Interpreters Qualifications

  • Reference Number: 2541
  • Date released: 18 June 2010

Request

  1. How many face to face foreign language interpreters were used by the Constabulary between the 1st January 2009 and the 31st December 2009?
  2. How many were on the national register of public service interpreters (NRPSI)?
  3. How many were sourced from other sources approved by the ‘National Agreement’ (i.e. ITI, APCI)?
  4. How many face to face interpreters were used by the Constabulary since 1ST January 2010?
  5. How many were on the national register of public service interpreters (NRPSI)?
  6. How many were sourced from other sources approved by the national agreement  (i.e. ITI, APCI)?
  7. Does the Constabulary use an intermediary to supply interpreters?
  8. If the constabulary uses an intermediary to supply interpreters, How much does the constabulary pay the intermediary per hour and as a minimum payment?
  9. Please provide a copy of the current rates for translation and interpreting services. 

Response

In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act our response is provided below;

I have now considered you request and I am not obliged to provide the majority of the information requested.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the Cheshire Constabulary, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you with a notice which a) states that fact, b) specifies the exemption in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The following exemptions apply

Section 21 Information reasonably accessible by other means.

Section 43 (2) Commercial Interests

Section 41(1) (a) (b) Information provided in confidence.

In so far as section 21 is concerned the information relating to a certain proportion of your request has already been published and can be found on our web site. I will indicate for each of your questions where the information can be found or in respect of your questions 2, in part, 5 & 6 include the information with this response.

Questions 1, 4 and 7. Please see the following pages on our web site: Interpretation and Translation

Questions 2, in part, 3 and 8 in part, Please see the disclosure log on our web site and the following web page;
Previous Disclosures Interpreters and Translaters

Disclosures dated 20 July 2009 and 7 August 2009 are the relevant entries.

Questions 2 in part and 3, 5 & 6 Please see
Interpreters Qualifications Jan 2010 - March 2010
Interpreters Qualifications Apr 2009 - Dec 2009

Questions 8, in part and 9. Section 43 Commercial interests.

and Section 41 Information provided in confidence (this is an absolute exemption).

This has been given before but I see no harm in reiterating it here.

Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it)

The contract with the providers of interpreter services is a commercial undertaking and to disclose the detail that is asked for in this request would seriously undermine the Authority's ability to negotiate future contracts at terms advantageous to the Authority and the tax payer. Furthermore disclosure of the contract details would also prejudice the suppliers commercial interest, breaching the confidentiality of the information provided to the Authority by the other party and would be in breach of the contract terms which would lead to action against the Authority by the other party. In addition such a breach of confidence would be actionable in law.

With that in mind the following public interest test applies in respect of the Section 43 exemption and our common law duty of confidence:

Considerations favouring disclosure

Accountability

When information disclosed relates directly to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Force and its officers. Disclosure of the negotiating factors around the awarding of a contract will enable the public to have confidence in the Authorities ability to achieve terms that would eventually be beneficial to the tax payer.

Public awareness and debate.

Where the service would benefit from public participation and debate. Knowledge of all the issues surrounding the provisions of services by outside parties and organisations to the Force would enhance any public debate over the decisions taken into the allocation of resources.

Public finances

Where public funds are being spent there is public interest in accountability and justification. Disclosure of the contract and the pricing structures would enable transparency.

Considerations favouring non-disclosure

Interests of third parties

Where individuals or third parties interest might be jeopardised by the release of information which relates to sensitive commercial information held about financial and contractual issues

Tortuous duty

In circumstances where the Force is under a legal obligation to maintain confidences, it would not be in the public interest to release this information if in so doing it would leave the Force vulnerable to civil proceedings.

Balancing Test

When deciding where the public interest lies we have to take into consideration valid arguments both for and against disclosure. In this case the strongest factor in favour of disclosure is accountability whereas both the interest of third parties and the Authorities duty do impose certain legally enforceable obligations on the Authority. How therefore would the public interest be served in ignoring those obligations. In our view it plainly wouldn't and there would be no community benefit in placing the Authority in a position that would subject it to litigation. Therefore on balance in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Back to Category List