Migration Pulse
Discussion on National Register of Public Service Interpreters
Dr Zuzana Windle writes on the Ministry of Justice's decision to implement substantial cuts in their budget, which will lead to the abolishment of the National Agreement on the Engagement of Interpreters in Criminal Proceedings and the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, NRPSI
Dr Zuzana Windle is one of the Directors of Professional Interpreters' Alliance. The Professional Interpreters’ Alliance (PIA) promotes and safeguard the interests of professional public service interpreters and upholds standards within the profession. It campaigns for the protection of title and regulation of the profession by statute, as well as fighting against exploitation of the profession by commercial intermediaries and outsourcing of interpreting services within the public sector.
I am writing on behalf of the Professional Interpreters’ Alliance regarding the Ministry of Justice’s decision to implement substantial cuts in their budget, which will lead to the abolishment of the National Agreement on the Engagement of Interpreters in Criminal Proceedings and the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, NRPSI.
The MOJ is also planning to cut legal aid and these policies will have a negative impact on the administration of justice in this country. The National Agreement was put in place on the recommendations of Lord Justice Auld in 2001 to afford non-English speaking defendants and victims the right to a fair trial following a miscarriage of justice in the Begum case.
The National Agreement stipulates that it is essential that interpreters employed to assist in criminal proceedings should be registered on the NRPSI. On the 16th June 2010, the EU adopted a directive on the rights of foreign nationals to interpretation and translation carried out by adequately qualified interpreters and translators. The directive will require all member states to maintain a register of suitably qualified interpreters and translators working in the criminal justice system.
The MoJ’s decision to abolish the National Agreement and both National Registers will place the most vulnerable members of our society, non-English speakers from ethnic minorities, at a risk of becoming victims of a miscarriage of justice. The provision of language interpreters will be outsourced to various commercial companies which will keep their own registers. Several commercial agencies currently operate in the criminal justice sector and data obtained through Freedom of Information requests show beyond any doubt that these agencies do not operate in the interest of justice and employ unqualified and often incompetent persons purporting to be interpreters to inflate their profits.
The use of such unqualified persons has led to many cases being lost in court and to non-English speaking defendants and victims being deprived of their right to a fair trial. The costs of trials lost through substandard interpreting have been borne by the taxpayer. An example of such malpractice can be seen in the North West, where 6 police forces outsourced the provision of interpreters to an agency. This particular agency uses working practices considered unethical by professional interpreters, who refuse to work for them. As a result, suspects are being kept in custody for unacceptably long periods of time and unqualified persons are being sent to police stations and courts across the region. Nobody checks the qualifications of such agency interpreters and there does not appear to be an effective audit trail.
At present, all interpreters registered on the NRPSI carry a badge containing their details and their identity can be checked at all times. All NRPSI registered interpreters are suitably qualified, security vetted and subject to disciplinary proceedings of their professional bodies. Once the NRPSI has been abolished and replaced by registers administered by commercial agencies, emphasis will be placed on the agency making a maximum profit at the expense of justice and the rights of non-English speakers and disabled people.
Following the decision of the MoJ to abolish the National Agreement, many professional interpreters have decided to leave the profession and seek alternative employment. This will result in shortages of suitably qualified interpreters in the future. It takes several years to become a qualified and competent interpreter and every effort should be made to prevent current NRPSI registrants leaving the profession.
I understand that it is important to cut costs and make the service more efficient but the costs proposed by the MoJ are going too far. Abolishing the National Agreement is not the answer. The MoJ has failed to carry out any meaningful consultation with interpreters who would have made constructive proposals in respect of reducing costs, which would not lead to a significant reduction in the quality of the service and which would not erode fundamental human rights of the most vulnerable members of our society.
I am not against outsourcing per se. I believe that outsourcing administration, such as invoice processing, and establishing a call centre whilst preserving the National Agreement and the NRPSI would lead to significant savings and would not have a detrimental effect upon the delivery of justice.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Youtube
Flickr
Comments
This will have a disproportionate impact on LGBT refugees. I have heard numerous reports of mistranslation by homophobic people and I doubt that this issue will be covered in the Home Office's proposals to change the system.
As a professional interpreter I have several problems with the whole issue:
1) The PIA essentially is toothless, verging on insignificant
2) The NRPSI and the DPSI exam DO NOT guarantee any quality whatsoever. The DPSI itself needs an overhaul. An "interpreting" exam which is four parts translation and two parts interpreting is not fit for purpose. The CIOL who administer both the DPSI and NRPSI are both understaffed and incompetent and also started out life as a humble agency. In order to become a registered member of the NRPSI, speakers of LLD do not need to sit an exam as there are no facilities to examine them. Marking and assessment for the DPSI is not transparent nor objective and is biased towards non-native English speakers.
3) Agencies are not the solution, I agree. They are under no obligation to guarantee quality or even compliance with legislation and minimum levels of professionalism. A more open, transparent and effective NRPSI is the only way to even attempt to guarantee quality.
I read Ms Windle article with interest and find it is her with her ramblings and petitions that has brought these circumstance upon us.
She and likes of her go on complaining and moaning to anyone and everyone that would half listen to them.
I have been in the profession for over 15 years and since likes of Ms Windle has come along she has managed to spoil the whole profession by constantly complaining about other interpreters, fees and anything else they get think of.
Well, so much for your petitions and pressure group.
I am a NRPSI interpreter for over 15 years and not once I have complained and moaned because I knew we had it good, unlike you people.
Please leave us alone and join some animal welfare group to run you silly campaign.
Many people will share the concerns expressed in Dr Windle’s posting about interpreting in the judicial services. I would like to correct a detail.
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has indicated that the National Agreement will eventually be rendered redundant; the MOJ has not, however, abolished the National Register (NRPSI), nor could it do so as NRPSI is not a government agency. The NRPSI, while being alert to current developments and discussions, is continuing its usual functions of maintaining a register of professional, qualified and quality assured interpreters and providing this register to public service organisations and agencies that they may work through.
I think "Interpreter" goes too far and again, unfortunately, highlights what I have been saying about the failings in the NRPSI and the DPSI testing in general. I mean, if this person has been here for over fifteen years and is a registered NRPSI interpreter, don't you think it's reasonable to expect them to be able to use the correct tense and conjugate verbs properly? And yet this person was considered good enough to interpret in court???
