The fight for rights continues…

Anyone with any link to the Deaf community in the UK can not fail to have noticed the activity surrounding the 10 year anniversary of the official recognition of BSL by the British government. The BDA held a live webcast on the 19th March. Discussions were frantically being had all over Facebook and Twitter.

There was a lot of campaign work which happened to get official recognition. That activity seemed to tail off as if the work was now done though in reality everyone knew this was just one step towards getting full recognition of Deaf rights in the form of full access to services, bilingual education and employment.

Over the last few years since budget cuts affected services on the ground it seems there has been a real sense of apathy in the deaf community. Often the first to notice failings in services, interpreters have been frustrated for years at a lack of interpreters in medical settings and social services. After that courts and police forces suffered at the hands of a large monopoly contract, the repurcussions of which are still in effect. The point is, interpreters see the lack of interpreters daily, not just because working conditions change but they pick up the pieces when they are finally booked.

Lately, there has been an attitude of ‘I didn’t get an interpreter the last time I went to the doctor, it happens all the time now’. What happened to righteous anger?

Well there’s nothing like an anniversary to take stock and look back at what has happened. Many are saying not much. That was the time to galvanise forces, to get a plan together and to take action. It seems that this anniversary will be the impetus now to renew efforts. There was a parliamentary reception, attended by BDA, RAD and Signature, held on the day of the anniversary of the recognition. 50 MPs so far, at the time of writing, have signed an early day motion for the government to report on its efforts and identify the barriers still in existence for BSL users.

In Scotland there have been complaints that throughout discussions on the BSL bill by parliament, the proposed act is becoming weaker and weaker. In England we watch with interest. There may be a BSL Act yet.

With more Deaf people empowered by technology than ever before it could be the perfect time. Recently a new group was set up on Facebook to campaign for a BSL Act in England.

Let’s hope more resources can be found to increase campaigning efforts and that the whole community comes out fighting. Now is the time for less sign and more action.

Get your MP to sign the motion now.

Voluntarily Giving Away Work

There is a worrying trend at the moment where voluntary interpreting seems to be used to fill the gap that statutory services and their contractors can not, or rather will not, fill.

The requests for voluntary interpreters as seen on e-groups, lists of jobs within the Deaf community and by text or email are most definitely on the rise. And these are just the ones we can see publicly advertised. They now occassionally include assignments which should be covered by the Equality Act 2010 such as job interviews and training courses. This is not the kind of voluntary interpreting that can be done by trainees to get in some practice.

Many more requests are being sent out by Deaf friends and family desperate to have an interpreter at their health appointments. This by far the worst we have ever seen medical interpreting since we moved away from the so-called helper model of interpreting.

If you want further evidence of a lack of interpreters provided in medical settings just see the increase in blogposts on the subject on Limping Chicken, the surge in activity on Twitter and posts on the new BSL Act campaign’s Facebook page.

Many NHS trusts clearly have little budget for interpreting. What has exacerbated the problem is, of course, outsourcing, especially to spoken language agencies. These agencies, who for many years have ignored standards in spoken language interpreting, are now hellbent on ignoring the standards for sign language interpreting.

A prime example is Pearl Linguistics who are winning numerous contracts on cost. Everything about to be said is fact, well-known in the community and any Deaf person or interpreter unfortunate enough to have had their local NHS trust outsource their interpreting services to Pearl will have started nodding their heads solemnly by now.

Pearl usually have a minimum fee payable to interpreters at £30 per hour for a minimum of £60. No travel expenses are paid. For an interpreter this is only feasible if you can squeeze in several jobs per day with little travel and preferably no extortionate hospital car parking. If you’re also paying back your student loan, additional costs of training and being self-employed the offer looks even more insulting. Oh and that’s without paying national insurance and tax on that sum. Really what’s the point?

Many good Registered Interpreters used to being self-employed are able to get work elsewhere, so they do. What happens then? Pearl say, well we will just use someone learning BSL because to get someone is better than nothing isn’t it? Well, no, absolutely not. These are people’s lives. A wrong diagnosis, the wrong treatment, a fatality are waiting to happen. No wait. They already have, except they are only known about by the few or hushed up, families paid off or wishing to keep their lives kept private.

Rather than reschedule or ensure they fulfil the contract with a suitably registered professional, by setting the fees so low they have an in-built excuse to provide level 2 and 3 BSL learners despite what it says in the contract. We know of some agencies willing to provide someone with level 1 BSL, the equivalent of holiday French.

With the NHS not effectively monitoring contracts and absolving themselves of risk by contracting to a third party what happens? Little or no access for Deaf people and some dangerously risky situations. Pearl are just one of many agencies doing the same thing.

