Outsourcing and privatisation disaster outfit

Yesterday’s Wales Online carried a report of a court case at Cardiff Magistrates Court involving public order offences by Tamil protesters on 20th June connected with a protest at the city’s Swalec Stadium against the presence of the Sri Lankan cricket team on British soil.

Hidden in the report was yet more evidence of the failing interpreting contract between the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Capita Translation & Interpreting (posts passim), in this instance, the provision of an incomprehensible interpreter.

An eighth man admitted throwing a stone at a passing car outside the stadium, while a ninth man accused of common assault was unable to submit a plea because he could not understand the Tamil interpreter provided by the court – his case was adjourned until July 23.

How can the MoJ continue to claim that the contract is working well when courts around the country experience delay, disruption and additional expense?

If any reader has evidence of court delays for whatever reason (e.g. Capita not providing an interpreter, G4S failing to produce defendant for hearing, etc., they can be reported at https://courtdelays.wordpress.com/.

Transport Extra reports that our friends at Capita (posts passim) have lost a contract with a term of 5 years, an option on a further 2 years and worth £100 mn. just eighteen months into the contract.

The contract was with the DVLA and concerned vehicle excise duty enforcement.

The contract has now been awarded to rival outsourcing outfit NSL.

Well done Crapita. How much longer before you lose the courts interpreting contract with the Ministry of Justice? Let’s face it, you’ve been under-performing on that one ever since you took over the under-performing ALS (subsequently rebranded as Capita Translation & Interpreting. Ed.)?

Reposted from RPSI Linguist Lounge.

Marisa Allman writes:

We started a 3 day hearing on 25th June with my client giving evidence via a Capita interpreter. To begin with she was unfamiliar with the process for taking the oath, simply reading it to the witness and asking for confirmation.

It then quickly became apparent from the answers to questions posed that the witness was not being asked the question as it had been put in English. After about 40 minutes of questions the other party who was also Punjabi speaking indicated that the interpreter was not interpreting either the question or the response correctly. My own interpreter confirmed this. The witness also complained that the interpreter was confusing her. A decision was taken to dispense with that interpreter and put in a request for another, who arrived at 3:15. The first day of the hearing was therefore effectively lost.

I can also tell you that in January or February this year I was involved in a case where the Turkish, unrepresented, father had travelled from Moldova for a final hearing. The interpreter called in sick on the morning of the hearing and Capita were unable to provide a replacement. My instructing solicitor was willing and able to find a replacement from another agency but this was not permissible because of the contract with Capita. No hearing took place, the hearing had to be adjourned to May.

Reposted from RPSI Linguist Lounge.

Imran Majid writes:

I’ve been stuck in court all day partly due to another cock-up by Capita. The District Judge was in a dilemma whether to carry on refusing to hear a bail application in the absence of an interpreter. This is the 2nd day, Capita cancelled an interpreter yesterday and then failed to send an Arabic interpreter today. The District Judge got an unqualified relative to interpret. So well done Grayling, you’ve saved the government some money there.

In a debate in parliament on 20th June this week (posts passim) Members of Parliament queued up to condemn the Ministry of Justice’s handling of the £42 mn. annual contract awarded to Capita Translation & Interpreting (formerly ALS) for court interpreting services, which is still failing after 500 days.

Liberal Democrat Sir Alan Beith MP, who is Chairman of the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, said that it was ‘deplorable’ how court staff were ‘strongly pressed by the Government not to co-operate’ with his Committee’s enquiry.

After Justice Minister Helen Grant MP (who was not supported by any Conservative MP in the debate) had given a prepared statement, Sir Alan said the Minister “will not have convinced any of us that the situation is acceptable and sustainable… The Minister will never convince us that the savings figures take adequate account of the additional cost to the system.”

Andy Slaughter MP, Shadow Justice Minister, remarked that the Justice Minister had been defending the “shambles” and was the only party not to listen to the advice of Professional Interpreters for Justice, the umbrella group which represents ten interpreter organisations. He said: “The Ministry of Justice did not want the full facts to emerge. This is not the end of the matter.”

He said the Department had been unwilling to help him with his own investigations because “they know the devastating facts; after 500 days [of the contract] about half the courts are still finding their own interpreters. The Ministry of Justice is not acknowledging that it’s getting worse. The costs of failure of the contract must now be investigated.”

Geoffrey Buckingham, Chairman of the Association of Police and Court Interpreters (APCI), says: “Professional Interpreters for Justice was vindicated during this debate and we were delighted to hear the Members of Parliament recount the contract’s failures and highlight where the Justice Minister has gone wrong in misleading statements about performance and savings.”

Alan Johnson MP – a former Home Secretary – said: “This is a caricature, but it seems that someone who knows a bit of holiday Spanish can now come in and do a job in the courts, which has proved to be disastrous”. He remarked that he had never known three reports (from the National Audit Office, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and House of Commons Justice Committee) “to be so consistent in their condemnation of a Government policy.”