Well Anonymous,
What exactly do you mean by:-
"I think "Interpreter" goes too far and again, unfortunately"
People like you have no respect for anyone other than yourself.
Take criticism and learn something from it.
Before you criticise me please learn to speak English properly......
@interpreter:
At first, I simply disagreed with you. However, your breathtaking arrogance and ignorance have actually succeeded in annoying me. I think it's time to give you a few hard and fast facts and see if we can get somewhere close to the mark.
Firstly, let's clear up your lack of knowledge of the English language. I am an English native speaker and this shows. The level of my written English is far superior to your's. For example, you imply that there is something wrong with:
"I think "Interpreter" goes too far and again, unfortunately, highlights", you will not the second comma following the word, "unfortunately". This signifies a subordinate clause and is a standard construction in English. It denotes and additional clause which may be removed from the the sentence without detracting from the grammatical meaning.
Secondly, I am a professional interpreter and translator and have been (note the tense) for four years. I call myself a professional interpreter because I hold both a BA and an MA in interpreting and translation, a DPSI and a SCIC interpreter training certificate. I am also a lecturer in translation and liaison interpreting and adhere to very high professional standards.
I agree with Dr Windle in principle. I agree with the aim of attaining and maintaining high professional standards in interpreting and that professional interpreters should be duly remunerated. I disagree with her in the sense that I feel the NRPSI itself does not guarantee these standards and is fatally flawed.
It is people like yourself that make the task of improving the profession extremely difficult. I don;t know you but, judging by your attitude and level of written English, would say that:
1) You have never studied interpreting, interpreting theory or translation and perhaps may have never even studied English.
2) You cam to this country 15 years ago and could speak slightly better English than your kinsmen. As such, you were drafted in to interpret as an emergency measure and have called yourself an interpreter ever since. The profession has been improving steadily year on year and yet you have, rather arrogantly, never thought it necessary to develop professionally. Let me give you two examples from what you have written to highlight these points. My corrections are in parantheses:
"I have been in the profession for over 15 years and since (THE) likes of Ms (Dr) Windle has come (CAME) along (,) she has managed to spoil the whole profession by constantly complaining about other interpreters, fees and anything else they get (CAN) think of."
"I am a (HAVE BEEN AN) NRPSI interpreter for over 15 years and not once I have (HAVE I - standard inversion) complained and (OR) moaned because I knew we had it good, unlike you people."
The point was not about having it good. The idea is to provide a professional service to the highest attainable standards. You may have been an NRPSI interpreter for 15 years but that is because 15 years ago, there were no tests and no standards. This does not make you a professional interpreter. If I administer the Heimlich manoeuvre to someone in a restaurant, I might save their life but it doesn't make me a doctor.
YES to professional standards and getting rid of people like you. NO to relying on the NRPSI/DPSI to achive those standards.
Can we please concentrate on what is important?
1. The Ministry of Justice’s decision to abolish the National Agreement will place the most vulnerable members of our society, non-English speakers from ethnic minorities, at a risk of becoming victims of a miscarriage of justice.
2. The costs of trials lost through substandard interpreting will be borne by the taxpayer.
3. Agencies exploit interpreters. Agencies want to make a maximum profit at the expense of justice and the rights of non-English speakers and disabled people.
4. Outsourcing does not work. Have a look at what is happening in Ireland, Scotland and other European countries that have outsourced.
5. If this goes ahead many qualified interpreters (most from ethnic minorities) will be forced to leave the profession.
6. The NRPSI needs to be sorted asap.
I fully support Dr Windle and PIA.
To “Interpreter” - August 25, 2010:
Dr Windle has done more for the profession than all the so called “professional associations” together.
If you want to be exploited by all means go and register with commercial agencies. You are free to do so. However, you should respect those of us who refuse to be exploited.
Thank you Anonymous for outlining in such poignant terms why NRPSI and DPSI do not guarantee the high standard of professionalism required for court interpreting. Interpreter hopefully realised what a disgrace he/she is to the profession. Outsourcing to agencies is clear death for quality and every truly professional interpreter knows this, but what are our protests going to achieve? Is there anybody listening? In the face of such massive budget cuts, I fear that our voices will be drowned and our futures at risk alongside the future of the people relying on our skills to have a voice. We need to come up with solutions and propose viable alternatives to outsourcing. Any ideas?
@Another anonymous,
I couldn't agree more. At the moment, the situation is like the last election, there are choices but none of them are any good. Sticking with the NRPSI blindly will not serve the profession whilst relying on agencies will kill off any lingering hopes of raising professional standards.
The solutions is simple and yet difficult to achieve. There are several things we need to do simultaneously, which given that we're interpreters, shouldn't be too difficult.
Firstly, we need to put pressure on the government, the police itself and the CJS (the CPS in particular) to ensure that, if it is to outsource for the moment, that it select in a clear and transparent manner and that the agency selected be reputable.
Secondly, we need, all of us, to say to the CIOL, "thank you for what you have done but overall you have failed in your task to improve the profession". The administration of the NRPSI would then be open for tender by any agency/institution/organisation and the premise for allowing it to administer the NRPSI should be an overhaul of the DPSI exam itself; a clear and transparent testing procedure; a transparent employment policy for its own staff; a more efficient and professional management of the NRPSI. There should also be independent evaluation of the DPSI exam and the exam process, preferably with the involvement of HE.
Thirdly, we need to reach a new National Agreement with the new government as to when and where a DPSI/NRPSI registration is necessary. It undermines the profession to say that, for the purposes of interpreting in court, or for the police, you must have a DPSI while to interpret for mentally ill patients or even for the NHS as a whole, you don't. What kind of message does this send out?
Finally, we need to agree amongst ourselves, in our professional bodies, organisations and members' institutions, what are goals are. We need to have all qualified, professional and competent interpreters singing from the same hymn sheet. Again, it undermines the profession to have highly skilled and professional interpreters accepting jobs from disreputable agencies for a pittance while other, more professional agencies are forced to used underskilled, so-called "interpreters" in other regions of the country.
As I said before, there are also interpreters out there, who have got themselves on the national register without ever sitting an exam or being tested. People like "interpreter" because of the timeframe, or others who are speakers of LLDs (langauges of limited difusion) have never taken a test, these people require testing now. Only an organisation as arrogant as the CIOL would think that it's ok to fail an English native speaker for failing written translation into their second language, but allow a Mongolian native speaker, who can barely speak English, to interpret in court without ever being tested.
