"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."

That's the way our money goes - pop goes the weasel.

Surely contracts for interpreters should be concerned with efficient translation and not about "promoting good relations with different ethnic groups." And where does value for money come into this, as it does outside the so-called "public sector"?

Might I ask a question that one of your readers may be able to answer? If these non-English people who are being questioned by the police are subsequently found guilty of an offence do they have to pay for the cost of the translation or do the mugs of British tax-payers have to cough up as usual?

I have to confess to belonging to the one ethnic group that is never considered - white English.

Why is it okay to allow people into the country when their English isn't good enough? See what happens? It costs us- people who have lived here all our lives- a load of money. Aren't the tories supposed to be good at cracking down on this sort of thing?

Voter

Might I ask a question that one of your readers may be able to answer? If these non-English people who are being questioned by the police are subsequently found guilty of an offence do they have to pay for the cost of the translation or do the mugs of British tax-payers have to cough up as usual?

Probably not and if convicted and subsequently imprisoned it will be us mugs aka the British taxpayer who will continue to pay for interpretation services while he/she is in prison. If non-english speakers want justice they should pay for their own interpretation services and if they live on a permanent basis in the UK dare I say it without being labelled as a racisr that they should learn/compelled to speak English.

Good! Not had any dealing with ALS, so I cannot comment on their service in particular, but in general the levels of service external businesses supply to the public sector tend to be priced high for minimal service.

The public sector is frequently seen as a cash cow, where - once locked into a contract - companies know they'll rarely be challenged for what they're providing, due to the amount of effort it takes to kick out one supplier and bring in another one, and reduce service.

If the government is serious about tackling waste in the public sector, that is where it needs to start - the amount that would be freed up for front-line services, even whilst cutting the overall budget, would be staggering.

To all those who think Police Officers are overpaid, the interpreters are on more money per hour than the officer who has to arrest/interview/process and prepare a prosecution file.
A lot of the time interpreters sit around waiting for solicitors to arrive etc.Not a bad earner.

So the police outsource a support function to a private company to save money, as per government policy.
However some previously employed free lance interpreters don't want to work for the new company as they employ people not in their trade body (wasn't the closed shop outlawed?).
In what way does awarding this contract" not give ‘due regard’ to promoting good relations with different ethnic groups", presumably GMP have offered some justification for this, or will the next court case be ALS claiming for breach of contract?

I tried to place a comment in spanish but it didn't make it, perhaps no one could translate it

Now where have I seen PIA before ......?

How many languages is there in the world represented in England. How about having the Police Service and the PCSO's learn a second language to represent this amount. This would save money In UK there are Cymru Alba plus Gaelic speaking police Each Police person could learn Urdu Hindi Afghani Iraqi Iranian Arabic Somali and other african rep. And since the Nulabor policy for European integration has been a raving success. Then Polish and other Slavic language should be a second tongue within the Police Service.

Let's be very clear: the UK government pays millions to agencies and agencies pay peanuts to interpreters. It's exploitation and a waste of tax payers money!
I'm an interpreter but I am also a tax payer. It's my tax money and agencies are making big profit out of us!
No thanks! I'll carry on boycotting this and any other interpreting agency that exploits interpreters (registered or not).

"ALS was saving taxpayers’ money" - especially when they couldn't provide an interpreter!

So many of the comments amaze me. All accused (not guilty until proven so) deserve to understand what they are charged with, given the opportunity to provide answers to questions put to them, and to defend themselves to the best of their ability. Translators are not unique to the UK. I am unaware of any 1st world country that does not provide one when necessary. What a shame it would be to convict and imprison an innocent person because they didn't speak English.

As for the cost, it is negligible compared to the cost of coffee and donuts.

Immigrants who cannot speak english should be charged for the service.All immigrants should speak english before they get work or allowed into britain ,i know people who have been here 20/30 years and still wont learn english.(and i know we go to spain and only speak english) that should be stopped as well if your to live in a country at least have the decency to speak the language,or pay the price of translators.

Spain doesn't waste money on interpreters! Why should "Feed The World Britain"?

I am quite amazed to see so many comments from people who clearly know nothing about interpreting. I am in my 11th year of training: 5 years at night school, 3 years full time on a BA(hons) and 3 years part time on an MA. Cost in total of fees alone has been in excess of ten thousand pounds and I am, as yet, not qualified enough to do police work. I work solely with British Citizens (Deaf British Sign Language users) and drive between 2 and 4 hours on average during the course of my day (unpaid) in addition to the paid hours of work, which is due to the shortage of registered interpreters. It is not possible to expect all interpreters and members of a linguistic minority to move to one town so they can all be round the corner from each other as and when their services are needed. In and addition to this I have outgoing costs for professional insurance and registration, compulsory attendance at Professional Development training which I am required to attend and to pay for and the responsibilities commensurate with running my own business.

All of this I chose, knowing that the professional fee at the end with this would reflect the education, skills and professionalism I have developed. There will be no further "perks", bonuses, promotions or rises when I have reached my final qualification next year. I fully expect and intend to charge the "going rate" as a fully qualified registered interpreter. I am sure most post graduate qualified professionals trained to this level would expect the same, regardless of their professional discipline. The comparison with the Police wage holds no water. Firstly they have a lofty career ladder ahead of them and secondly those at the bottom, presumably with whose wages you attempt to contrast the interpreters' do not have anything like the level of training or specialism that interpreters are required to have.

They should spend more time interpreting cases.