Some personal examples: my elderly Aunt did not get an interpreter at her last hospital appointment. My mother who is diabetic was provided with someone who wanted to be an interpreter and begrudged the cost of the training. I am sure she was quite surprised when told she should get on with it and stop working in hospitals in the meantime. I have got some random texts from people who have found my number on the ASLI directory and asked me to go to a medical appointment with them with the offer of payment from their Access to Work funding. I know of a group of interpreters who working voluntarily supported someone Deaf going through a terminal illness. I see the amount of voluntary requests increasing and for work that previously was paid.

Where does this leave us as a profession? In a sticky predicament and, ethically, between a rock and a hard place. Should you, answers not limited to the following:

A) Interpret voluntarily so that access is given regardless and see a return to the days of the helper?

B) Accept the booking funded by Access to Work and go to a medical appointment thereby being complicit in commiting fraud?

Or C) Refuse someone access no matter what the gravity of their situation and do not allow the NHS or any other statutory service to renege their responsibility?

If we do not want the situation to worsen it has to be the final choice backed up by supporting Deaf people in getting access to their appointments.

Make the phone call voluntarily to PALS. Join and support local and natuonal campaigns run by the Deaf community to campaign for access. Write to your local trust and your MP. Support your local ASLI region and find out what’s going on in your area. Be the bicultural bilingual, ally and supporter. Be a good community interpreter. Just whatever you do, don’t ‘help’.

One Year on: The Ministry of Justice’s Failed Interpreting Contract

The latest on the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) contract, which is approaching its one year anniversary, is that the contract holders, Capita are still hanging on. From 8th January the travel costs are being slashed to 20p per mile. Travel costs were the only benefit for people accepting a job as a ‘linguist’ (their term for an untrained interpreter and insulting to real linguists). There are already grumblings.

Any clued-up interpreter knew this was due to happen and it is why the boycott has been admirably sustained by all those that are professionals and know their worth. Here follows a summary of what has happened over the last year:

• Key interpreter organisations object to a monopoly contract and point out what should be the minimum standards as already set up in the National Agreement.
• ALS awarded contract by promising unsustainable savings despite protests.
• ALS offers interpreters greatly reduced payments for working in courts.
• Professional interpreters refuse to work under these conditions for ludicrously low payments.
• The courts are thrown into chaos with many bookings unfilled and courts experiencing many adjournments and delays.
• Bonuses are paid to entice anyone to accept work (£5 extra for accepting an online booking) and mileage and payments are increased to entice ‘linguists’ to court.
• Untrained, unqualified speakers of other languages, sometimes those who do not even speak the languages they say they do, start to work for the contract.
• Reports are numerous amongst interpreters and reach the UK media of linguists travelling miles to rack up travel payments.
• Courts continue to experience severe delays.
• Capita takes over ALS and pays £7.5 million and invests a further £5.4 million.
• Several ALS and Capita personnel leave including ex-Chief Executive Gavin Wheeldon.
• Parliamentary hearings confirm what everybody knew: the contract holders know nothing about interpreting or the standards that were put in place before the contract removed them.
• From instructions set out by the Public Accounts Committee, Capita start to CRB check the ‘linguists’ registered on its database, check whether they actually have qualifications and start to tighten up checks. These were fairly non-existent until this point.
• A year after the contract starts mileage rates slashed to 20p per mile and effort is made to find local personnel, the contract promised that interpreters would be sourced from within a 25 mile radius, but with the payments originally offered this did not happen.

The next chapter in this story will surely be that no-one will work for Capita at the proposed rates. £16 – £22 per hour for a court job, with many being classed at the £16 per hour level – if someone paid out more than they were allowed to claim and travelled far to attend a job, Capita’s so-called linguists would be working for less than the minimum wage. The MoJ surely could not expect professionals for those prices and professionals it does not get. The courts have seen a parade of second-jobbers standing in for professional interpreters including hotel staff walking out of courts before hearings are finished to get back to their real jobs, reports of mis-interpretations abound and ‘linguists’ who do not speak their stated languages.

Capita’s website reveals no mention of standards, of registration (NRPSI or NRCPD), of minimum levels of qualifications, of CRB checks, Codes of Conduct or professional indemnity insurance. The only word they use is ‘qualified’. In what exactly, it is not clear. Perhaps anything other than languages or even interpreting, going by the personnel they are still sending to courts.

And what of Sign Language Interpreting? The contract has changed the face of interpreting mainly due to how the booking system works. The Capita monopoly just does not work. With patches of evidence of lowered standards in place it ticks over, many afraid to report bad practice due to confidentiality. More job requests are issued directly from courts and are being farmed out to agencies who have never been heard of and who may never have booked a Sign Language Interpreter. Worrying as they will not be aware of our standards of registration. With no monitoring of the contract by the MoJ this leaves us in a risky situation that has already seen influent sign language users, who are not yet registered interpreters, working in courts, despite promises by the MoJ.

