 Lost for words
Law Society Gazette, 14 July 2011 MoJ in line of fire over interpreters contract
Private Eye, 1 April 2011 Lost for words
Preston Citizen, 14 March 2011 Lancashire police interpreter contract is scrapped
Law Society Gazette, 10 March 2011 Defence solicitors warn MOJ over interpreter outsourcing
Manchester Evening News, 7 March 2011 Police rip up contract with interpreter agency after claims it was hampering investigations
Former GMP interpreter: “one wrong word could mean justice isn’t done”
Private Eye, 4 February 2011 Speaking Cock
Law Society Gazette, 3 February 2011 Row erupts over police interpreters
Private Eye, 21 January 2011 Speakers Cornered
TV/Radio
BBC Radio Lincolnshire, 9 August 2012
BBC on ALS: Full radio report with follow-up interview
BBC News, 9 August 2012
Court interpreter checks “non-existent”
BBC Look East, 7 August 2012
BBC Look East reports on ALS’ failure to supply court interpreters
(Available on BBC iPlayer to users in the UK only, Time slot: 11:45–13:35)
BBC Radio 4, 1 May and 7 May 2012
Word of Mouth: Interpreters
Michael Rosen investigates the world of interpreting. We meet interpreters in business, sport and even psychotherapy, discover how there’s more to the job than just language skills, and hear a report on the work of interpreters in the new Russia.
BBC Radio Wales, 19 April 2012
Continuing problems with court interpreting contractor ALS Ltd Item is from 06:48 to 06:51
PressTV, 10 April 2012
“A simple question”: Privatization of the UK justice system
Channel 4 News, 23 March 2012
Court chaos as interpreter service goes private
BBC London News, 21 March 2012
Translation firm accused of misleading law courts
BBC Radio 4, Today, 15 March 2012
Crispin Blunt: “Interpreters were on six-figure salaries and were abusing the system”
BBC Points West, 09 March 2012
Police forces in the West are considering signing up to a translation service which has borne the brunt of heavy criticism from the Ministry of Justice; Item from 09:03–11:48 [no link at present]
BBC News West Midlands, 08 March 2012
Protesters outside the Birmingham courts
BBC Asian Network, 08 March 2012
Asian Network Reports Item starts at 04:24
BBC Coventry and Warwickshire, 07 March 2012
New system for booking court interpreters costing one region an extra £30,000 per week.
BBC WM, 05 March 2012
Law Society Member: “There is only one way out of this and that is to cancel the contract.”
Part 1; Part 2.
Channel 4 News, 02 March 2012
Court translation service in crisis after cost-cutting deal
BBC Radio 5Live, 24 February 2012
BBC Lincolnshire 15 February 2012
Part 1 ; Part 2
BBC Radio 5Live, 12 February 2012
5Live Investigates: Court Interpreting