Ben Lalmy
Click here :Reading on plain page or PDF
This article will consider the effects the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) changes in policy have on the interpreting services in Scotland in 2012
Brief Overview
In early 2010(1) the MoJ decided to change how the adjudication justice sector booked language services and on 19 August 2011, the MoJ entered into a four-year framework agreement with Applied Language Solutions (ALS) to provide interpretation and translation service. On 23 December 2011 Capita took over ALS and the supply contract for language services to England, Wales and Scotland.
It is not my primary concern here to highlight all the arguments for and against selecting the agency ALS, there are many views available on the worldwide web and nationwide exposure in the media. What is interesting is to analyse the changes taking place in Scotland and assess the results in terms of improvement in standards of service provided and any impact affecting the community of interpreters and the users of their service.
What is the aim of this paper?
This brief assessment attempts to assess the impact of the MoJ policy change, primarily affecting the skills level criteria for registering court interpreters in Scotland, their services in Scottish courts and the resources available to them to develop these skills compared to those in Europe. This will necessarily involve courses available and level required to enter the career, payment and any other incentives to develop skills and promote the status of Scottish interpreters.
To this end this paper will review:
1 The interpreting community skills level and courts’ criteria requirement for using interpreters
2 Whether Scottish learning centres are adequate in providing interpreting qualifications
3 What incentive policy is there for interpreters to improve their skills?
1 The interpreting community skills level requirement
Back in 2000 The Scottish Executive commissioned studies to research policy and practice relating to translation, interpreting and communication support services across the public sector in Scotland, and to identify key issues of common concern or relevance to translators, interpreters and others providing communication support for service-users (2)
The main aim was to develop high professional standards in the use and delivery of interpreting and communication support in Scotland, in particular setting standards for Court interpreting.
For our purpose, I retain from these studies two recommendations:
- Use of Accredited Interpreters and Assessment of their work.
- Approved Qualifications in specialist fields (Scottish Law/Local Government/Health) and acquire proficiency through high quality training.
There is still a desperate lack of appropriate provision for training to enable those who wish to improve their skills or embark on a new career as interpreters. There are not many Colleges of further Education in Scotland offering the basic course level for the Diploma of Public Services Interpreting (DPSI) the minimum industry benchmark qualification for linguists working in the public sector. For a graduate/postgraduate course it is almost non-existent for legal interpreting in courts save for degree courses solely in either Languages or Law.
Whilst in England the requirement to be a member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) is a qualification in interpreting (minimum entry criterion is the DPSI) or those having experience (more than 2,000 hours) or holding the Metropolitan Police Test. In Scotland the agencies have not adopted the rigorous NRPSI membership criteria as a standard requirement to supply Scottish service users. It is not mandatory to be a member of NRSPI for an interpreter to register with the national agency Capita selected by the MoJ.
The Immigration and Asylum Chamber, The First-tier Tribunal, replaced the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) on 15 February 2010. The main change concerning interpreters used in immigration tribunals is that the IAT applied strict and rigorous criteria for using an interpreter in its courts. Essentially the interpreter must hold the DPSI, should have experience with the tribunal interpreting environment and should pass the assessment carried out by the Institute of Linguists (IoL). The successful interpreter is then admitted in the IAT register and is referred to as a (IAT) Panel Interpreter. When an interpreter is required, the Panel Interpreter is given precedence over an interpreter from an agency, whose service is required once it has been established that no Panel Interpreter is available for a hearing.
The Panel Interpreter enjoyed relatively better pay and conditions, namely a flat fee of £78 for the 1st 3hours (and £20/hr thereafter) and £4.25 for subsistence allowance and £.30/mile.
Once the MoJ selected Capita to provide interpreting service the Panel Interpreters lost “their privilege” and had to register with Capita and work under their terms & conditions with a rate of pay less favourable as can be seen in the table below comparing France and Scotland rates for court interpreters.
