Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] >
Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK
Thread poster: Trans_Interp
Ty Kendall
Ty Kendall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:27
Hebrew to English
Actually (2) Oct 22, 2012

What is admitted between Q59 and Q62 is that AT THE TIME (the relevant time) NONE of them read the report (financial report) :

Q59 Nick Smith: At the time, did either of you look at the report?

Martin Jones: I have certainly read the report.

Q60 Nick Smith: At that time?

Martin Jones: I didn’t read the report at that time.

Q61 Nick Smith: Ann Beasley, did you read that report at that time?

Ann Beasley: No, but staff working for me did.

Q62 Chair: Mr Handcock, did you?

Peter Handcock: No, I didn’t.


That's three for three. Not one of them read the relevant report at the relevant time.

Shocking.


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 13:27
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Apologies to Ty Oct 22, 2012

Ty Kendall wrote:
*And you're being ultra-literal, when I said "inside" I meant that the earlier report was being referred to in the NAO report, not that the earlier report was literally "inside" it.


Okay, I really thought you meant that the report was inside it.

Ty Kendall wrote:
That's three for three. Not one of them read the relevant report at the relevant time.


Well, no-one here is doubting that, and it isn't really an issue. What is an issue is Tom's original claim that none of them had read the NOA report. You still believe that Beasley didn't read that one, simply because (so it seems) she never actually said that she did. I myself am confident that they would have read the report (it would be stupid not to), but it is not absolutely crucial to a discussion about the meeting.





[Edited at 2012-10-22 17:44 GMT]


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:27
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Not at issue Oct 22, 2012

Samuel Murray wrote:

What is an issue is Tom's original claim that none of them had read the NOA report.


Sorry Samuel, but that's nonsense. What is at issue is the way in which the interpreting services to the Ministry of Justice have been contracted out. Please try to focus on that, if you can.

[Edited at 2012-10-22 17:47 GMT]


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 13:27
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Some issues raised at the meeting Oct 22, 2012

Tom in London wrote:
I wish we could stay focussed on the issues the Committee discussed.


Well, one benefit of the meeting was to put commonly touted statistics in a different light, or to correct certain misimpressions. I read many of the blogs and comments by the interpreter faction and I have always been "on their side" in this. So what the interpreter faction wrote, I always read with a receptive eye, and what the MoJ or Company X wrote, I read with a critical eye.

1. There seems to be this idea that Company X is the only company who currently provides interpreters for the justice system, and that any court case failures can therefore be attributed to Company X, or that figures concerning court case failures reflect on Company X directly.

For example, it is said that in the first month Company X were able to provide an interpreter in only 58% of cases. This lead some to the conclusion that in 58% of cases where an interpreter was needed, there was no interpreter. However, Mr Handcock explained at questions 103 and further that the fact that Company X could not supply interpreters in the 42% of other cases doesn't mean that there were no interpreters in those 42% of cases. In the those other cases, the interpreters simply came from somewhere else than Company X.

2. As to how many court cases were completely invalidated (and had to be redone) because of interpreter related issues, the impression created by the interpreter faction is that the number is quite high, and that the high number is due to Company X's failures.

It is often quoted that the number of invalidated cases had doubled since the start of Company X's involvement, but how bad is that really? The actual numbers are relatively small. It had doubled from roughly a quarter of a percent of all cases to about half a percent of all cases (depending on how you interpret the expression "point two of one percent"). I'm not saying that a doubling is nothing to be concerned about, but... saying "doubled" creates an awful impression.

3. The impression is sometimes created that before Company X came into the picture, most interpreting was done by qualified interpreters, and that after Company X started the booking system, many unqualified interpreters started doing work. However, Mnr Geoffrey Buckingham says in his testimony that the use of unqualified amateur part-time interpreters was rife in previous years. So the fact that Company X now uses unassessed interpreters is nothing new.

Of course, what is a concern is that Company X is not supposed to do that. A big reason why Company X's system was put in place was because Company X would ensure more stringent vetting, and they're just not doing that at this time.

4. One thing that astonishes me is that Company X went live with their system knowing that they had a terrible backlog of assessments, yet in the first five months of the live system they did no further marking or assesments. It shows that although the backlog of assessments may have been an issue for them initially, once they realised that the backlog is no longer a hurdle, they simply allowed it to be.

Okay Tom, your comments?

Samuel


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:27
Member (2008)
Italian to English
No comment Oct 22, 2012

Samuel Murray wrote:

Okay Tom, your comments?

Samuel


I'm not an interpreter but I'm interested in the procurement process, parliamentary procedure, and the deleterious (and costly, and wasteful) effects of procuring public services in general by means of competitive tendering and a "race to the bottom".

I simply updated the thread this morning by adding a post about the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee.