As I keep saying, YES to professional standards. NO to confusing the CIOL with a body which could possibly deliver those standards.
Do we really need the same super-linguist-interpreter for a short public order case in a magistrates' court as much as for a sexual assault trial in a Crown court?
Should the interpreters in these two cases be paid the same money?
At present, once you have done your DPSI you are not obliged to develop your professional skills, in fact no one can question your skills even if your interpreting is complete disgrace.
Unfortunately, the current system does not work for anyone. Outsourcing, however, is not a remedy.
I think one thing needs to be pointed out here. The NA was devised in reaction to a case known as the Begum Case. I won't waste time here describing it - if you don't know what it is, Google it.
My point is: since the NRPSI was founded and the NA has been used, has there been another Begum case? Has there been a serious miscarriage of justice involving an NRPSI interpreter, apart from perhaps a case that came up last year in Manchester that was affected not because of the quality or otherwise of the interpreter but because the NRPSI interpreter sent an impostor, which is a different issue altogether. But the NA, and the NRPSI, while flawed, need to be improved on. What is happening at present amounts to smashing up a system that required some serious tweaks. If it's not broken, don't fix it, goes the saying. The NRPSI is broken, it needs to be fixed, not destroyed.
I'd like to praise the point made by one of the "Anonymous" posters here: it is not permitted to interpret in a Police station or a criminal court (or family court, for that matter), but you can sign up with an agency on the back of basic Spanish or Bulgarian or whatever other language based on the mildest smattering of that language and waltz freely into any hospital or medical centre in the country and call yourself an interpreter.
Sure, agencies do supply doctors to Police stations and nurses to hospitals. But the one thing they'd never get away with is sending someone who has a First Aid qualification to a job and calling them a nurse, or a nurse to a job, and call them a doctor.
It suits these firms to have it that way because when various types of contract are awarded which pay a lump sum to them to provide the service, the cheaper they can get the labour, the better it suits them. If there was a single transparent system which only allowed private firms to make their money from organising the system, where they had to prove usage of people who have NRPSI status or a DPSI, I believe a lot of cost would be saved. One of the problems is also the way interpreters have brought the profession into disrepute by sending imposters so they can do several jobs at once.
IDs need to be not only checked but checked against another form of ID and this should be done stringently - the number of times I've turned up at Police stations, shown my ID and the officers just go "Ah, it's alright" without bothering to look at it, I have lost count! The flimsy NRPSI card is one of the issues for me: it is a piece of laminated paper with a photograph that a ten-year-old with basic computer skills could produce.
The most important thing to remember is that someone in custody, in hospital or even in a JobCentre Plus should NEVER have the decision of who interprets for them made with commercial dynamics impinging on who turns up to assist them communicating. Placing the role in the hands of commercially-minded businesses is an absolute disgrace. They do not have the right to choose who turns up, unlike companies, whose executives make the decision of which translation/interpreting firms they take their business to and if the company they choose does a bad job, it's the company's poor decision and they therefore take the consequences. In the CJS and NHS etc, the person who receives a poor interpreter suffers as a consequence of someone else's decision. That is a massive difference.
I also take issue with the points made about the DPSI. I am an English native speaker and I personally found it to be a very gruelling test of my ability, the interpreting examinations involved interpreting for people speaking at speeds absolutely in line with what I experienced in the real job, and it was no less difficult taking it in Spanish for the first time in 2006 after two and a half years working in Portuguese. It may be under fire but can any of the sniping chorus come up with any other interpreting qualification or exam that is better? I'd like to point out to these people that we also have a thing called a DVLA driving license in this country and people still have car accidents. The DPSI tests someone and proves they are fit for purpose to a certain extent at the time of examination - what more do you expect?
@Marc Starr,
Most of the comments to which you are referring are mine. Whilst I agree with the majority of what you are saying, the issue about the DPSI exam is still pertinant. My point is that, at present, the DPSI exam has several major flaws:
1) The marking is neither transparent nor objective and there is little or no consistency between languages in this regard. They know this, which is why, unless you're willing to pay for a re-mark, you never see your paper or the notes the examiner writes - or even a percentage.
2) The exam is easier to pass for a non-native English speaker. True, the vast majority of the really complex language you will come up against as an interpreter need to go from English to the other language, however, the level of English of non-native speakers is far less strictly assessed than the other language of English native speakers.
3) The award is called a "Diploma in Public Service Interpreting", yet 4 out of the 6 components are translation-based.
4) The DPSI is currently only required for jobs related to the CJS. Why then, on my exam, were there no components related to criminal law? You don't need a DPSI to translate, into another language, an information sheet about licensing laws for a private client. If you were asked to translate this type of text, you would need an MA in translation and a computer and the internet.
I have no problem with how difficult or otherwise the actual interpreting sections of the exam are. I believe this could be extended and worked on but what is in place is a good starting point. My issue is "fit for purpose", the above highlights that this exam is not.
Finally, I would dearly love for the NA to be extended to ALL areas of public service. Again, at the moment, the DPSI law exam is the only prerequisite for the job and, as such, there is no motivation for even the most professional of interpreters to take DPSIs in other fields.
@ Speaker of X language:
Yes, a professional interpreter should be required for all court cases. It is dangerous to think otherwise. Who would decide which cases "deserve" a professional interpreter and which cases only warrant a "kebab shop interpreter"?
Yes, in both cases the interpreter should be paid the same hourly rate. Public order cases pose as many difficulties for the non-specialist as do sexual assualt or complex fraud cases.
No, you're right. The current system doesn't work well enough and needs serious changes. Outsourcing is clearly not the answer.
I forgot to mention, in my list of possible of changes, continuous evaluation is also essential. In most jobs, you have 12 month reviews etc. yet, because we are all freelance, we very rarely have any form of ongoing assessment. Interpreters can get sloppy, pick up awful habbits etc. just like anyone else.
That's all I can think of for now - I have a huge translation on so must get back to work.
@Original Anonymous.
I will look more closely at the DPSI points you make. I will admit that this is one area I am not familiar with because, to be honest, my concern for the DPSI ended when I passed mine - it's for the IOL to sort out. I am, however, flattered but also worried that I got through a tougher test than that of my many overseas colleagues, if it's supposed to be an SAS assault course, it should be as difficult for all.