Reposted from RPSI Linguist Lounge.

I am a Registered Public Service Interpreter and my registration number is 14041. I attended Caernarfon Crown Court on Monday, 13th May 2013, to interpret for the defence solicitors in the case of R – v – HECKO. The defendant is Slovak.

Upon arrival I observed three interpreters sitting in the waiting room. I introduced myself. I asked them which company they are from and was advised that one of them was sent from Capita (she lives in Cornwall) and the other two were from a company called EATI near Manchester. I asked them what their qualifications were and was told that none of them have any. I said to them that that was quite worrying since this is a murder trial and the defendant needs someone who will fully understand the terminology.

The trial proceeded. Judge Hughes asked the interpreters to be sworn in. Interpreter 1 went into the witness box and read the affirmation. The Judge then asked the interpreter to say the same but in Slovak so that the defendant understood what she had just said. The interpreter said something to the effect that she will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Interpreter 2 went into the witness box. Again the same, she was sworn in. The Judge asked her to say the same but in Slovak to which she replies: “I do not know how to say this in Slovak.” Judge; “You are a Slovak interpreter right?” Interpreter 2; “Yes, but I have never said this in Slovak.” She then said exactly the same as Interpreter 1. Interpreter 3 was sworn and just repeated what the other 2 interpreters just said. The Judge then asked them to go and interpret from the booth.

I listened to the interpreter “interpreting” for the defendant. They were taking it in turns. I mentioned to the solicitor for the defendant, Paul McAlinden, that the quality of the interpreting was very poor. So poor in fact, that they missed ¾ of the sentences and had I not heard the English version, I would have no idea what was being said.

After some legal arguments, the trial was adjourned to the next day. I had the opportunity to speak to the mentioned interpreters, who were quite stressed and told me that they had no clue what was being said, as “they are not lawyers”. I told them not to come back if they felt that they could not do the job, as it is important that the defendant understands.

The next day, Tuesday, 14th of May 2013, defendant complained to his barrister, Gregory Bull QC. He told him that the interpreters spoke Slovak but they weren’t interpreting what was being said and only interpreted the first word of each sentence.

When I went to the courtroom I noticed that only one interpreter of the three had turned up (EATI) and there was a male interpreter present too. The Judge came in the courtroom and asked interpreter 4 to be sworn in. This interpreter was from EATI. He translated the affirmation, but was speaking in Czech. I notified the QC who spoke to the Judge. When the Judge asked Interpreter 4 what language he was speaking, he confirmed that he spoke Czech. Then he proceeded to tell the Judge that it’s “OK, as Czech and Slovak are nearly the same and the defendant will be able to understand 95% of what I am saying and he might understand the other 5%”. The Judge then told him that unfortunately in a trial like this it is not enough for the defendant to understand only 95%. Then G. Bull QC pointed out that the other interpreter was in fact not translating properly either and was just summarising what was being said, if that. The Judge asked Interpreter 2 to come to the stand and asked her if she was interpreting correctly.

Interpreter 2: “I am only summarising. To be honest, I am only an interpreter. Interpreter summarises. I was told that this was a murder trial and I have told the owner of the translating company that I will be only summarising. He then contacted the court and was told that that was OK. My husband is an ex-detective and he told me that summarising is enough. Translator is a person who translates word by word and interpreter would summarise.”

The Judge then asked them both to leave and asked the Clerk to find a replacement. At around 11.15 am the case was adjourned till the afternoon. The Clerk told me that Capita was sending an interpreter who would be arriving before 2 pm.

I noticed the interpreter arriving shortly before 2 pm. I know this Capita interpreter as he was an interpreter in another case that I was working on, and I knew that he was Czech and his level of English is really poor.

The Judge asked the interpreter whether he speaks Slovak to which he answered “yes”. Interpreter 5 was sworn in and the Judge asked him to translate what he just said. Interpreter 5 speaks Czech. I notified the QC, who addressed the Judge, who said that the interpreter just confirmed that he speaks Slovak. QC: ”With all due respect, our interpreter just confirmed that he in fact speaks Czech”.

Judge: ”Your witness had better come to the witness stand and give evidence then.”

I took to the stand where I was sworn in and I indeed confirm that this interpreter was speaking Czech.

The Judge calls the interpreter back in and asks him what language he will be speaking to the defendant. At that point Interpreter 5 confirms that he speaks Czech, “but in 10 years that I’ve been doing this job I have never had any problems with this.” This sentence is said in really poor English and we all struggle to actually understand what he was trying to say.

At 2.30pm the Judge adjourned the case again till the next morning with the hope that a qualified interpreter turns up.

The learned Clerk approached me and asked if I had any contact details for interpreters and I directed him to the NRPSI website. He also said that the Judge was writing a letter of complaint.

On Wednesday 15 May 2013 two NRPSI interpreters turned up and the case continued.

Yesterday afternoon, members of Parliament held a debate in Westminster Hall on the continuing disaster that is the Ministry of Justice’s contract with Capita for interpreting services in courts and tribunals in England and Wales (posts passim).

