I have written previous articles about the debacle of the sole-source contract let out by the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to Applied Language Services (ALS), now Capita TI (ALS/Capita). This was called the Framework Agreement (FWA), for short. In this fourth article in the series I will provide an update on the current situation, as it is claimed to have resulted in injustice to individuals in the legal system in the U.K.
I will let you, the reader, decide for yourself whether the situation has resulted in serious injustice to defendants not proficient in the English language in the U.K. I believe that thorough analysis is required, as a similar situation could develop in the U.S. Or has similar deterioration already started in our country?
Background
In my first article in this series, titled At What Price Interpreting and Justice?, I concluded that the situation in Nevada is not fair to Spanish interpreters. I also questioned whether the Nevada example shows other states the way. However, would this result in an interpreter revolt? Budget constraints, getting worse by the day, are likely to force decisions on state officials, who could reduce the level of acceptable service in the courts. However, should human rights and equal justice for all be compromised, when the cuts could me made elsewhere? Please stand by, as I will have a complete analysis in a future article. I encourage reading the interesting responses to this article, which encouraged me to pursue additional research.
In the second article in the series, Interpreters, Pay, and Justice, Part 2: The United Kingdom, I provided my findings and summarized them in the “What I Learned” section, near the end of the entry. I stated that the Framework Agreement between the MoJ and ALS was based on weak work, totally lacking in due diligence. It quickly becomes apparent that the MoJ entered the FWA seemingly unaware of the total requirements required in outsourcing the interpreter services. For example, the FWA itself did not include any kind of quality control on the linguists provided by ALS. This led me to conclude that Justice was sacrificed for the sake of money. And injustice resulted in many cases. [Note: In retrospect, what other factors were in play? Could corruption at many levels be also a factor?] Many (reported) complaints by judges went unanswered by “the system”. This suggests that the MoJ was unable and, even possibly, ignorant of the real state of affairs in the country’s courts that used the ALS linguists. [Note: Performance statistics should be reported quarterly; none have been published since August 2012.] As a result, the MoJ was incapable of responding adequately, possibly unintentionally, or intentionally. Seemingly total silence followed, until the National Audit Office and also the Public Accounts Committee called for formal investigations. In this article, I stated that reports from various areas in the United States are also trying to reduce fees paid to highly-trained interpreters, and that working conditions may already be changing for interpreters working for agencies. Déjà vu? I also questioned the role of our professional interpreter organizations in the U.S., and whether they are likely to be effective in getting results that prevent deterioration of the system. Please make sure you read the very poignant comment to my article by my friend and colleague, Lionel Dersot. He raised some very interesting points!
In the third article I wrote, The Report from the National Audit Office (NAO) is Out, I addressed the findings of the NAO report. This report highlighted shortcomings in the way the MoJ handled its investigations leading to the award of the Framework Agreement, and did not properly monitor performance by ALS and its linguists working in the courts. On the date I published this article, two more crucial reports were pending: The Public Accounts Committee has published its report. You can download a copy here (600kb). The language services part of the report starts on page 24. The Justice Select Committee (JSC) Report can be downloaded here (3.1MB, PDF file).
What has happened since my last article?
House of Commons (HOC) Justice Committee meeting
I watched with renewed interest as seemingly new developments were announced in the late Summer and early Fall of 2012. Finally, on October 30, 2012, the House of Commons Justice Committee sat down to discuss the Interpreting and Translation services and the Applied Language Solutions contract. Appearing as witnesses from Capita PLC were Andy Parker, COO; Sunna van Loo, Public Service Director; and Gavin Wheeldon, former CEO of ALS. Also called as witness was Helen Grant, MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State; Peter Handcock, Chief Executive, HM Courts and Tribunals Service; and Ann Beasley, Director General, Finance, Ministry of Justice. Link to video page for this meeting.
From the testimony provided by the witnesses appearing in this session, many questions remain unanswered. For example, does the testimony accurately reflect what was happening in the courts during most of 2012? It is impossible to reconcile the testimony with other reports in the press, and from professional organizations fighting the FWA.
On November 1, 2012, the RPSI Lounge announced that Justice Minister Helen Grant, MP invited professional interpreter groups to a meeting to discuss “a way forward”. During the meeting, Margaret Hodge, MP and Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said (referring to the contract): “It sounds like chaos, frankly”. Later she also expressed disbelief that Capita did not know how many of the 1,000 court interpreters on its books had been properly assessed, or had their qualifications checked. She concluded “It is frightening”.
