Public Accounts CommitteeSupplementary evidence from HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Following the hearing on 15 October, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) undertook to provide a note in response to issues raised by the Committee.
I have set out our response to each of the issues raised by the Committee in numerical question order as per the transcript of the hearing. I also annex to this letter some matters discussed with the Committee that I think it would be helpful to clarify.
Questions 142–143—registering with false details
Where it is alleged that interpreters have registered using false details, we will investigate. You will be aware that we wrote to you on 19 October requesting some further detail about the anecdotal evidence raised by the Committee in these questions. I regret to say that as of yet we have not received such information, and therefore we are unable to investigate this allegation at this point.
Interpreters can register their interest to work for Capita ALS by providing details on an internet portal. They will then be required to prove their identity and qualifications, and will be expected to attend an assessment of their ability. Any issues with the identity of the individual would be picked up by these checks. It is possible that initial applicants could be ineligible to work on the Framework but we have not been able to substantiate any allegation that, for example, pets have gone further through the system. We are confident that these identity checks would prevent fraudulent applicants from undertaking assignments, however, should you be able to provide any further information we would be happy to investigate.
Questions 192–195—tiering
The number of interpreters available in each tier is set out below. This was confirmed by Capita during its evidence on 29 October:
Tier |
Number of interpreters |
Number of languages covered |
Qualifications (tier 1 only—NB some have multiple qualifications) |
Tier 1 |
677 |
1,332 |
NRPSI circa 400 DPSI circa 200 Met Test circa 50 |
Tier 2 |
303 |
640 |
[not requested] |
Tier 3 |
132 |
281 |
[not requested] |
Tier 3 interpreters constitute 11.7% of the total. It should also be noted that the final decision on the use of a Tier 3 interpreter is for the judge hearing the particular case where it is being considered. Currently tier 3 interpreters are used in approximately 2% of cases.
Question 223—tribunal hearing in Stoke on Trent
Decisions relating to the handling of a particular case are for the judicial office holder hearing it. This includes the judgement of whether an interpreter is required at a hearing or if it is in the interests of justice to hold the hearing without an interpreter. I hope you understand that it would not be appropriate for me to go behind those decisions. I would, however, be happy to provide the Committee with details of the case if you are able to provide me with more information.
I hope that this provides satisfactory further detail.
Annex
Question 71—service delivery
The Committee suggested that the service had been “a shambles over the last eight months”. While we agree that service was not acceptable during the early stages of the contract, we have now seen a very significant improvement in performance. Statistics published by the MoJ earlier in October—but subsequent to our oral evidence to the Committee—show that:
Between 30 January and 31 August 2012, there were 72,043 completed requests for language services covering 163 different languages
The success rate on completed requests for languages services in August 2012 of 95.3% was up from 66.5% in February.
Complaints decreased significantly: Criminal Courts, from 9.9% in February to 1.4% in August; Civil and Family 5.8% to 0.6%; and in tribunals from 17.1% to 5.2%, over the same time period.
Of 3,937 complaints over the period, 174 (or 4.4%) related to quality of the interpreter.
The full statistics may be found at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/courts-and-sentencing/language-services-in-use
While we accept that the contract is still not performing at the level required, these figures do show a significant upward trend throughout the life of the contract thus far. We remain confident that trend will continue.
From information gathered from the booking system we are also able to demonstrate that interpreters are now successfully completing multiple jobs per day, further evidence of increasing efficiency in the service:
For the month of September there were 3,618 jobs where the interpreter did more than one job in a day.
Of that total, there were 904 jobs where the interpreter has done more than 1 job in a day at the same site.
Of the total figure, there were 2,714 jobs where an interpreter has done more than 1 job per day at different sites.
Questions 75–76—comments of Mr Brooke Townsley
The Ministry were not aware that Mr Townsley had expressed any dissatisfaction with the approach that ALS was taking to assessment—we specifically sought comments on the assessment process from interested parties in 2011 and did not receive any comments from Mr Townsley. The views of Mr Townsley were recorded in minutes of the project board in which it was indicated that he was “pleasantly surprised by the care and rigour with which ALS was approaching qualification and assessment needs” Having checked with ALS/Capita we can confirm that they have no evidence of a written report from Mr Townsley. Similarly the NAO has since confirmed that they have no evidence of a written report from Mr Townsley, their evidence of his ‘profound reservations’ was through comments that Mr Townsley made to the NAO as part of their investigation.
Question 85—creation of a monopoly
ALS has not been given any rights of exclusivity or any volume guarantees whatsoever in relation to providing these services. It does not, in my view, therefore constitute a monopoly for justice sector language services or language services in general.
Question 104—ineffective trial rate increase
Comparing data from the Crown Court from Quarter 1 in 2011 to the same period this year there were only four more trials that were ineffective due to lack of interpreter availability. There was a greater increase in the magistrates’ courts. The table below sets out the number of ineffective trials due to the lack of an interpreter and the estimated costs of those trials. These figures include the estimated costs of all the justice agencies involved in a case (for example NOMS, HMCTS, legal aid etc). The Committee and National Audit Office previously used figures calculated on a similar basis to estimate the costs of ineffective hearings in the magistrates’ courts.1 It is not possible to record the costs of other types of adjourned hearing (ie non trial hearings) as this information has never been recorded:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmpubacc/982/98202.htm
Crown Courts |
Magistrates’ Courts |
|||
Q1 2011 |
Q1 2012 |
Q1 2011 |
Q1 2012 |
|
Average cost of an ineffective trial |
£1,500 |
£650 |
||
Number of Ineffective Trials due to lack of interpreter availability |
7 |
11 |
95 |
182 |
Cost of Ineffective Trials |
£10,500 |
£16,500 |
£61,750 |
£117,000 |
Incremental additional cost to the Justice System |
- |
£6,000 |
- |
£55,250 |
Total incremental cost |
£61,250 |
The full statistics can be viewed at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/statistics/courts-and-sentencing/csq-q2–2012/court-stats-tables-q2–2012.xls?type=Finjan-Download&slot=00000220&id=00000E1F&location=0A640211
Question 209—intellectual property rights
The MoJ have the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to the Register. The Register is a database of information held outside of the portal which holds details of all interpreters available to work in accordance with the framework ie it includes the evidence of their vetting, qualifications, references and work experience.
Should the MoJ decide to remove the provision of language services from ALS either due to next generation competition, termination or allocation of work to another provider, we would have access to that Register to enable either ourselves or another party to source suitable interpreters with the appropriate skills and qualifications.
The portal is a booking tool which was already in existence at ALS prior to this framework being put in place. It has been adapted for our needs but it was not developed specifically for the MoJ. The IPR for the portal are owned by ALS.
Peter Handcock CBE
Chief Executive
16 November 2012
1 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmpubacc/982/98202.htm