What is required in Scotland is a Scottish body governing the status and the standard requirement and registration for qualified interpreters to be accepted as competent interpreters working in the public and private sector (this was also discussed in my 2009 blog).
The Scottish Executive report (2002) writes: “Currently there are no clearly established guidelines or standards relating specifically interpretation [....] A range of documents relating to codes of practice, standards, guidelines, advice, etc. relevant to broader fields such as racial equality or disability rights have a degree of relevance, [….]. However, few of these documents include strategies for ensuring that their recommendations are implemented. Such strategies would include establishing a timescale for change to occur, considering the funding implications, setting up monitoring and evaluation procedures, proposing rewards for compliance or sanctions for non-compliance, and making a commitment to publishing the results of evaluation studies.”
It is interesting to note that the strategies [such as evaluation procedures] proposed took some considerable time to be applied. Regarding the level of qualification of interpreters used in courts and the impact on proceedings, I refer to the parliamentary questions raised in August 2010 by Richard Baker MSP (Labour -North East Scotland) to the Scottish Courts Service (SCS) (3) and the response given by the latter. From the figures provided between January to May 2010, there were 3,897 cases requiring the service of an interpreter and almost 78 % of those interpreters assigned to deal with these cases did not hold the DPSI.
It seems that Availability of an interpreter is more important than Competency criterion and the lesson of the 1985 Iqbal Begum, to name only one example in an English Court; [Iqbal Begum appeal, an influential case in ECHR and court interpreting, was heard in 1985 (four years after the original trial), but not reported until 1991]. Unfortunately the SCS has not yet replied to my request for 2011-2012 figures to assess if this trend has been reversed.
The above interpreters’ who are non-DPSI holders may well have an experience acceptable to the SCS, but in any case it does highlight the lack of rigour in setting the DPSI (Scottish Law), even if in my opinion it is a basic level, as a conditional criterion to work in courts. These results prove also that these interpreters are not motivated to seek to sit the DPSI exam as the pay for their service will be still the same and, in any case, work is made available to them without the requirement for paying for further studies.
The other information provided in the SCS reply concerns the performance of the interpretation service effect on proceedings. Over the same 5-month period there were 14 cases affected in terms of interpreting performance, a high figure which is in contradiction to the European Charter on Quality of interpretation and translation which states: “EU countries must ensure that the quality of translation and interpretation is sufficient to allow the persons concerned to understand the case against them and to exercise the right of defence. To this end, EU countries should take concrete measures and, in particular, set up a register or registers of independent and appropriately qualified interpreters and translators”. (6)
The spectre of the Kaminski affair(4) replicated in our Scottish tribunals is not an exaggeration as there is a serious risk of miscarriage of justice waiting to happen anytime as mentioned in my previous blog. Doubts over court room interpreters are still a reality in 2013.
Although the UK adopted the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), article 6 of this convention is not always adhered to or is insufficiently applied in Scottish Courts (Right to fair trial: interpretation and translation, duty to inform defendant of 'accusation,' interpretation charges (Art 6 (3)(a), (b), and (e))(5) in the sense that the accused/appellant are still not provided with competent interpreters.
The Directive 2010/64/EU (6) [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings] reinforces ECHR article 6 (Right to fair trial) and our Scottish Courts have until 27 October 2013, deadline date, to ensure all necessary steps are taken to fully comply with this Directive. We should be able to see more rigorous criteria in employing court interpreters and one would expect the figures of cases adjourned because of interpreting performance reaching a more reasonable single figure than the current one. Sanctions for non-compliance are too affordable if one refers to the penalty imposed on Capita, according to Margaret Hodge, Chair of the Select Committee report in December 2012, it amounted to £2,200. This ridiculously paltry level may well be an option for agencies to prefer to pay a penalty at this affordable level rather than sourcing and paying professional interpreters demanding higher fees.
I can safely conclude that all those commissioned research studies and their recommendations, let alone the Scottish Tribunal’s own experience over the last decade, has had little effect in practice. In other words, the DPSI is the only skills level requirement and there is no policy to enforce this level nor seek to set higher standards.