A gag order and government interference?
Rumors circulating for some time suggested that the government may be interfering with getting to the bottom of the interpreter fiasco. For example, on November 15, 2012, Exaro reported a gag order was issued to conceal details which were embarrassing to the MoJ. I was unable to view the entire article. However, the Preview for the article states:
“Magistrates have been gagged in an attempt to conceal embarrassing details of problems with court interpreters following privatization of translations services in England and Wales.” It goes on to say that it “can reveal that the government clampdown has prevented magistrates from supplying crucial data to an inquiry into translations services for courts, which is being held by MPs on the House of Commons Justice Committee.” The Preview ends with “Court clerks are even complaining that the Ministry of Justice has banned them from expressing their options on the privatized series – under the Official Secrets Act.” Furthermore, the JSC report flatly states that the “MoJ is being held in contempt of the House”.
The entire article resides at this Professional Interpreters’ Alliance News (PIA) page.
I pose the following questions:
- Was the gag order real? Who issued it? And why? Please read on!
- If it is real, did it result in (only) partial truths presented to the committees?
- If real, is the gag order a tool designed to hide very real problems with the contract?
- Has there been a cover-up within the Ministry of Justice, or elsewhere?
- What other facts are likely to surface when everything is known about the Framework Agreement?
- How large is the (real) waste, compared to the pittance reported to the committees? Geoffrey Buckingham, Chairman of the Associations of Police and Court Interpreters, is quoted in the PIA report as adding: “The amount of money that is being wasted in ancillary costs is colossal”.
Forward to February 7, 2013 – The Times | Law
Writing for The Times | Law section, Francis Gibb, Legal Editor, states that “Whitehall [normally, this means the Central government in the U.K., for my U.S. friends] officials pushed ahead with a ‘shambolic’ outsourcing of court interpreting services that led to delays in trials and lower standards, MPs said yesterday”. The article goes on to say: “In a damning report, the Ministry of Justice is castigated for failing to heed repeated warnings about the new centralized service, which has been widely criticized”.
The bombshell in this article: “It also condemns the Ministry for instructing officials not to cooperate with an online consultation by the MPs, members of the Commons Justice Committee. The obstruction amounts to a contempt of Parliament which MPs say they ‘deplore’, adding ‘there should be no repetition of them in future’”. This is, indeed, confirmation of the existence of a gag order!
I believe this is the most damning report on findings of an investigation into the entire fiasco.
Just as important, however, is whether real savings have resulted from the award of the FWA to ALS/Capita. According to an MoJ spokesman refers to the Justice Select Committee and reports dramatic improvement. Moreover, “The vast majority of interpreter bookings are now being completed and complaints have fallen considerably”. Additionally, reported savings are £15m in the first year; also, contract monitoring on a daily basis has been implemented.
Once again, Geoffrey Buckingham is quoted in this article: “The Ministry of Justice showed contempt to the interpreting community, contempt for their own court officials by preventing them from taking part in the Justice Committee’s online consultation and contempt for the previous excellent reputation of British justice, which is now in tatters.”
Please read what I presume is the complete article at the RPSI Linguist Lounge, here. I am not able to read the entire article online at The Times. Dang internet!
Recent developments
Judge Joana Korner CMG QC – instructions to the CPS: In a clear break from the Framework Agreement, Judge Korner instructed the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) not to “hire any interpreters in future who are not on the National Register”. The cause: On February 7, a case at Snaresbrook Crown Court collapsed due to disputed interpreting by a Bangladeshi linguist. This was posted by Steve Wood on his blog on March 4, 2013.
Also posted by Steve Wood: “Professional Interpreters for Justice (PI4J) (have – Ed.) rejected Justice Minister Helen Grant MP’s publicly stated figures on the performance of Capita TI. On 16 January, in a written answer to Shadow Justice Minister Sadiq Khan, she said there was an “increasing improvement in service to 93.5% performance by August 2012″.
I suspect that PI4J is correct. Why? Because the gag order prevented many magistrates and other court officials from reporting cases involving services by interpreters. This likely caused severe under-reporting of deficiencies, thus inflating the improvements in service!