There no longer seems to be a preferred supplier as the jobs that are released by Capita go out to a myriad of sign language interpreting agencies and some spoken language ones. Let us remember whenever there is a monopoly situation, the larger company inevitably uses competition between sub-contractors to drive the price down. We have seen this with another large spoken language agency and their numerous public service contracts leaving us in a situation where the least experienced interpreters are doing jobs that should be done by the most experienced such as mental health, child protection and probation.

In the courts it has been reported that some newly registered interpreters are accepting court or police work, often without any additional training. Why? Some agencies like to reassure interpreters they are capable. Less scrupulous agencies will tell an interpreter anything to fill the job. It is not their decision whether an interpreter should do the job but it is up to the interpreter in question. This practice by agencies has happened for years but newer interpreters are left ever more vulnerable by a changed economic landscape and an unwillingness to pay for support networks such as ASLI. This is how many of us learned to be professionals and to see ourselves as a collective. Let us all remind ourselves of the NRCPD’s Code of Conduct for competence: You must recognise and work within the limits of your competence, and if necessary, refer on to another proficient professional.

Although there are still experienced court interpreters working for Capita. Many are not or state they are experienced but actually are not up to the job. One of the most important skills a court interpreter should have is an ability to monitor their own output and enter into discussions about their work. If you see bad practice in courts please report it to the NRCPD. Often the Deaf clients, if vulnerable, will not be able to do so. It is our duty.

Stories abound of clients not understanding court interpreters. Perhaps interpreters are not insisting on Deaf relay interpreters when it is needed, perhaps when one is not present they do not have the skills to deliver the court proceedings in a way that the Deaf people present will understand something, no matter what their level of language or conceptual understanding. Court work is often not the same as working with a Deaf person who has such good language skills that even if you are not that good an interpreter they will do the processing for you whilst you sign something vaguely relevant to what is going on.

One reader of this blog reports: One client stated they had not understood the interpreters in court and she did not know what she had been there for, what the charge was and what the outcome of the proceedings were. When pressed by the solicitor she could not answer. The interpreter states they interpreted in more or less international sign as this was not a native user of BSL. Her companion eventually stated the charge, that she was found guilty but had not yet been sentenced.

Unfortunately this is more common than it used to be. Will our situation get worse if we too are subjected to a further drop in terms and conditions? Capita will be looking to make savings somewhere as they can not drop the rates of spoken language interpreters any more than they have. With a flat rate of £34 per hour that is not a margin that screams profit, especially not when they are being subjected to wasted costs orders by judges. With no mention of standards of BSL/English interpreting stated presumably they are covered to send anyone who can pick up their hands and pretend, much like the linguists who speak Bulgarian but interpret in Russian and which ever language they can get away with.

This is not access to justice for Deaf people and especially not for speakers of other languages. The British justice system is often seen as the fairest in the world. Just not anymore if you speak another language.

Market Solutions Part 1: Protecting the Profession

There has been much criticism of the outsourcing of interpreting services to private agencies and the problems it causes for the profession on this blog. There have not been many recommendations offered. There will be, over time, a series of blogposts on the solutions we could put in place to counteract negative changes in the market and the subsequent decline in standards in some areas of work.

The most obvious answer to what is happening is to protect the title of interpreter. As a profession of Sign Language Interpreters we seem to bring up this topic every few years but have yet to get to the stage where we can submit an application for a variety of reasons.

Protection of title would mean in order to work legally as an interpreter you must be a Registered Sign Language Interpreter (RSLI). In the same way you can not work as a Social Worker or any number of health professionals unless you are registered with the Health and Care Professions Council. You can not work as a Doctor unless you are able to register with the General Medical Council having completed the relevant training. To call yourself an Interpreter without being registered would incur a warning, a fine and a possible prison sentence.

How can we as interpreters apply for legal status and therefore protect the title of interpreter?
There is much work to do in one sense if we consider the financial climate and the unwillingness to use interpreters who have achieved standards in some areas, especially medical. The NHS has outsourced much of its interpreting services with dire consequences for Deaf people in areas where the contracts provide unregistered signers. In some ways we could get there relatively quickly if we pull together.

One way towards protection of title would be to become a Chartered body. This could be done by NRCPD or even, ASLI.

In order to do so an organisation needs to apply to the Privy Council for a Royal Charter. An example of chartered organisations, whose members are protected, are Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Institution of Engineering Designers (IED), Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) and Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIoL).

The steps we need to take and the comments on our progress are below:

(a) the institution concerned should comprise members of a unique profession, and should have as members most of the eligible field for membership, without significant overlap with other bodies.
– The NRCPD has the majority of qualified interpreters on the register. More interpreters should become members of ASLI if they wish to work towards becoming protected. Strength in numbers is key.