1.1 Training and development
There is a need for investment in the training of interpreters in order to improve the current situation and thus avoiding the likely loss of those qualified migrating to other more financially rewarding sectors. A proactive government training policy should initially cover basic training in more specialised fields of work (legal, mental health) to ensure the above EU Directive is implemented correctly.
If the mission of the Scottish Justice Cabinet includes providing a fair legal process based on the fundamental principle of equal access to justice to all it cannot continue to allow an ineffective system that can lead to potential miscarriages of justice for non-English speakers.
The standard of practice should not only correspond to our existing requirements but also to future needs. The Scottish Executive is responsible for the legal system and is an able actor to measure these needs and set in motion the relevant policies and measures to prepare for the next generation of interpreters. We are always reminded of the common misconception that if an individual is bilingual he can interpret and, therefore can interpret in court. The hard reality is that the skills and requirements for court room interpreting are very often intricate, requiring broad knowledge of the two languages and rigorous training.
Hence, these policies undoubtedly should include provision to cater for Scottish universities’ requirements to deliver a high level of training adapted to Scottish courts to be on par with Europe.
On the subject of adopting Europe standards, I recall translating into French “The Legal System of Scotland” by Derek Manson-Smith, and discovered that in the absence of universities in Scotland until 15th century and even later, Scots went to Europe, and in particular to France to learn Roman law. If the European standard was sought then for providing fair justice in Scotland, how come now the same attitude is not adopted? That is, offering and adopting in Scottish courts the same professional standard of European interpreters.
There is one common fact that has been taking place in Scotland and in Europe in the last ten years: a shortage of professional interpreters, but the reasons are not the same. The European Commission warned (I think about 2000) that it expected to lose half of its interpreters in the following ten years as they would reach retirement age.
How do the current Scottish educational institutions measure up with those in Europe?
2 Are Scottish learning centres providing adequate interpreting qualifications?
It has already been mentioned above that Scottish learning centres have no courses to prepare for a degree or Masters qualification in interpreting for the courts (Scottish Law/Health and local Government). Therefore the only qualification level available is the DPSI which is a substandard to the qualification levels achieved by most continental European interpreters, as can be seen below. For obvious and practical reasons I chose the selected countries in Europe for comparison purposes
• Specialised "Grandes Ecoles” (7) for interpreting and translating have long been established and respected bodies in France and Belgium for example and also in Switzerland (although not an EU member but also concerned as an HQ for some UN bodies). These centres have always provided highly skilled translators and interpreters to the European market, and were mostly sought by European institutions and the various departments of the United Nations. I am not sure if the European Commission’s warning had any bearing on governments and educational institutions in continental Europe preserving their high profile and for continuing to provide much sought-after diplomas. Whatever the case may be, the interpreting/translating services in Europe are better regulated and better paid than in Scotland.
• The entrance qualifications required for an Interpreter/Translator are usually the same (across universities or countries) and are: Minimum in some universities holding: a university degree (B.A Honours equivalent - i.e 3 years university course) Most universities holding: a university degree (M.A equivalent i.e 5 years) + Entrance Exam.
So the majority of Interpreters are expected to have at least a Master degree (in Interpreting Studies) before becoming professional. At the highest level, (Conference Interpreter) the entrance exams are very strict and studies very demanding. Around only 50% of students are successful as is the case in 2012 (only 6 out of 13 qualified) for the entrance exam.
• In France, a qualified interpreter becomes an Expert Court Interpreter once he is registered with a Court (he may use his services only with the court he is registered with and his card registration does not mean he can offer his services with another jurisdiction).
• From 2004 a decree nominated SFT (National Syndicate) for ongoing training for Expert Court Interpreters who should dedicate some time to update their legal knowledge and interpreting skills. The Court holds a list of registered Court Interpreters. Probationary period is 2 years, and then registered for a period of 5 years court work assignment (7 years for High Court).