Your point in (3) "The award is called a "Diploma in Public Service Interpreting", yet 4 out of the 6 components are translation-based." is interesting because I can't agree or disagree, but I err on the side of disagreeing.
I spend a lot of time in the jobs I do either doing sight translations of statements or pre-sentence reports and also plenty of time translating statements I've written down in the original language. I'd say the DPSI is reasonably well balanced because those two 20+ minute role-plays are a total ordeal.
I've experienced less stressful intensive dental work.
Marc
With regard to the claims made about the National Register in the above article, it is hard to believe that Dr. Windle could be so misinformed as to think they are true. On the other hand, it is equally hard to believe that she would deliberately misrepresent the facts. I can only assume, therefore, that there has been some sort of blunder at the editing stage and that the article as it appears does not represent what Dr. Windle actually wrote.
Could you please, therefore, either publish the article with corrections (and an apology to Dr. Windle) or withdraw it altogether as it is clearly upsetting a lot of people and doing your cause no good at all.
Dear anonymous,
MRN was asked to publish the text we received through an email and we have done so in good faith with no intention to misrepresent Dr Windle's views.
The only text added to the original article in the process of editing was the title and the subtitle which were suposed to reflect the content of the article, especially the first paragraph of the text submitted by Dr Windle:
"... Ministry of Justice's decision to implement substantial cuts in their budget, which will lead to the abolishment of the National Agreement on the Engagement of Interpreters in Criminal Proceedings and the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, NRPSI"
The content of the entire post was sent to Dr Windle for comments before it was published.
However, the title and the subtitle have now been changed, to an exact copy of the first paragraph.
If we have misrepressented Dr Windle's views in this post we do apologise. The main purpose of running the migration pulse page is to offer people space to express their opinions through posts and comments.
@ Anonymous - The native speaker
Please read carefully "I have been in the profession for over 15 years", I have at no point mentioned that I came to this country 15 years ago. It's what you have assumed being a native English speaker. Does that make you any better than the rest of us? I really do wonder what goes on in that head of yours.
Please do not reply to this post as I do not wish to engage in any further dialogue with you. I simply find your gibbering subordinate.
@Interpreter,
Since I've never been one to surrender the last word, I thought I would respond to your last comment. You're right, I did assume that you came to this country 15 years ago but I don't see how my being a native English speaker is related to this. If you came to this country 16 years ago, I apologise for my assumption, although I would have hoped that after 16 years or more, your written English would be better.
More importantly, I notice you haven't disagreed with my remarks about how you came to be an "interpreter" which are a little more pertinant.
I'm not going to be drawn into a slanging match with you as this is not constructive. Suffice to say that your attitude to the profession, standards, assessment and improvement in remuneration are unhelpful to the point of being incredulous.
Finally, you say:
"I simply find your gibbering subordinate."
Did you look up the term "subordinate" in a dictionary? I'm not sure you are really comfortable with its correct usage.
i was looking on the web for some information about NRPSI or any advice and by accident i have found this article and your comments.
a few days ago a have received my results of The Metropolitan Police Test re-sit and and for my biggest surprise the mark was Failed again (for the fifth time) for the sight translation. from your comments i understood that you have also had some problems with company and their policies.
if any of you could give me some advice on what can i possibly do? and if there is any chance to obtain a fair mark in re-mark?
Hi
I feel absolutely been cheated and ripped off by IOL,
I have been interpreting for over 10 years and since last year I have been trying to pass the Met police and DPSI test!
it is very strange that they always fail you on Oral subjects so they can get more money off you for resit!
In July 2009 I did my Met police test for the first time which I was failed in two parts (including oral part), I did the resit in Nov 2009 and failed the same parts again! when I appealed their decision (had to pay another £70) it did not make any different so Total of £1070 loss so far
Then I thought maybe DPSI is the better option so I enrolled in a language academy in Sheffield (the only avilable one at the time) where I had to pay about £1000 including exam fees and drive for over 150 miles to get to my classes every weekend! however when I got the results today once again I was failed in 2 parts including oral part! what a surprise!
the interesting bit was that I already sent my application for Nov resit for Met police test which would be my third time but once I have my DPSI results then I thought surely there is something wring going on with IOL and felt totally sickened by the way that they are trying to make money!
Luckily seen this page and after reading it, called the IOL and asked them t return my cheque which was for £500, I ave now given up on these qualifications as I already have another 10 qualifications from other fields that I have been studying over the past 15 years!
the person we al need to deal with is:
John Hammond
Chartered Institute of Linguists
Saxon House
48 Southwark Street
London SE1 1UN
I will instead spend my money on an educational lawyer so I can get to bottom of this, Surely all that wasted time and money must be compensated
The worst fact about IOL is that they never give you a percentage (ie pass mark is 40% and you only gained 38%) nor publishing their pass rates! I have been in contact with other 4 people who did the same course in my language and they are all failed! in fact they failed most parts!
Also the fact that they never give you any feedback, report when you appeal, all look strange!
if anyone wish to join me in taking a legal action against this organisation please drop me an email vydesigns@gmail.com as i will be instructing a solicitor this week and would be nice to hear more similar stories
few days ago a have received my results of The Metropolitan Police Test re-sit and and for my biggest surprise the mark was Failed again (for the fifth time) for the sight translation. from your comments i understood that you have also had some problems with company and their policies.
if any of you could give me some advice on what can i possibly do? and if there is any chance to obtain a fair mark in re-mark?
To: Dezi and Mr yousefi
This is not the right place to complain about your DPSI/Met Test fails.
The issue being discussed here is the decision of the Ministry of Justice to abolish the National Agreement. If it goes ahead it won’t be worth working as a public service interpreter in the UK anymore so you might find out that all your money and effort has been completely pointless.
Please be warned that the Metropolitan Police Test is not a QCA accredited qualification, it’s just a test.
If you failed the Met Test 5 times I would say you should give up.
I have done both and I found that the Met Test is quite easy compared to the DPSI.
Good luck!
Why is the nrpsi not allowing agencies, and other sector bodies to acces the register? They are simply refusing to allow paid access to the nrpsi which means the interpreters cannot be contacted by specialist interpreting providers to provide A continuity of interpreting assignments.
"Anonymous agency says: October 7, 2010 - Why is the nrpsi not allowing agencies, and other sector bodies to acces the register? They are simply refusing to allow paid access to the nrpsi which means the interpreters cannot be contacted by specialist interpreting providers to provide A continuity of interpreting assignments."
