Quality audit of Interpreters
Dear Ministry of Justice,
The framework agreement between the Ministry of Justice and Applied Language Solutions (ALS) for the supply of interpreting services within the justice sector clearly defines the minimum qualifications and experience necessary for a linguist to be placed on the approved register at a level of tier 1, tier 2 or tier 3.
For the period 1st January 2012 to 31st May 2012, how many linguists were quality audited by the Ministry of Justice, or by a competent independent body acting on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that the minimum standards stipulated by the contract with ALS were actually fulfilled? Of the number of linguists audited, what proportion were found to be 100% compliant?
For the purposes of responding to this question, exclude any quality auditing done for, or on behalf of the following;
Applied Language Solutions Ltd, any other comoany which is part of the parent group Capita and the University of Middlesex. The reason for excluding these bodies is that they cannot be considered as independent.
Yours faithfully,
Brendan Pells
Dear Mr Pells
Please see attached an acknowledgement to your recent FoI request.
Darren Fearnley
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
LONDON
SW1H 9AJ
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Dear Ministry of Justice,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Quality audit of Interpreters'.
A response to my request is now well overdue. The data I have requested is easily accessible and I cannot conceive of any legitimate reason why I did not receive a response within a few days at the most.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/qu...
Yours faithfully,
Brendan Pells
Dear Mr Pells,
Please find attached the outcome of the Internal Review of request FOI
76808.
Yours sincerely,
Interpretation Project Team
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Dear Interpretation Project,
In your response from Margaret Haig dated 13th September, it is stated that '....I can confirm that a full response to your request was issued on 12 September...'
In fact, I have received no such response, neither on the 12th September nor on any subsequent date up to the time of writing.
The last communication I received regarding my request was on 3rd September when I was advised that a response to my request was being cleared for release and that I should receive it by Wednesday 5th September.
Yours sincerely,
Brendan Pells
Thank you for your email. We are currently exeriencing a high volume of correspondance. Please bear with us and we will reply as soon as possible.
Regards,
Interpretation Project Team
Ministry of Justice
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Mr Pells,
The response to your initial FOI request was sent on 12 September, but it
appears that there may have been a spelling error in the email address,
for which I apologise on behalf of the team. I attach the email as sent,
with an additional copy of the letter.
Kind Regards,
Interpretation Project Team
Dear Ministry of Justice,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Quality audit of Interpreters'.
The refusal to disclose historical data about the numbers of linguists on the LIT register is unjustifiable in my view. The current framework contract with Applied Language Solution Ltd (ALS)does not expire until August 2015, and as a consequence, ALS is not subject to any competitive pressures until the end of the contract approaches, at which time competitors wishing to bid for the contract will be preparing their offers.
By this time, the data I have requested will be so out-of-date as to be irrelevant and inconsequential to the bidding process.
The public interest argument for release of the data is overwhelming. Large sums of taxpayers money is being paid to ALS, in return for which ALS is contractually required to fulfil a number of objectives. These include enlarging the pool of linguists, and enhancing the skill levels of the linguists which it provides.
All publicly available data suggests that the opposite is happening. The release of the data requested will give a more honest view of the situation, and the unwillingness of the MoJ to release this data is widely perceived as an attempt to avoid embarrassment.
It should be noted that ALS has itself made public statements about the numbers of linguists it has available, which suggests that the company has little concern that the release of the data requested would be commercially damaging to itself.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/qu...
Yours faithfully,
Brendan Pells
Dear Mr Pells,
Please find attached the outcome of the full Internal Review of request
FOI 76808.
Yours sincerely,
Interpretation Project Team
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
M Lee left an annotation ()
From evidence given by Capita to the Justice Select Committee inquiry:
Tier Feb Mar April May June July August October
T1 402 517 534 578 578 590 577 677
T2 198 312 338 359 332 325 295 303
T3 170 234 196 140 75 79 60 132
Total 770 1063 1068 1077 985 994 932 1112
No figures for September.
And, 30 Oct 2012: “There are currently 1135 interpreters live on our supplier base”
We also know that in July 2012 there were only 301 NRPSI interpreters whereas Capita now claims to have 400. The contract went live on 31 January 2012 with only 280 ALS workers suitably checked.
The MoJ's argument that this is 'commercially sensitive' information is hereby nullified.