Rather than indulge in speculation, I now prefer to wait until the Committee has had its second session, next week, and then the outcome of its deliberations, which will probably take the form of a report with recommendations.

Until all of that has happened, I'm going to bow out of the discussion to avoid being drawn into pointless person-to-person polemics about this or that detail of what was said/not said at the Committee's meeting, or what it might mean.

[Edited at 2012-10-22 18:53 GMT]

[Edited at 2012-10-22 18:55 GMT]


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 13:27
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Tom Oct 22, 2012

Tom in London wrote:
...to avoid being drawn into pointless person-to-person polemics about this or that detail of what was said/not said at the Committee's meeting, or what it might mean.


Is that truly what you think of my most recent post? After being asked to move on and comment about relevant issues, how does one convince those who asked that that is what one had done?


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 12:27
French to English
Yikes, post 28 in this thread Oct 22, 2012

Samuel Murray wrote:

For example, it is said that in the first month Company X were able to provide an interpreter in only 58% of cases. This lead some to the conclusion that in 58% of cases where an interpreter was needed, there was no interpreter. However, Mr Handcock explained at questions 103 and further that the fact that Company X could not supply interpreters in the 42% of other cases doesn't mean that there were no interpreters in those 42% of cases. In the those other cases, the interpreters simply came from somewhere else than Company X.


I put it to you that 58% is still lower than the percentage of cases that Company X was originally intended to service. And it was, furthermore, intended as a one-stop-shop for that percentage. And that therefore it has failed to hit its target or save the courts time (& therefore money, since time = money).

It is often quoted that the number of invalidated cases had doubled since the start of Company X's involvement, but how bad is that really? The actual numbers are relatively small. It had doubled from roughly a quarter of a percent of all cases to about half a percent of all cases (depending on how you interpret the expression "point two of one percent"). I'm not saying that a doubling is nothing to be concerned about, but... saying "doubled" creates an awful impression.

No doubt deliberately, yes, but doubled is still doubled. Worse, not better. As you say, the absolute figures are small. But each one can cost £25k (it's not a cheap hobby, pissing around wasting the time of our learned friends). That's twice as many £25ks as were wasted previously. I'd also add that, in overall scheme of things, the savings this scheme were designed to generate are also relatively small, in absolute terms. When small things affect small things, the percentages can get quite impressive. F'rinstance, just 1 extra retrial a week kicks a 10% hole in the projected savings at this stage (which were approx £1m a month). To say nothing of everything else that kicks holes in the projected savings.

As regards who knew (i.e. read) what and when, I'm gonna go with the Rebekah Brooks Rock n Hard Place principle here. Either they read it and ignored it, which is bad, or they didn't read it, which is dereliction of duty and is bad. They, and anyone trolling on their behalf, cannot win this point AFAIAC.

The underlying trouble is that this FWA is entirely and exclusively driven by the dogma of an utterly ignorant, stubborn, uncaring and detached government. 100% holes could be kicked in the projected savings, the government won't care. It's only roughly the same as the cost of a couple of pension packages for HMRC executives who sanction billions in tax breaks for companies run by their mates.

It's the principle that's at stake here, and their principle, insofar as this bunch have any worthy of being described as such, is that all public sector provision of anything is de facto undesirable. They won't alter the FWA without a legal ruling forcing them to.


 
Susanna Garcia
Susanna Garcia  Identity Verified
Local time: 12:27
Italian to English
+ ...
In memoriam
Diary date Oct 22, 2012

http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#!/calendar/Commons/SelectCommittee/2012/10/30/events.html


One to watch


Suzi


They all thought we'd just roll over and play dead. I am so proud of my colleagies.

I've got a few things to deal with at mo so can't reply in detail bu
... See more
http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#!/calendar/Commons/SelectCommittee/2012/10/30/events.html


One to watch


Suzi


They all thought we'd just roll over and play dead. I am so proud of my colleagies.

I've got a few things to deal with at mo so can't reply in detail but Tom and Charlie have certainly got the measure of it all.
Collapse


 
Ty Kendall
Ty Kendall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:27
Hebrew to English
Attempting to watch the meeting being held now... Oct 23, 2012

Online, but there's no sound. Anyone else encountering the same problem?
I can hear other meetings perfectly well, so it can't be me!


 
Aisha Maniar
Aisha Maniar  Identity Verified
Member
Arabic to English
+ ...
Same here Oct 23, 2012

Ty Kendall wrote:

Online, but there's no sound. Anyone else encountering the same problem?
I can hear other meetings perfectly well, so it can't be me!


I don't seem to be able to capture the audio either, however I can assure you that if you physically sit in on these things, it's still not always that easy to hear what's going on. I'm sure there will be a transcript available shortly in any case.