The Revised Agreement – dated October 19, 2012: The Trials Issues Group published at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) web site a Revised Agreement on the Arrangements for the Attendance of Interpreters in Investigations and Proceedings Within the Criminal Justice System”. Not once does this document mention Capita TI, nor does it mention ALS. The membership of the Trials Issues Group includes representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, Bar Council, Crown Prosecution Service, Court Service, HM Customs and Excise, Home Office, Judiciary, Justices’ Clerks’ Society, Law Society, Lord Chancellor’s Department, Magistrates’ Association, Victim Support and the National Probation Service.
This revised agreement establishes as its first Principle that “…every interpreter working in courts and police stations should be registered with the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI, henceforth referred to as the National Register) or the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP)…”. It goes on to establish the possible sources of (qualified!) interpreters, including those listed in the Association of Police and Court Interpreters (APCI), and others. It also specifies that proper checks be carried out to ensure qualifications and proven experience of interpreters.
I repeat: Not once does this new document mention the FWA, Capita, or ALS. This is a stunning development. Could this document mark the turning point for the interpreter fiasco in the U.K.? What procedures have been put in motion to ensure total transparency during implementation and monitoring?
Report from Professional Interpreters for Justice (PI4J): This organization commissioned an online survey to mark the first anniversary of the FWA. It is a must-read report. I recommend my readers download the PDF file, and read it. The findings of the survey are revealing. Some points:
- Over 80% of the 859 interpreters who responded to the survey refuse to join Capita.
- The interpreters registered with Capita are also dissatisfied.
- A large percentage of the interpreters registered with the NRPSI (87) have been contacted directly by the Criminal Justice System, requesting their services; and 81% receive 1-2 calls per week. Why, then, is the MoJ reporting service improvements with the FWA?
- For the future, 52% of all NRPSI interpreters plan to leave the Criminal Justice System, unless things change.
- Please read the report, and familiarize yourself with the graphs and statistics included.
“Capita sees no further value in the business ALS brought”
Writing at the RPSI Linguist Lounge on March 4, 2013, Geoffrey Buckingham, President of APCI, wrote about an excerpt from Capita’s accounts (he quotes an individual experienced in international finance and business): “…Capita see no further value in the business Applied Language Solutions brought. This means any goodwill (excess of what Capita paid for the business over the Net Asset Value of ALS when Capita brought it) must now be set to nil as it has an impaired value – i.e. ALS contracts have clearly no value in them as, it appears, does the business. CapitaTI has no value, their contracts have no value, and Capita plc has said so. In their own words.”
Some closing thoughts
I am not a clairvoyant. I am neither a wizard, nor a sorcerer. I cannot see the future. However, the events that took place in the United Kingdom are disturbing, because the truth about the Framework Agreement did not surface until much pain, cost, effort, and distraction from serving justice may have resulted in administering something less than full justice for hundreds, and possibly thousands of human beings. Worse yet, it appears that public confidence, and the confidence of the interpreter community in the government was diminished, and possibly lost.
When will interpreters trust the government fully again in the future? Will they ever again trust their government, in their lifetime?
Is it possible that MPs conducting the hearings in the future will demand better and more accurate reporting, without interference by a gag order?
It is widely known that several countries in Europe had financial difficulties in recent years. The United Kingdom was no exception. Belt-tightening became the order of the times at many levels of industry, academia, and government. The belt-tightening also affected the legal system; costs associated with providing interpreters to the courts have been cut, and the system has failed to protect the rights of many persons not fluent in English. I give the benefit of doubt to the Ministry of Justice, and assume that, in principle, good intentions developed into a fiasco of huge proportions. What happened? Who was ultimately responsible? Was it one individual? Was it one entire department? At what level did this originate? How high in government did the MoJ receive support for keeping details in the dark? Was there a conspiracy?
I suppose many questions will go unanswered for some time. On the other hand, we may never learn the full details of what transpired. Will it matter? I believe it will. I believe it should, and must matter. I believe that by not revealing the complete truth about improvement in service level, the government will be unable to establish appropriate procedures to prevent it from happening again.
Future work – I need YOUR help
In previous articles I had hoped that we, in the United States, will learn from the results of implementation of the Framework Agreement in the U.K. But will it keep us from committing a similar blunder?
Do YOU have instances in the U.S. court system that parallel what happened in the U.K.? Are you willing to share this information with me? If you prefer, I will keep your input confidential.
Please stand by for this future article!