• Every year the Court Interpreter should send a report to the High Court Judge and to the Procurator Fiscal including a report of assignments and training taken in the previous 12 months.
Example of a typical report:
Court Assignment carried out
Year 20XX
(as per art. 23 decree n° 2004-1463 of 23 Dec.2004)
Jurisdiction
using the interpreter
|
Date & Type of request for an
Expert
(Order, request)
(Name of magistrate) |
Type of
Assignment
(translation, interpreting,
transcription, expert- evaluation of a text, recording)
|
Date Report submitted
(expert- evaluation of), translation or transcription and lead time
to carry out task or
date of interpreting assignment |
Case Reference
(Prosecutor Office Ref Number
- Names of parties)
|
Observations
(number of pages translated -
Interpreting details)
|
In Scotland, the DPSI is studied over 9 months for a 2 hours session/week with no guarantee for having a tutor for the second language. Colleges have an English speaking tutor and most of the time they rely on students speaking the other language for pairing and correcting each other! It is like the blind leading the blind. Colleges will not offer the course in the 2nd language if there are not two students speaking the same language registered for the course.
In the Scottish instance, the court sees the interpreter as a person with a duty to assist the court for that hearing he is assigned and he is discharged as soon as the hearing is over. The interpreter has no further obligations towards the court. Unlike the French counterpart, the Scottish interpreter is not required to provide the judge, before or after, with a report showing the type of assignments undertaken and performance achieved over the year. (Ergo no performance appraisal or mentoring).
As the statistics demonstrate, in many instances Scottish interpreters are not well equipped to carry out their duties but also there is no new skills monitoring either by the agency or the court (such as a portfolio showing his/her CPD (Continuing Professional Development) as is expected from a French Court Interpreter, or for that matter from any other type professional.
Underpinning knowledge in the legal interpreting arena goes beyond the obvious immediate task of rendering words from the source language to a target language. It requires an overall understanding not only of the legal process but also the cultural differences of the parties involved.
In addition to researching and reading relevant material in the field, CPD is really a must as we all have gaps in certain fields, we often come across new situations and therefore one should record these to develop skills (keeping a tab on strengths and weaknesses).
We have pointed out above to the Scottish Executive report (2002) stating that there were no established guidelines or standards relating specifically to interpreting. And yet there are leading specialists on the subject who propose interesting and encouraging steps for establishing national systems for qualified legal interpreters and translators and provide a foundation for future development training and best practice standards. The need for qualified interpreters’ standards across borders is also discussed by Edda Ostarhild in “International Collaboration in Setting Public Service Interpreting”.
Another such example is the paper “Access to Justice across Language and Culture in the EU” by Erik Hertog and Yolanda Vanden Bosch. The aim of this project [known as the Grotius Project 98/GR/131] is to encourage the establishment of internationally consistent best practice standards and equivalencies in legal interpreting and translation. In the Development Phase of this project, there are pertinent issues that can be taken up by Scotland.
The major topics discussed are to be found in the first meeting held in Cambridge, England (19-21 February 1999) where four broad levels of competence were singled out i.e. : “…
• an ‘urgency’ model to cope with unexpected and pressing demands such as e.g. the sudden influx of a new wave of immigrants or a major disaster
• a Diploma or First Degree level programme providing the basic professional level guaranteeing quality in legal interpreting or translation
• a postgraduate or MA level that would widen the range and proficiency in languages, improve and expand the cognitive and professional skills and wherein a Diploma or First Degree course could be accredited
• and a Continuous Professional Development level of post-qualification training in areas of expertise which would enable legal interpreters and translators to specialise, develop new skills, keep up to date, etc. and
• various assessment methods. "
Whilst this project aspires to prepare interpreting standards across EU member states it does nonetheless provide, in my opinion, guidelines for Scotland to resolve the issues we highlighted. This can be seen in the intended outcomes of the Grotius Project, which are: “…
• legal interpreters and translators, with equivalent adequate standards of training, assessment and practice throughout the EU
• guidelines on selection and assessment of legal interpreters and translators, providing recognised standardised benchmarks of basic professional competence
• outlines of the curricula in legal interpreting and translation with detailed recommendations on piloting and evaluating training courses for legal interpreters and translators and providing examples of teaching materials for such course.”