THE LONGER THIS CONTINUES, THE BETTER.
YOU JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU?
SPECIALIST INTERPRETERS CAN BE CONTACTED BY PUBLIC SERVICES - YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO LOSE YOUR LAVISH LIFESTYLE FUNDED BY ACTING AS A BARRIER OF STEEL BETWEEN HONEST PROFESSIONALS AND PUBLIC SERVICES, WITH YOURSELF AS THE FILTER THROUGH WHICH MOST OF THE MONEY MOST PROBABLY IS KEPT FROM THOSE DOING THE JOB, THUS COSTING THE PUBLIC SERVICES MORE MONEY FOR THE SAME SERVICE, AND EVEN THEN, ONLY IF QUALIFIED PERSONS ARE USED. SO STOP ACTING LIKE YOU ARE SOME SORT OF ALTRUISTIC CHARITABLE SUPPLIER AND ADMIT: YOU ARE A PARASITE, YOU ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY AND THE FACT YOU DON'T WANT TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF SAYS IT ALL.
:o)))))))))))))))))))))))))) how ridiculous is this....it's for people with too much time on their hands...and Marc, the majority of people here dont identify themselves so dont get so passionate about it ;o)))
Some people here have a really low self-confident so they have to prove how educated they are but not necessary clever and intelligent to say the least!! :o)
To start correcting someone's grammar in here is so pathetic and supercilious..
Anyway people, you have a good time in here and don't forget to use dictionaries unless of course, you are an English native! ;o)
Cheerio!
Finally, voice of reason. Thank-you Karen.
Does anyone know anything about the court case against the agency (-ies) that has been lodged? Where can we get detailed info about it and suggestions how to contribute to its success?
Dr Windle can give you information about the Judicial Review. Google her name or PIA (Professional Interpreters' Alliance) and contact them.
Otherwise leave your email here and I will contact you.
hi. i just saw that you have some information about the case thats is lounged agaist the agencies. could you contact me about this on deziderija@hotmail.co.uk
so that we could discus it as i have already lost any hope on passing those exams.
i have a few months left to graduate at the university in modern languages and i will not waiste any more money for the career that does not bring any results. i feel very dissapointed and ripped off by NRPSI and least i woud like to know if there is anything really going on against them (NRPSI). i have contacted the office of fair traiding and they adviced me to seek legal advice. however if there is anymore people in my position and if there is really any case lounged i would be happy to join this group.
TYHANK YOU
Dezi: join the Professional Interpreters' Alliance if you are a member of the NRPSI. You can also join the NRPSI Action Group Forum.
The application for a Judicial Review has now been lodged, and with it, a request for a temporary quashing order for the contract between the Police forces in the NW of England. Not sure when the hearing is but it is likely to be some time soon.
[quote]"i feel very dissapointed and ripped off by NRPSI and least i woud like to know if there is anything really going on against them (NRPSI)."[/quote]
Dezi: no interpreter/RPSI in their right mind is going to support you in taking legal action or any action against the NRPSI - it's our only hope for the future of legal interpreting in the UK!
If you have a problem with the exams take it up with the Institute of Linguists Educational Trust or IoL Language Services Ltd. It's nothing to do with the NRPSI!
I agree with what's been said above: if you failed the exam 5 times you should give up. Having a degree in languages doesn't necessarily mean you can be an interpreter (especially if you are taking the Met Test and have never attended a course).
Oh lord, some people have to find these web sites to feel important. I actually feel sorry for the person who has to outline his qualifications here. He must be so lonely.
What's being native got to do with anything that's being discussed here.
The teacher should get a life so that hr doesnt have to correct others grammar on websites.
Sad sad sad.
To Anonymous
You are spot on with your comments.
As the Director of an Agency can I ask that Interpreters are careful with their comments as we are not all alike. Some agencies DO train and qualify their Interpreters from Community Interpreters up to and including DPSI.
My agency is a registered Charity and works purely in the interest of quality and best value. We work tirelsley with commisioners to raise the concerns about profit making organisations whose priorities are not in the interest of the service user. These organisations do use unqualified Interpreters and I think we will always have an uphill struggle to get people to listen as they assume our intentions in raisning such concerns are purely self serving.
Article in Private Eye about PIA's JR
Speakers cornered
Interpreters
Language interpreters used by four police forces in north-west England are refusing to work for the agency that won the contract and are challenging the contract with a judicial review.
Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria police outsourced their interpreting services last year in exclusive deals with and agency called Applied Language Solutions (ALS). Previously, the forces had hired interpreters directly whenever they needed to talk to suspects, witnesses or victims who didn’t speak English well enough.
Normal guidelines for the use of interpreters in the Criminal Justice System say foreign-language interpreters working in courts or police stations should be registered on the National register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) to guarantee quality and guard against miscarriages of justice.
But many registered interpreters refuse to work for ALS. They take issue with its pisspoor rates of pay, its record on handling personal data (for which it has been reprimanded by the Information Commissioner) and its use of unqualified workers. As a result, there are no registered interpreters available for languages including Vietnamese, Slovak, Turkish, Thai, Polish, Mandarin and French. Police however have to accept unregistered people sent by the agency (if it can find anyone) or beg their bosses for permission to call NRPSI interpreters at extra expense.
The Professional Interpreters’ Alliance (PIA), formed in response to the outsourcing, has gathered a catalogue of ALS failures since August, mostly uncovered because NRPSI interpreters have been belatedly called to the rescue. These include incidents where suspects have had to be bailed because it has taken ALS so long to find an interpreter; where police and duty solicitors have been unable to understand an interpreter’s poor English; and where interpreters have been supplied for the wrong language (such as a Czech interpreter being sent for an interview with a Slovak-speaking suspect).
As revealed by the Eye in 2009, after Thames Valley Police made a similar deal with agency Language Line, one in fifteen of the interpreters sent to police stations were not properly qualified or registered. In the same year, the use of unqualified foreign students in the Scottish courts sparked serious fears of wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals. Despite these failings being brought to their attention by interpreters and MPs, the north-west forces pushed ahead with the deal anyway. The application for judicial review is due to be heard in March.
The police forces have told the PIA that there is “no legal requirement” to use registered interpreters. However, the PIA says not to do so runs counter not only to the national guidelines, drawn up in 2001 by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, but also the recommendations of the Auld report, the Runciman Royal Commission, CPS guidance, Law Society guidance, a recent EU directive, and, ultimately, the Human Rights Act.