I am white and British and do not like taxpayer (and my) money being wasted on agencies that make big profits by taking on public service contracts and then deliver very poor service. Outsourcing does not work. Agencies are just business that want to make money. ALS is no different. I remember reading an article about the CEO who boasted about pretending to be a large company in order to get a contract when in fact it was just him in his bedroom with a mobile. Is that what he did with the police contract? I have a degree in business studies and I can tell you that outsourcing just does not add up. You have to pay twice: the intermediary and the worker. The intermediary makes a huge profit by paying the worker peanuts. You cannot really make real savings. Yes, you can save money but at the expense of quality.

What everyone is forgetting is, the previous service Language Line had an interpreter 99% of the time available at the end of a phone, it was very very rare that one could not be contacted & then it was due to some weird language. GMP had a list of interpreters that could be contacted & would attend at the police station usually within an hour. It worked. No doubt some boss or civvy boss decided to use this shower the outcome was inevitable........

Leaving interpreters/languages/political correctness aside, outsourcing does not work. Agencies have crippled the NHS and are costing the taxpayer millions by inflating their profits and providing poor service. Just ask yourselves this question: what do agencies do? They pick up the phone, send a worker to an assignment, let the worker do all the hard work and then take most of their pay to make a profit for the agency owners. Agencies are not needed and outsourcing has been shown to be a total waste of taxpayer money. Why should ALS make a profit out of interpreters' skills and qualifications? Why should their CEO get even richer from yet more taxpayer money?? The NHS is currently paying millions for agency nurses. It would be much cheaper to employ the nurses directly. Workers employed directly work under much better conditions and feel much more appreciated. Is it too surprising that they are happy to provide a better service?

One of the comments made by the representative of ALS in the story:

"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."

What - you mean like French for a Police station in the middle of Swinton?

Another comment that needs a bit of clarification is this one:

"We have hundreds of qualified non-NRPSI interpreters registered directly with us who are able to fulfil assignments in these languages."

I think ALS should clarify whether those persons hold the Diploma in Public Service Interpreting, or other - and if it is the DPSI, do they hold all five parts? And do they hold the DPSI in the English Law category or the Health or Local Government category? If not, they are not supposed to be interpreting in the criminal justice system. ALS should elaborate on the breakdown of qualifications, both type and category.

The last point I will make in reaction to ALS is that to allude to there sometimes being problems finding an interpreter close to a Police station in certain languages at particular times may have some truth to it but generally, before August 2 last year, it was more likely to be in a situation in a place with few interpreters, such as a Police station in Carlisle, and a language with a moderate number of interpreters such as Portuguese. I was occasionally needed up there but between me and my other Portuguese colleagues, there are very few times when we go to Carlisle. That suggest that the need in those areas is not frequent enough to merit many interpreter living there.

But after August 2nd, and because such a large number of interpreters rightly turned down ALS's abysmal offer, the issues of securing an interpreter in major languages in very high-density urban areas became a problem where hitherto it had not been difficult. And that is directly because the contract was put together without any consultation and because both GMP and ALS expected interpreters to cower and fall in line. They could not have been more wrong.

I have no issue with private sector translation and interpreting companies making their money out of the private sector, where they belong.

Lets get real. Why should I as taxpayer have to pay for interpreters in the first place? Those who decide to use the service by not speaking English should pay for their own interpreter.

We are in times of massive cut backs and job losses, this pactice should cease IMMEDIATELY.

I am in my 21st year of working as a British Sign Language(BSL)/English Interpreter. As a freelance interpreter I am still committed to advancing my skills and knowledge via Continuing Professional Development. A little over a week ago I attended a 2 day training course which will ultimately benefit both Deaf and non-deaf clients. The course was self-funded and of course I was unable to earn a living during this time.

I have attended numerous police stations across the North West, including Manchester, in the past to assist the police in their enquiries when indigenous Deaf people are arrested or indeed, are victims of crime.

Until August 1st, 2010, my services were either booked directly or via BSL specialist agencies by the Custody Sergeant on duty. I fail to see how introducing a spoken language agency, who invariably sub-contract to a BSL specialist agency to source a BSL/English Interpreter can save the taxpayers money. Incidentally Deaf people pay taxes too!

Anyone charged for committing a crime has the right to understand what they are being accused of. If I was charged of a crime in Japan - I don't speak Japanese - I would need an interpreter to transmit to me exactly what the police, prosecution, defence and anyone involved was saying. I would also need an interpreter to convey to them what I was saying. People in the UK who speak little or no English have the right, if charged, to know exactly what the charge comprises, and the right to respond. If they can't respond in English then they must be allowed to do so in their own language, with the help of a properly qualified interpreter Different people speak different languages. As long as this is so, interpreters are essential in the practice of justice.
Penelope Maclachlan

Interpreter organisations such as the one I have the honour of chairing, the Society for public Service Interpreting, SPSI have long reported to police forces throughout the country and to the Ministry of Justice that the Framework Agreement they seek to impose allowing for one monopolistic contractor, ALS would have the usual consequences with outsourcing as we learnt with the East Midlands and CINTRA, agencies use persons purporting to be interpreters and lose control of their costs whist using persons that imperil the rights of defendants and cause the UK to be in breach of the ancient British right to a fair trial, current legislation such as Police and Criminal Evidence Act PACE, and the Human Rights Act, HRA, as well as the recent 2010 EU directive on the right to an interpreter not a mere bilingual such as those supplied by ALS or other exploitative agencies. SPSI has made repeated representations both face to face and in written detail showing the MoJ how to guarantee quality along with savings of 40% plus in Cambridgeshire Constabulary and Wales through WITS but the police forces and the MoJ seem to think the chaos is due to teething problems and that ALS will address them. We'll they cant with 90% of interpreters (those who are qualified, registered and security vetted)c refuse according to a recent survey we sponsored along with APCI, the Association of Police and Court Interpreters, APCI. Porf. G. A. Makin, chairman@spsi.org.uk