Nada Davis, Public Service Interpreter – Written evidence (ITS0079)
RE: The HoL Public Services Committee into Interpreting and Translation Services in the Courts – 1. How have interpreting and translation services changed in recent years?
I am a qualified NRPSI interpreter with 25 years of experience in UK courts. I want to emphasise the challenges we have encountered due to the Ministry of Justice's outsourcing of interpreting services to private agencies. The poor standards upheld by these agencies have significantly impacted us on multiple levels as professionals. This issue has been escalating gradually over the past 14 years, rather than being an abrupt change after the MoJ outsourced this service in 2010.
In my opinion those agencies, focused on profit and their own business over service, forced interpreters into low pay and poor terms and conditions. As skilled practitioners left, the most vulnerable in the community - members of public who need assistance in courts, were left with subpar services. Over the years, these agencies became untouchable, acting as if they controlled justice itself. They disrupted the critical, high-pressure work interpreters do in difficult situations, often making them endure the agencies’ incompetence and lack of accountability. This entire process seemingly continues with impunity, justified by those in charge of these organisations, who often provide excuses and justifications.
Additionally, they are trusted because they hold positions of self-perceived power. This resulted in numerous complaints and often led interpreters pursue legal action or take matters to the Small Claims Court. There are several issues that undermine our well-being and dignity as professionals. However, I will focus on a few that are currently troubling both me the most.
1a) To what extent do the current ITS services provided in courts meet the needs of legal professionals
TheBigWord (TBW) delivery - lack of transparency and accountability re the WordSynk App debacle
One of the most critical issues worth addressing is the impact of the WordSynk App and effectively TBW’s IT system failures from June onwards, which caused significant disruption across the entire network, affecting courts and professionals alike.
The invoicing failure prevented payments, which not only created operational havoc but also strained relationships between service providers and the agency and led to protests and numerous professionals leaving. Transparency and accountability are essential here. The TBW departments responsible for this debacle must acknowledge these failures, rather than downplaying them. Interpreters are expected to deliver excellence, but this must be reciprocated by those responsible for organising payments and operational systems. Furthermore, there has been no compensation for lost time or loss of earnings while we’ve been busy chasing payments, navigating a complex and fragmented payment system, and handling excessive accounting. This clearly constitutes a breach of contract and is not part of our job. Admitting this failure and compensating us for the breach in their delivery is a crucial first step toward rebuilding trust and moving forward.
2. MoJ Quality Assurance issue and complaints procedures re ITS services in the courts
In my opinion and experience, the Ministry of Justice's "Quality Assurance" efforts were just mere compliance routine exercises, allowing companies like The Language Shop (TLS) to often send poorly qualified and inexperienced assessors to evaluate experienced interpreters. Instead of fixing things, it made life harder for everyone as they often breached their own rules while not allowing the right of appeal.
Many professionals, including myself, support the concept of quality assurance, but it must address real issues identified during court hearings through proper reporting that can be exposed. For instance, situations where interpreters work in pairs, or when various parties in court have a strong understanding of English or another language and can spot problems, should be flagged. Additionally, when obstacles arise and hearings don’t run smoothly - plenty of ways to identify the signs of poor interpreting.
The challenge lies in the lack of timely reporting, which is instead replaced by large-scale targeting through practices like ‘Mystery Shopping.’ The incompetent assessors often seem to be trying to catch people out or justify their own roles, frequently leading to individuals being failed on trivial matters or subjective opinions rather than legitimate criteria.
This becomes especially unacceptable when experienced court interpreters are failed by less experienced assessors/ newcomers. Consequently, professionals often fear job loss if they speak up, leading many to accept re-sits without real evidence of failure. It has been reported to us that agencies aim to keep them on their books or meet their KPIs. I was affected by this on a personal level and after some research made a list of TLS QA process key failings:
1. Conflict of interest breach - (interpreters working for the same agency, assessing each other)
2. Breach of their own/TLS rules and criteria for failing
3. Minimal training provided for assessors (with only 2 hours online, once every 4-5 years).
4. Lack of TLS accountability and objectivity in the process.
5. Accepting hearsay evidence/ reports from rogue assessors at face value.
6. Refusal to accept or discuss counter-evidence and the lack of a legitimate appeals process.
7. Overly stringent measures, treating the re-assessment after failing as remedial rather than punitive.
In summary - these practices cause anxiety, prevent professionals from speaking out and perpetuate harm. A fair, regulated appeal process is essential to rebuild trust. Ensuring fairness means ending failures based on hearsay followed by punitive re-sits (re-assessments). Instead, the focus should be on reporting real issues and exposing incompetent interpreters and assessors whose poor performance undermines justice
Colleagues have shared troubling facts about low pay and minimal training, and many are hesitant to speak up. To address this, we need transparency and acceptance from those responsible for delivering this contract, including honest unembellished figures on assessor pay and training levels. The MOJ must conduct a proper analysis of the discrepancies between how the delivery of contract is presented and the reality faced by practitioners. Without exposure and real action, interpreters fear there will be no improvement.
3. What is the potential role of new technology/AI, machine translation in the future of interpreting and translation services in the courts?
Webinars with top interpreters from Brussels often showcase how AI tools like machine translation aid with quick references, transcription, and glossary creation. However, these tools fall short in contexts like court interpreting, where understanding visual cues, body language, intonation, and ensuring confidentiality is vital. AI can assist with routine tasks, but it lacks the emotional intelligence, moral reasoning, and nuanced understanding required in complex human interactions. Delivering justice or interpreting subtle signals demands the intuition and empathy that only humans can provide.
6 December 2024