Private Eye, Issue 1280, 21st January 2011 - Page 30 (Criminal Justice Roundup)
I used to work for one of the companies that provides interpreting and translation sevices to Police Forces and the NHS. Without suggesting any wrong doing, I would suggest that as part of the Judicial review you ask for a full audit of the interpreters and translators used by the agency providing those services. I am not telling you how to conduct the investigation but am suggesting that you may find some evidence of a lack of adherance to the agreement they have in place. I would check that all interpreters have had crimminal record checks in place when provided for a job and that all of them have undergone appropriate training, have had credentials checked and have been appropriately vetted before being sent out. This may help you put your case forward.
Despite a boycott by police interpreters in north-west England (see last Eye), the outsourcing of all foreign language interpreting for the police and courts is currently out to tender.
The Ministry of Justice announced plans to put all interpreting services out to tender last year, after justice minister Crispin Blunt told parliament that hiring individual linguists from the National Register of Public Sector [sic] Interpreters (NRPSI) was an "inefficient, labour intensive" process.
While they're handing that process to big language agencies, ministers also reckon they may as well abandon the National Agreement which sets out guidelines on using registered interpreters because "the quality of interpretation will be ensured through the terms of the contracts." But will it?
As reported in the last Eye, many registered interpreters are refusing to work for the agency Applied Language Solutions (ALS), which already has "preferred supplier" agreements with Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria police.
ALS has since been in touch demanding "clarifications" of the interpreters' criticisms - such as the pisspoor pay on offer. A spokeswoman admitted ALS does not pay the full national agreement rate, doesn't pay for travel time and doesn't charge police for a minimum three-hour period, even though interpreters might have a long journey across the region to do just half an hour's interpreting. "This has delivered significant cost savings to the police forces that we provide services to," she said. It is also likely to drive good interpreters out of the job.
In response to complaints that ALS often uses unregistered interpreters, despite the requirements of the National Agreement, ALS "clarified" that it, er, often uses unregistered interpreters. "ALS always offers every assignment to NRPSI-registered linguists in the first instance. If no NRPSI linguist is available then a fully assessed, non-NRPSI linguist that meets the criteria of the assignment will be used. There is no legal requirement to use NRPSI-registered linguists to fulfil police appointments."
In answer to a freedom of information request in 2009, Cheshire Constabulary revealed that just 34 per cent of interpreters supplied to it by ALS for face-to-face interpreting had been on the NRPSI - and that was before the boycott started.
ALS also defended itself against criticism that a Czech interpreter was sent to help a Slovak-speaking suspect, saying that it is "fair to say that most people from Slovakia essentially speak Czech." This may come as a surprise to the Czech Republic's court system, which provides official interpreters to protect the rights of the Slovak minority.
Private Eye, Issue 1281, 4th February 2011, page 28
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/row-erupts-over-police-interpreters
Law Society Gazette
Thursday 03 February 2011
Row erupts over police interpreters
Detainees at police stations in four areas of the north-west are at risk of miscarriages of justice due to the police forces’ use of inadequate interpreters, the Gazette has been told.
The Professional Interpreters Alliance (PIA) has been granted permission to begin a judicial review of a decision by police authorities in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria to outsource their interpreting services and enter an exclusive agreement with Applied Language Solutions (ALS).
PIA, which represents the interests of interpreters who are registered with the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, alleges in its judicial review claim that commercial agencies such as ALS ‘compromise standards of quality of service by the use of unqualified interpreters’.
ALS denies the claims.
Rob Taberner, police station representative for Bolton firm Fieldings Porter, said that since the new contracts began in August, people who are not properly qualified have been sent to the police station to interpret.
‘They sometimes cannot translate properly and do not understand simple legal terms, which is a fundamental part of their job,’ he said.
Where the police cannot get an agency interpreter before the custody time limit expires, Taberner said he had heard of detainees being charged and sent to court without a proper understanding of why they were there. ‘It’s a farcical situation that could lead to miscarriages of justice,’ said Taberner. ‘They want a professional job done on the cheap.’
Lina Tsui-Cheung, an associate at Manchester firm ABM, said she had noticed a similar decline in standards since the new contracts began in August, and her firm had experienced ‘a lot of difficulties’ under the new arrangement.
‘The agents are of poor competence. It appears to me that what is translated is not always correct, and clients have told me that they are not always able to understand the interpreter, or what they are being asked,’ she said.
An ALS spokeswoman said: ‘The interpreters providing interpreting services to the criminal justice system have grave professional responsibilities. Work allocated to interpreters by Applied Language Solutions is done under the terms of the National Framework Agreement, which details the qualifications required to undertake legal interpreting assignments in the UK.’
She added that it was ‘not true’ that ALS interpreters struggle to understand basic terms.
Ian Kelcey, chair of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, stressed the importance of properly qualified translators. ‘Accurate interpretation at the police station is absolutely vital to avoid miscarriages of justice,’ he said.
In their acknowledgment of service of the judicial review claim, the police authorities said they had undertaken a ‘rigorous procurement exercise’ before awarding the contracts to ALS, which was ranked highest by the panel.
They said: ‘The central aims of initiating the procurement process were the freeing up of administration resources, matching availability to demand, and control over the budget, without compromising the quality of the interpreters provided.’
The forces said they were satisfied that the interpreters engaged ‘would be provided as and when required and that they would be competent’.
is it true that a week after the ALS out of court settlement MoJ signed a contract with ALS, the big word and languageline?
According to the ATC the MoJ are in exclusive talks with ALS about this contract. Unbelievable.
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1410082_police_rip_up...
Police rip up contract with interpreter agency after claims it was hampering investigations
March 07, 2011
Police rip up contract with interpreter agency after claims it was hampering investigations
Greater Manchester Police’s contract with an interpreter agency has been ripped up – after claims that it was hampering investigations.
The force struck an exclusive deal with Applied Language Solutions (ALS) last August. It meant ALS, which is run by Oldham businessman Gavin Wheeldon, would supply interpreters to GMP when they were needed for interviews with suspects, victims and witnesses whose English was not good enough.
The interpreters were paid at least £30 an hour by ALS, which is based in Delph.