In adopting these recommendations, not only the current situation of interpreting in Scottish courts would improve but would also mean that Scotland will be ready to deal with its European partners with any future legal issues, likely to arise [political and criminal cases such as Lockerbie or London bombers cases] involving Scottish courts or police with their counterparts in the other country.
Another pertinent reading is Ann Corsellis who wrote and contributed to various reports on the subject of training and interpreting. For example, she favours the combined professional-vocational and academic approach and a common core in content and consistency in standards of practice.
- Training at First Degree and Initial Professional Level (Ann Corsellis and Edda Ostarhild) The aim of the course is to prepare students to begin practising as legal interpreters and translators at an initial professional level (Diploma, First Degree or BA) in a responsible way. It is intended as a first step, on which knowledge and expertise can be improved through supported experience and further study. and
- Training at Professional Graduate MA Level (María Gracía Torres Díaz with Doris Grollmann and Hugo Marquant) The specific aims are:
• To train candidates to become specialised legal translators and interpreters.
• To foster research and produce specialists in the field of legal translation and interpreting. Research at MA level could well provide a stepping stone for students wishing to continue their studies at PhD level. This would undoubtedly be of great benefit to the profession and the body of knowledge as a whole.
• To lay the basis for the training of high calibre teachers in legal translation and interpreting.
These writings are good food for thought and the recommendations seem very rational and practical to adopt here in Scotland in order to raise the standard of community interpreters.
I regret to say that regarding qualifications, since my article in my blog (2009) nothing has changed – a DPSI is just not good enough! And I have already talked about the standard in my previous blog
To make matters worse, the Ministry of Justice and the agency providing interpreting services have cut the fees and travel expenses for interpreters. Sadly this decision is not likely to motivate our interpreters to seek further qualifications as there are no pecuniary incentives or conditional requirements for an entry level to interpret in courts.
3 Incentives for interpreters to improve their skills
Just as there are no policies governing standards relating specifically to interpreting there are no incentives whatsoever for existing Scottish interpreters, qualified and unqualified, to broaden their knowledge through higher qualifications and better their skills through sponsoring or mentoring. One obvious area, apart from the conditional criterion for a standard benchmark (the DPSI is easily by-passed by agencies and courts), is to review the rate of pay for interpreting here and in France.
Interpreters’ fees compared
- Scotland:
The rate of pay in this country, a subject of grumbling in many quarters, is deteriorating. We cannot expect to provide a high calibre service and pay a pittance for it.
• Traditionally, interpreters have been paid travel time and costs, along with a guaranteed minimum fee (normally two or three hours' work), and this remains the case in some settings. Typical hourly rates range from £30 to £40, rising to £60 for very experienced interpreters.
• Agencies and telephone interpreting are increasingly being used to reduce costs, particularly in the public sector, as interpreters receive a lower rate per minute or per hour with limited or no travel reimbursements; this is likely to reduce typical salaries in the affected sectors. For example, new Ministry of Justice rates start at £16 per hour for low-skilled interpreters with limited experience and peak at £22 per hour for a professional registered member (Linguist Lounge , 2011).
It is important and also expected that interpreters should provide a professional interpreting service and by the same principle should be paid at a rate that reflects the time and money they have invested in their qualifications which in turn reflects the skilled job they do. In other words, we cannot expect to provide a high calibre service and pay a pittance for it.
It is no surprise that many qualified interpreters are leaving this profession to take up other careers which guarantee better prospects.
- France & Scotland
For general comparison purposes:
• For a high calibre French interpreter (including Conference Interpreters) the monthly wage is between Euro 3k to 6k.