Hansard has the full transcript of the debate, which is worth a quick skim – if nothing else – if one’s pressed for time.

In my reading of the proceedings, I have so far not found a single MP who spoke in favour of the current arrangements with Capita. A selection of their criticisms follows.

Firstly, Andy McDonald asking a question of Sir Alan Beith and drawing attention to the MoJ’s equally daft proposals for legal aid (posts passim).

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that we are hearing from people, such as the chairman of the Bar Council, about the significant costs and money wasted when trials collapse because of failures under the terms of the contract? Does he share my view that perhaps we would be better served if we considered saving those costs, rather than embarking on a revolution in legal aid provision and putting all that at risk again?

Next Alan Johnson, a former Home Secretary.

As a former Minister, I have been at the rough end of several Select Committee reports in my time, but I have never known three reports —t he National Audit Office memorandum, the Public Accounts Committee report and now the Justice Committee’s report — to be so consistent in their condemnation of a Government policy. A number of conclusions can be drawn from those reports. First, there were no fundamental problems with the original procedures. Secondly, the Ministry of Justice changed those procedures without understanding their complexities, or indeed the professionalism of the people providing the services. This is a caricature, but it seems that someone who knows a bit of holiday Spanish can now come in and do a job in the courts, which has proved to be disastrous. Thirdly, the MOJ awarded the contract to a company, ALS, that is totally incapable of fulfilling its requirements. Surely there can be little doubt about that. I do not think there are many people in this debate who will be arguing on the Government’s side, apart from the poor Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant).

The final conclusion is that justice and the right to a fair trial have been seriously compromised as a result of this debacle.

Thirdly, John Leech.

In a nutshell, the system was not broken. The MOJ was warned that its proposals would cause problems, which certainly proved to be the case. When the Select Committee decided to investigate, the MoJ tried to stop staff from assisting the inquiry. Frankly, that is not good enough.

…

We are not only talking about money; we must not forget justice and access to justice. In giving evidence, Mr Atkinson of the Law Society stated that while miscarriages of justice would occur infrequently, they were possible. Even one miscarriage of justice is one too many, but perhaps more concerning was his comment that “people are spending time in custody for no reason other than the lack of an interpreter.”

I could continue in this vein for some time, but will draw to a close with the words of Sir Gerald Kaufman.

All the available information shows that the system is not only failing abjectly, but damaging seriously the administration of justice in this country. In addition, it is costing the taxpayer huge sums of money in abandoned trials and in other ways.

My reading so far reveals not a single MP who spoke stood up for the Ministry of Justice and its failing contract with Capita.

That job fell to Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice Helen Grant MP, who was clearly well out of her depth and clung for support to the briefing note prepared by the MoJ’s civil servants and repeated the same misleading statements that had previously been parroted 3 weeks ago in the House of Lords by Lord McNally (posts passim).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Pritchard. I genuinely welcome the opportunity to listen to the debate. I shall do my very best to respond to the issues raised today and to the important report of the Justice Committee.

I would like to affirm my Department’s appreciation of the services provided to the justice system by interpreters, many of whom I can see in the Chamber today. They ensure fairness in courts and tribunals; they encourage confidence in the justice system; and they are a vital part of the service that is provided. It is well known, however, that the old system was not ideal. It was inefficient, inadequate and did not provide good value for money. Those issues were noted by the National Audit Office in its report. The new contract and framework agreement were developed to address, as far as possible, those inadequacies. The reality is that we could no longer afford to reward people in a way that bore no relation to the levels of work that they carried out. The National Audit Office recognised that important reality, too.

Remuneration now more closely reflects the work being undertaken and is more closely aligned to the rates on offer for similarly qualified people in other public services. We do not deny that there were teething problems during the early stages of the new contract, and as the Ministry said in its response to the Justice Committee’s report, the initial performance was not satisfactory. Contingency plans were put in place quickly and had a direct effect. Disruption was kept to a minimum; we pushed Capita to improve matters urgently; and there was a significant outlay of investment on its part to improve services.

In the year 30 January 2012 to 31 January 2013, there were more than 131,000 requests for language services, covering 259 different languages, and the overall success rate was at 90%. That is a significant improvement on the 67% successful booking rate in February 2012. The number of complaints received, as against the number of bookings made, has fallen significantly. From February 2012 to August 2012, complaints fell from 10.6% to 1.7% in criminal courts; from 6.3% to 0.8% in civil and family courts; and from 19.2% to 5.6% in tribunals.

We take our responsibilities seriously, and we have ensured that each complaint is investigated. As has been said during the debate, lessons must be learned. I can assure hon. Members that lessons truly are being learned.

The above is only a sample of Helen Grant’s contribution to the debate. However, it is not difficult to picture her sat in Petty France with her hands over her ears ignoring the warnings of doom coming from all quarters and making a loud noise to attempt to drown out all voices that contradict the view of the world which she has been told to accept by her mandarins.