But hundreds of interpreters refused to work for ALS and set up a group called the Professional Interpreters’ Alliance. The group successfully applied for a judicial review of the ALS contract, and similar deals the firm had with three other North West police forces.
Now bosses from GMP and police in Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria have scrapped the deals they had with the agency before the judicial review hearing, which was due to take place next month. The PIA – whose 400 members are all on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) – had listed a series of alleged failures by the firm in the application to the High Court. They included:
• Officers at a GMP custody suite in Pendleton complaining of ‘terrible problems’ with ALS and had been forced to turn to NRPSI-registered interpreters instead
• Crime suspects allegedly being released by GMP on bail because they could not get interpreters from ALS in time
• Police in Swinton having to wait 24 hours for an interpreter who could speak French
• A petition PIA supplied to police allegedly indicated that its boycott meant there would be no NRPSI-registered members available to the officers in Polish, Czech, French, Slovak, Hungarian, Turkish, Romanian, Vietnamese, Thai, Mandarin and Cantonese
ALS strenuously denied all the allegations.
The police forces have now admitted the deals had breached the Race Relations Act, as they did not give ‘due regard’ to promoting good relations with different ethnic groups.
They also accepted they should have known there was a risk that ALS, even for a temporary period, might not be able to provide interpreters of the same quality and as quickly as under previous arrangements when GMP used freelance NRPSI-registered interpreters. Farid Arada, from PIA, said: "We are delighted." A GMP spokesman said: "GMP, Merseyside Police, Lancashire Police and Cumbria Police are currently in consultation with the PIA about how the forces will move forward and how they will deliver interpretation services in the future."
National guidelines, approved by Britain’s top cops, say interpreters used by police or the courts should be on the NRPSI to ensure high quality.
Freelance NRPSI-registered interpreters who worked directly for GMP were paid £29 an hour in the day, £43.50 on a Saturday or at night and £58 on Sundays or bank holidays.
Under ALS, the registered interpreters were told they would be paid £30 an hour in the day and £35 at night, at weekends and bank holidays.
ALS managing director Mr Wheeldon said he was disappointed with the ruling. He said: "I don't think it’s fair. I think it’s just a failure in the process."
ALS strongly denied that the interpreters it sent for GMP hampered any investigations. In response to the PIA allegations, a company spokeswoman said that no mention was ever made of the ‘terrible problems’ with ALS during the agency's monthly review meetings with GMP. She said the agency always contacted NRPSI-registered interpreters in the first instance when looking to fulfil a GMP interpreter booking. The agency said that it did have access to NRPSI interpreters for languages like Polish, Czech, French, Slovak, Hungarian and Turkish, but the spokeswoman added: "However, these assignments do not legally need to be carried out by NRPSI registered interpreters and we have hundreds of qualified non-NRPSI interpreters registered directly with us who are able to fulfil assignments in these languages. "Many highly-qualified interpreters across the region have never been NRPSI members. "There are sometimes instances where an interpreter cannot be sourced for an assignment. This can be due to rarity of language, high demand for interpreters at that date and time or due to the remote location of a police station. "This is the case regardless of whether the police are requesting interpreting services through ALS, through NRPSI or through any independent means and is, at times, completely unavoidable. "This has been the case for many years and bears no relation on the service offered by ALS." She added that ALS was saving taxpayers’ money.
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1410081_former_gmp_in...
Former GMP interpreter: 'One wrong word could mean justice isn't done'
An interpreter who refused to work for the agency axed by GMP says accurate translation is essential for the criminal justice system.
Agnieszka Moczynska worked for GMP for around two years after she was accepted on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters in 2008. But the 33-year-old Polish translator and interpreter, who lives in Eccles, Salford, said she did not want to work for the force through ALS – because of the agency’s rates and its use of non-registered interpreters.
Ms Moczynska, a member of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, said she feared a miscarriage of justice through using non-registered translators. She said: "You have to be highly-qualified and trained to know how to convey a message from one language to another. "Sometimes one word translated in the wrong way can make a dramatic difference to the outcome of a case.
"If you don’t speak English, you have to be absolutely confident in what is being conveyed to the other party when you say something, and what is being said to you is absolutely correct.
"It’s not just defendants, interpreters work for victims of crime and witnesses too. Such a witness can be a crucial element in a case against anyone – a foreign or non-foreign national.
"For example, if a Polish person has been a witness to a crime against a British person, then the interpreter will work for the victim’s benefit."
he main issue in this matter unfortunately is not a miscarriege of justice but simply the money. the national registered interpreters are/were on very high rates when working at the courts and police forces. so beeing transfered to ALS would obviuosly mean that they would be loosing their normal wage. this fight, a court case set up to abolish government's decision is simply ridiculous.
while studying at the university i did quite a lot of work for courts, police and hospitals as a part of my course and training. in my experience i came across to many NRPS interpreters and unfortunately i couldn't tell that their traning were accurate and suitable for such an important and responsible job. for my biggest fare i saw some of these professionals with dictionaries in a court rooms. my question was how these interpreters became "professionals". soon it became clare: to become a registered interpreter you simply need to pass a test at language services ltd in london, called Metropolitan police test. anyone with basic language knowledge could pass it. no high education or any other qualification is required.
another thing which became quite clare that this job, so easy accessile to anyone and that offers such good wages made interpreters very arrogant. "how many jobs do you have?" "i am so good, police forces always call me" - commented interpreters themselves. not professional at all. it seemed to me that there was very big competition going on among these interpreterss their wages depend on a number of calls, so it is not a very big surprise that the danger of loosing high wages made this competition even bigger.
another issue which is not clare to me why only courts and police forces are mentioned in this matter. what about hospitals? what danger carries a mistranslation in medical situations. a persons life could be put in danger. why a registered interpreter does not want to provide any jobs for hospitals? simply- they don't pay enough.
to become a professional interpreter and traslator is not enough to pass a simple test. one has to deserve to be called that way. how a fight of loosing good wages can make these people look professional?
government cuts have affected us all, many people lost their jobs for good, not like NRPS interpreters who still have jobs, less paid, but job is still there.
as for ALS using unprofessional interpreters....this agency could do the same test as language services in london and all problem will be solved.