• For standard French interpreters the monthly wage is between Euro 1.4 k and 2.5 k in 2011.
The table below presents French Court Interpreters’ fees compared with those paid by the main agency suppliers to Scottish users (Courts/UKBA/Health Service in that order):
Nbr
of Hours
|
French Courts
(March 2009)
|
CAPITA
2013
|
UKBA*
2013
|
The Bigword 2013
|
NHS
2013
|
|
Monday To Friday
|
Week-end
&
Public Hols.
|
Anytime
|
Monday
to Saturday
|
Monday
to Saturday
|
Monday
to Saturday
|
|
7 h - 22 h
|
7 h - 22 h
|
Anytime
|
Anytime
|
Anytime
|
Anytime
|
|
1st Hr
|
42,00 €
|
49,50 €
|
£20.00
|
£80.00
|
£20.00
|
£20.00
|
2nd Hr
|
72,00 €
|
87,00 €
|
£40.00
|
£80.00
|
£40.00
|
£40.00
|
3rd Hr
|
102,00 €
|
124,50 €
|
£60.00
|
£80.00
|
£60.00
|
£60.00
|
4th Hr
|
132,00 €
|
162,00 €
|
£80.00
|
£96.00
|
£80.00
|
£80.00
|
8th Hr
|
252,00 €
|
312,00 €
|
£100.00
|
£112.00
|
£100.00
|
£100.00
|
* UKBA’s booking interpreting services has been phased out and the private company The Bigword has taken on the contract for supplying UKBA.
It is clear that five years ago a day's work for a French court interpreter is paid approx. 2.5 times more on a weekday and approx. 3 times more on weekends and public holidays.
The travel and subsistence fees are also more generous in France. For example:
• Travel Expenses: Lunch period (on the job between 11:00-14:00) is paid €15.25 in France in contrast it is unpaid in the UK. For a full day away (outside Paris) including 2 meals and overnight accommodation expenses paid are €78.50 (€90.50 within Paris).
Mileage is paid between €0.25 and €0.35 (depending on the HP of the car) whilst in the UK mileage (0.30p per mile) is only paid after a journey of 70 miles! (See Fees & Travel Allowance paid by SLAB: This means many Scottish interpreters refuse to take assignments in places outside their hometown and courts are more likely to be faced with accepting less qualified interpreters or postponing the case until an interpreter is found.
Conclusions
This brief paper cannot cover the entire themes that are of current interest to interpreters and causing serious concern for some more than to others. I have arbitrarily chosen the topics covered but hope that they reflect the concern of the majority.
The studies and recommendations presented at the introduction are still waiting in the pending tray.
Regarding the three issues raised and developed above, sadly more than ten years later, save for the MoJ policy to award the monopoly for providing interpreting services, nothing has changed. Now in 2013, not much has been achieved to improve the conditions of Scottish interpreters and the future as a profession.
Most qualified interpreters with University degrees and long interpreting experience are still not regarded as professional despite the same number of years at university as a solicitor for example. The status is not the same and the pay is inversely proportional in terms of years compared to that of a solicitor. The excellent research paper by Ruth Morris(8) aptly headed: “Court interpreting 2009: An undervalued and misunderstood profession? Or: Will justice speak?” raises many issues still relevant in the Scottish interpreting arena.
Professional interpreters devote time and effort to train, gain knowledge and experience in the field and by research to maintain the high standards expected of them. The worldwide web is a great opportunity to voice one’s concern and a forum to rally interpreters to focus on an issue and its possible solution.
For even-handedness, Interpreters need also to look at themselves and endeavour to do their duty. The professional interpreter does not have only rights but also responsibilities and to that extent many (who are unprofessional) are harming the profession. Fora are the place to suss out opinions on current issues and in The Law Society Gazette, I came across this one “ in my view, there is no such thing as “partially qualified” or “about to qualify”. Either you are or you aren’t. If we want the profession to gain the respect it deserves this should be our prerogative. The reason why we are in trouble now, is because none of us has taken this situation seriously. If you are a health interpreter don’t go to court but to the hospital, you are indeed putting people’s lives at stake.”