@Charlie
It's the principle that's at stake here, and their principle, insofar as this bunch have any worthy of being described as such, is that all public sector provision of anything is de facto undesirable. They won't alter the FWA without a legal ruling forcing them to.

I haven't managed to follow all of yesterday's debate here, however I believe this to be the crux of the whole matter. Unfortunately, I'm sure a quick skim of other public services-related professions would show similar debate... However, while I agree even more strongly with the latter part of what you have to say, as they can technically revoke the FWA at any time (or with the reasonable notice provided within it), given the lack of representation of linguists - for various reasons - and the independent nature of the work we do and relatively low turnover of our industry, it's going to take a really disastrous (perhaps, fatal) error in the courts for this to create sufficient interest and perhaps even raise the funds for a judicial review. Even then, however, these days, even that's not enough. We'll have to see what the true value of the political process unravelling now is... But Susanna is quite right, well done to everyone who hasn't let this slide.

Just my (unsolicited and unworthy) views...

Edited: This should read: "I'm sure a quick skim of other public services-related professions ONLINE FORA/FORUMS would show similar debate"

[Edited at 2012-10-23 09:34 GMT]


 
Ty Kendall
Ty Kendall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:27
Hebrew to English
Audio Oct 23, 2012

...seems to have been rectified. I'll try watching from the start later, hopefully it will be solved for the half hour I missed!

 
Kim Sanderson
Kim Sanderson  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:27
German to English
+ ...
Recording WITH sound Oct 23, 2012

I quote the reply I received about the lack of sound 'live':

"Thank you for your email.

The fault with the Justice committee recording has now been rectified and can be viewed at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11582 – you may need to refresh your browser to receive this.

We will aim to have a full recording
... See more
I quote the reply I received about the lack of sound 'live':

"Thank you for your email.

The fault with the Justice committee recording has now been rectified and can be viewed at http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11582 – you may need to refresh your browser to receive this.

We will aim to have a full recording of the hearing in the archive section of the website within the next day or so. We will send you a further message when this is available."

Hope that helps,

Kim
Collapse


 
Rad Graban (X)
Rad Graban (X)  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:27
English to Slovak
+ ...
My (conspiracy) theory Oct 23, 2012

As regards who knew (i.e. read) what and when, I'm gonna go with the Rebekah Brooks Rock n Hard Place principle here. Either they read it and ignored it, which is bad, or they didn't read it, which is dereliction of duty and is bad. They, and anyone trolling on their behalf, cannot win this point AFAIAC.


They read it and went ahead with it because they knew Capita was stepping in soon.

It's the principle that's at stake here, and their principle, insofar as this bunch have any worthy of being described as such, is that all public sector provision of anything is de facto undesirable. They won't alter the FWA without a legal ruling forcing them to.


Agree. Unless there is a full-scale criminal probe into corruption within the government, the FWA will stay in place.

Capita's grilling in front of the Public Accounts Committee scheduled for yesterday was probably postponed till next Monday to allow it to listen to all criticism and prepare a plan/timescales for improvements so the FWA doesn't have to be scrapped and the government is not embarrassed yet again.


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 13:27
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Written evidence is quite interesting Oct 24, 2012

I've listed to the committee meetings, and although they are interesting, I find the written evidence even more enlightening. It is here (PDF):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/writev/its/contents.htm

It contains many examples of actual events reported on by people who whom it had happened
... See more
I've listed to the committee meetings, and although they are interesting, I find the written evidence even more enlightening. It is here (PDF):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/writev/its/contents.htm

It contains many examples of actual events reported on by people who whom it had happened. One interpreter complains about the interpreting by a Company X interpreter, that shows the level of competence:

Actual translation: I get hot flashes
Company X interpreter: I have a problem... I have a warm feeling

Actual translation: I convince myself that I am ill
Company X interpreter: I imagine those kind of things... I have this problem inside my head

Actual translation: paramedic
Company X interpreter: ambulance people

Actual translation: they were holding hands like people in love
Company X interpreter: they grabbed each other like a love couple

Actual translation: I do not speak English
Company X interpreter: I do not understand anything

Actual translation: I have never been in a situation like this before
Company X interpreter: I never had problem before

Actual translation: Sibling
Company X interpreter: Brother

Actual translation: I do not want the wedding to happen
Company X interpreter: I do not want to take part in this

(page 55 of the PDF linked above)
Collapse


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:27
Member (2008)
Italian to English
EVidence from C(r)apita .... Oct 29, 2012

starts today at 1515 - add your comments!

Watch live here:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11633

[Edited at 2012-10-29 15:02 GMT]


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK







Trados Studio 2022 Freelance
The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.

Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

More info »
TM-Town
Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business

Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.

More info »