Dezi - one of the key problems is one you've just highlighted - the fact that there is no system at all for the health system or the local government system, the two categories other than English Law that the DPSI exists in. I believe that if there was one universal system in which the three DPSIs were the strict admission criterion, more linguists and thus potential interpreters would be motivated to become professional interpreters. As it stands, no linguist in their right mind would bother doing the DPSI in Health or Local Government because there is no protection of title in even the English Law category, let alone a National Agreement, which has been spun out and deemed toothless by the public services that gleefully swerve it due to an exaggerated interpretation of the words 'whenever possible'.
I believe that the DPSI should be offered as a full DPSI to first-time candidates and that once you have the Diploma, to gain it in the other disciplines, you should only need to take the interpreting exams but not the written exams. The written papers prove you are a capable translator, but the interpreting should be enough to allow someone to have proven their worth. Or, alternatively, allow for the DPSI to be expanded to encompass an optional all-encompassing qualification if someone wants to take all three categories in one year and continue until they have it all. Then there would be a greater chance that interpreters would have an increased flexiblility, versatility and potentially a wider range of jobs available to them.
You talk of the Metropolitan Police Test. I am staying right out of that debate but something needs to be done to establish whether this really is a suitable qualification for inclusion on the NRPSI and, if not, because those who possess it have been put through some kind of test, it should be established what they need to do in order to be considered equal in levels of qualification to the DPSI.
I take issue with the idea that interpreters should be frowned on when they consult a dictionary. If you mean interpreters using dictionaries visibly as a crutch, throughout a trial, I totally agree with you.
But interpreters in court are no different to barristers or judges in their work, who can't be expected to know all case law and consequently it is perfectly acceptable for a barrister to have a copy of Archbold on the table. Interpreters do debate this now and again and some are dead against ANY use of dictionaries but I personally think it is more unprofessional and indeed arrogant to not carry one just in case you arrive at court for a case in which some obscure bit of hardware has been used in an assault - you might not be a DIY person. More often than not, you know all the complicated legal concepts and what the words mean - but can be undone by absent-mindedly forgetting what something apparently simple like a monkeywrench or a cobblestone is in your chosen language. Remember that very few interpreters are 100 bilingual - most are native speakers of one language and highly competent in another.
I should point out that I don't know every single word in my own language, English, and so I certainly don't know every word in Portuguese or Spanish and no-one in their right mind should expect an interpreter to know every single word.
[quote]
dezi says:
September 17, 2010
i was looking on the web for some information about NRPSI or any advice and by accident i have found this article and your comments.
a few days ago a have received my results of The Metropolitan Police Test re-sit and and for my biggest surprise the mark was Failed again (for the fifth time) for the sight translation.
[/quote]
and
[quote]
dezi says:
March 19, 2011
soon it became clare: to become a registered interpreter you simply need to pass a test at language services ltd in london, called Metropolitan police test. anyone with basic language knowledge could pass it.
[/quote]
This says everything, I won't make any comments.
Marc starr, get a life man. U r s sad pathetic individual. Stop constantly moaning n be thankful. U u grateful little man.
Hello whoever it is - I will presume you are involved with an agency that has something to lose from the continued resistance of interpreters who have any self-respect. Are you perhaps feeling under pressure at the moment?
Kisses
Marc
Dezi, your English is appalling - no wonder you have failed the exam so many times. How could you ever expect to translate statements from victims or interpret during a crown court case?? I am not talking about typos - we all make those. I am talking about a total lack of any basic knowledge of grammar or syntax. You also talk about interpreters being lucky because they still have jobs even though they get much less money. Interpreters are qualified professionals just like solicitors or doctors. Why should they be exploited by agencies that offer them peanuts??
Anonymous, you are right. Interpreters' qualifications and vetting should always be checked. It is not uncommon for agencies to send unqualified persons without any vetting to assignments because such people are prepared to work for peanuts.If the MoJ gets its way and outsources, many professional interpreters will simply leave the profession. We are already making contingency plans, looking for an alternative career. There is no way I will ever work for whichever agency the MoJ decides to appoint. As for not all agencies being the same, being registered as a charity or a not-for-profit company makes no difference. I know several "charitable" agencies that pay peanuts and use unqualified persons instead of interpreters.
Dezi, your English is appalling - no wonder you have failed the exam so many times. How could you ever expect to translate statements from victims or interpret during a crown court case?? I am not talking about typos - we all make those. I am talking about a total lack of any basic knowledge of grammar or syntax. You also talk about interpreters being lucky because they still have jobs even though they get much less money. Interpreters are qualified professionals just like solicitors or doctors. Why should they be exploited by agencies that offer them peanuts??
Anonymous, you are right. Interpreters' qualifications and vetting should always be checked. It is not uncommon for agencies to send unqualified persons without any vetting to assignments because such people are prepared to work for peanuts.If the MoJ gets its way and outsources, many professional interpreters will simply leave the profession. We are already making contingency plans, looking for an alternative career. There is no way I will ever work for whichever agency the MoJ decides to appoint. As for not all agencies being the same, being registered as a charity or a not-for-profit company makes no difference. I know several "charitable" agencies that pay peanuts and use unqualified persons instead of interpreters.
Hi everybody,
I just want to say that not all agencies are bad and unlike some of my colleagues, I have no choice but to work for some. I do not, however, work for ALS and want to warn anybody who is considers registering with them. They treat interpreters terribly. Before ALS took over in Cheshire I did quite a lot of work for the agency that supplied interpreters to Cheshire police before them, Prestige, and I was quite happy with the way they operated. By the way I am on the NRPS! When ALS took over I registered with them although they refused to tell me their rates. Every time they called me they try to "negotiate" rates with me - quite frankly, it felt like I had to haggle over rates every time they phoned. When I insisted on my rates, they never called me and I know they were using unqualified interpreters in my language because they were cheap. I stopped working for them last year and asked them not to contact me again. They are definitely the worst agency I have ever worked for. Prestige used to pay the court rates in Cheshire before A:LS took over and I was happy with that. When ALS took over, the rates plummeted to £20/hour with no minimum and no travel time almost overnight. I fully support the action against the police in the North West. I have nothing against agencies as long as they treat interpreters like human beings. I would certainly never work for ALS again. If the MoJ gives them the big contract, I will find another job. As a matter of fact, I am already looking anyway. It is a real shame. I paid a lot of money for the exam and enjoy the job. But you cannot live on the rates paid by ALS.
disappointed interpreter
You 'll be pleased to know that ALS has been awarded the contract for the provision of interpreters to the Immigration Appeals Tribunals.
Post new comment