So, each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents. as the French adage says « De chacun selon ses capacités, à chacun selon ses besoins » by Louis Blanc in a brochure – Plus de Girondins -in 1851, often mistakenly attributed to Karl Marx (popularised )in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.
I finish this paper by referring to Ruth Morris’s (9) fitting remark below “Plus ça change…?” translated as “The more things change…?” Morris does not finish the sentence and the three dots are left for the reader to interpret it the way he thinks best. For my part, I go for the obvious one, the French proverb: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”; translated as “The more things change, the more they stay the same“.
“To some extent, as the counterpart to their strengths, interpreters’ forums have the drawback of being for and by interpreters - in other words, the converted. The people who, as interpreters know full well, are not aware of the issues involved - the administrators, the judges, the lawyers - are to a large extent out of reach. Unless they choose to put themselves within reach, as they do sometimes; or unless the interpreters themselves reach out to them.”
Notes:
(1) September 2010 Notice for Tenders. Initially 12 out of 58 bidders were invited for further discussions. By December 2010, the Ministry had reduced the number of potential suppliers to three and the stronger contender ALS was asked in February 2012 to finalise its proposition and the signing of the framework agreement was signed in August 2011, followed by the final contract on 31 October 2011for the provision of interpreting services in courts, tribunals, prisons and probation
(2) - Translating, Interpreting and Communication Support Services Across the Public Sector in Scotland. A Literature Review. Scottish Executive. 2002 - The Scottish Translation, Interpreting and Communication Forum, Good Practice Guidelines. 2004 - Translating, interpreting and communication support: a review of provision in public services in Scotland. Scottish Executive social research 2006
(3) - How many interpretation assignments have been undertaken by the Scottish Court Service in each month of 2010, broken down by interpreters (a) with and (b) without a Diploma in Public Service Interpreting? and - Since the implementation of the framework contract for the provision of interpreting, translation and transcription services, on how many occasions courts have advised the SCS about a case in which an aspect of the performance of the interpretation service has had an effect on proceedings, broken down by month, and how this compares with the situation prior to the introduction of the framework contract.
(4) Kamasinski v Austria (Inadequate interpretation in criminal proceedings) (Series A, No 168 Application No 9783/82) European Court of Human Rights (1991) 13 EHRR 36, 19 Dec. 1989
(5) ECHR – ART -6- Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: • (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; • (b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence; • (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; • (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; • (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
(6) Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32010L0064:EN:NOT
(7) Interpreting /Translating Institutions (Arbitrarily chose these 3 countries) France: INSTITUT SUPÉRIEUR D’INTERPRÉTATION ET DE TRADUCTION (I.S.I.T) http://www.isit-paris.f UNIVERSITÉ DE LA SORBONNE NOUVELLE -PARIS III Ecole Supérieure d’Interprètes et de Traducteurs http://www.univ-paris3.fr/esit UNIVERSITÉ MARC BLOCH DE STRASBOURG http://itiri.unistra.fr Institut de Traducteurs, d’Interprètes et de Relations Internationales – (ITI-RI) Belgium :HAUTE ÉCOLE DE BRUXELLES - INSTITUT SUPÉRIEUR DE TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES (ISTI) http://www.heb.be/isti HAUTE ECOLE LÉONARD DE VINCI INSTITUT LIBRE MARIE HAPS (ILMH) http://www.ilmh.be/interpretation Switzerland : UNIVERSITÉ DE GENEVE http://www.unige.ch/eti/index_en.html
(8) Ruth Morris: court InterpretIng 2009: an undervalued and misunderstood profession? or: Will Justice Speak? http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/16435/1/MonTI_2_04.pdf
(9) Ruth Morris: From: Community Interpreters at the End of the Twentieth Century Bar-Ilan University, Israel 1998
