Document Actions
Signs of better access in court
Anne Wollenberg
A new Ministry of Justice (MoJ) arrangement could give deaf and
deafblind people better access to interpreters. The new “language
services framework agreement” also covers foreign language interpreting
services and aims to save the Government £18 million. The new
arrangement should have started on 1 October but was delayed until 31
October for undisclosed reasons.
One private company, Applied Language Solutions (ALS), will deliver
interpreting services to the UK justice sector, including courts,
tribunals and the National Offender Management Service. Some spoken
language interpreters plan to boycott the new arrangement over cuts to
their pay and minimum call-out times and compulsory reassessments.
Interpreting services for disabled people are being subcontracted to one
other provider, Clarion, which holds contracts with a range of clients
including police forces, trade union Unison, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS
Foundation Trust and Cambridge University.
Sally Chalk, chief executive of Clarion, said deaf people would have
“better access to justice” under the new agreement. “They will have a
24/7/365 service with a response time of two hours, as opposed to a
previous six-week industry standard, for critical situations such as
witness statements, reporting an assault or if they are accused of an
offence and need to deal with the police. This will be available
nationally, as compared to previously when the service was very
dependent on postcode.”
Interpreters working with deaf and disabled people have been told their
working conditions will stay the same – unlike spoken language
interpreters – so shouldn’t be discouraged from continuing to work for
the MoJ, but some say they are concerned by the Government’s “one stop
shop” approach.
“It is baffling as to why spoken language and BSL interpreters would be
merged together under one contract,” one British Sign Language (BSL)
interpreter told Disability Now. “There are similarities in what we do,
but our service users have very different requirements, and as a result
we do a completely different job.
“We are in a better position than spoken language interpreters, but
maximum fees have been pushed down because they have been
underestimated. Some interpreters feel driven away from the profession,
which means there are fewer good, skilled interpreters available to the
deaf community.”
ALS is keen to reassure disabled people that high standards will be
maintained. “BSL practitioners have faced and met far higher standards
of assessment and scrutiny of their skills than those working with
foreign languages,” said Anthony Walker, an ALS spokesperson. “This
arrangement hasn’t been changed.”
Lynn Delfosse, head of communication training at Action on Hearing Loss,
said the charity welcomed the MoJ’s continued recognition of qualified,
registered communication support. “There are some outstanding issues
around fees… and some concerns about the over-reliance on one supplier,
but we hope to see these resolved in due course.”
BSL interpreters
I found the article quite uninformed.
BSL Interpreters
You seem to be painfully ill informed about the Sign Language profession in the UK and indeed the way our current government procures services to the detriment of some niche groups.
Were it not for the Association of Sign Language Interpreters there would not be a minimum standard of Members of the Register of Sign Language Interpreters (MRSLIs) in the framework agreement.
Many Spoken Language Interpreters are refusing to work under this agreement as are Sign Language Interpreters. This will obviously result in less access for Deaf people rather than more.
The article seems to have relied much too heavily upon the words of the sub-contractor of the language services agreement, in this case, Clarion. Were you to have taken into account what your other sources said you may have found yourself with a less biased article.
The misinformation I refer to is, firstly, a six-week booking time for interpreters. This has never been the case and certainly not in the last few years with more registered interpreters than ever before. Quite often bookings are now filled within a week, some on the day. This is due to changing market conditions rather than the work of one agency.
Secondly, some courts and police authorities, such as the London Metropolitan Police have had lists of vetted, approved and experienced interpreters in place for many years. Many of the other BSL agencies cover legal interpreting and have done for years.
Thirdly, and I quote, ‘Interpreters working with deaf and disabled people have been told their working conditions will stay the same’. This is not true. As part of their tender, ALS stated they would abolish cancellation fees in order to save costs. As a high percentage of court work is cancelled, many interpreters are unwilling to now take court bookings for fear that they will go unpaid and not be able to get replacement work when their bookings are cancelled at the eleventh hour. The rates of pay have also been set lower than many experienced legal have previously charged and been paid.
Two further points that have been made, you fail to pick up on. Firstly, your quote from an Interpreter that, ‘Some interpreters feel driven away from the profession, which means there are fewer good, skilled interpreters available to the deaf community.” The concern with this contract is the only Interpreters that may find the payments, terms and conditions viable are those with the least experience in legal interpreting. Where we had the most experienced interpreters working these assignments, we may face a situation where we have the least. Without a specialist certificate or requirement to undertake legal work, as they do in some states in the US, we are left with Deaf people potentially having the worst possible access rather than the best.
Secondly, the point made about concerns about the over reliance on one supplier. There is a target for ALS to fulfill bookings at 98%. As BSL Interpreters are generally more expensive the fear is that they will not bother to book as many, leave assignments unfilled and Deaf people will have longer waiting times or less access to justice. This contract has never been about better access for those who use interpreters. It is only about costs and savings. Deaf people, part of a niche and little understood community by mainstream services have been put together with speakers of other language under a one-stop shop framework. As a writer for Disability Now, ‘The UK's leading magazine and website for disabled people’, did you really think this that Deaf people would gain better access to justice as a result of this contract? Not only have spoken language interpreters gotten a bad deal, so have sign language interpreters and the communities they serve.
Sign Language Interpreters
Legal work is subject to frequent cancellations as cases are deferred or court hearings postponed - so interpreters up to now have been booked and paid a cancellation fee if the job does not go ahead.
Clarion and ALS appear to made a bid to supply services which means these fees will no longer be paid - with the consequence interpreters cannot afford to reserve the appointment slot for job where they might never be paid.
They will seek other work first and only agree to this work on the last minute if they are still available.
Many of those who know the field are predicting that Deaf people will suffer more cancellations due to non availability of interpreters than before, and more expense will be incurred for the legal system because of cancelled hearings unless a work round is found quickly.