(b) corporate members of the institution should be qualified to at least first degree level in a relevant discipline;
- We can consider this point achieved.

(c) the institution should be financially sound and able to demonstrate a track record of achievement over a number of years;
- Whether we are talking about NRCPD or ASLI this is true. Again, there could be more growth and achievement if every interpreter became a member of ASLI.

(d) incorporation by Charter is a form of Government regulation as future amendments to the Charter and by-laws of the body require Privy Council (ie Government) approval. There therefore needs to be a convincing case that it would be in the public interest to regulate the body in this way;
- We have all experienced the damage that unregistered and unqualified interpreters can do. It is most definitely within the Deaf community’s interest and the wider public interest in ensuring there are only bona fide interpreters used. For example in the areas of medical, legal and social care where damage can be done to people’s lives or significant costs incurred by the state. Think miscommunication, think misdiagnosis, think mistrials.

(e) the institution is normally expected to be of substantial size (5,000 members or more).
- Sign Language Interpreters can not fulfil this criteria at present so we would have to either:
- put the point across that we are a niche profession and apply to be accepted for Royal Charter on the basis of having 1,000 or so either on the register or in training.
- join together with spoken language interpreters in order to bolster our number although any interpreters or membership of an interpreting organisation would still need to adhere to the above criteria.

Another way of protecting the profession through regulation by government is by getting the use of Registered Interpreters into law. It is already a ‘reasonable adjustment’ under the Equality Act 2010 to provide an interpreter. Many organisation are using budgets as a way to renege on their responsibilities and to say it is not a ‘reasonable adjustment’ if they do not have the funds to pay for one. A more guaranteed way is to propose a BSL Bill and incoporate access into the bill as it is in the current BSL Bill being proposed to the Scottish Parliament.

Worth also noting is the current government steer is to ensure all professions in health are protected titles via the HCPC and this extends to anyone who may ‘touch’ the patient. As interpreters we might have to tap the client on the arm to get their attention, we may be doing hands-on interpreting for a Deafblind client or an elderly client may lean on an interpreter or grab their hand for support. For registration we need not only the correct qualifications proving we have reached the National Occupational Standards in Interpreting but also the essentials any professional should have: an enhanced CRB check, professional indemnity insurance, a Code of Conduct and a way for people to complain should you not be providing a good service. Allowing unregistered interpreters to be near the patient exposes them to people who do not have these safeguards. Allowing agencies, via outsourcing, to provide unregistered interpreters means that the government goes against its own agenda, no just for health but in other areas.

Whether we apply for Royal Charter, have interpreting and access as part of a BSL Bill or lobby for specific legislation to cover interpreting legally, government regulation of the Sign Language Interpreting profession fits in with government steer and parts of current legislation. This posting touches the tip of a legal iceberg. With the decline in standards in the provision of interpreting seen over the last two years, the disservice done by the government to Deaf people and the lack of cohesion amongst some groups of interpreters, whichever way we do it, it is about time we put protecting the title of interpreter back on the agenda.

Anonymous Shopping: Apology Number Two

Submitted by ‘Emma Biel’, the Mystery Shopper who posted the original post entitled: ‘Anonymous Shopping: How Much Interpreting Agencies Really Charge’.

It seems I have another apology to make. I received a letter at 4:12pm on the 15th of August 2012. The letter was from the legal firm representing appa and they have requested that the inaccuracies in the original blog be corrected so as not to further cause injury to reputation. The remedy for libel is to modify the blog to correct all inaccuracies.

With respect to the fee quoted, which was £50 per hour for an RSLI and £45 per hour for a CSW (2 hour minimum charge) –they would like it known that this was for an ad hoc booking and that appa have a “more flexible cost structure…”. Regular clients are charged at a lower rate.

On the blog, I failed to mention that appa offer a 10% discount to new clients. Therefore the cost for that assignment would have in fact been £45 for an RSLI and £40.50 for a CSW. Not £50 and £45 as was originally stated. I am sorry for the omission.

I also did not state that in respect of travel, appa do not charge VAT. Again, I am sorry. Having looked again at the email chain I can see nothing that relates to travel and VAT so can only excuse my ignorance based on the fact that it wasn’t mentioned.

In the original blog I claimed that appa offered me a level 4 CSW. This was based on the information provided below:

“Has the deaf person asked you for a prefer level of BSL signer?

For a qualified interpreter they have level 6 in BSL

For a communicator they have level 3 or level 4.

There are various levels and it’s always good to ask the deaf client there preferred level of communication support they require. If your unable to get that information I would recommend CSW BSL level 4 but if its for a interview then I would recommend the above level”

I understood “the above level” to mean CSW level 4, but the inference I have taken from the solicitors’ letter is that they actually meant level 6. So to clarify, in the absence of information regarding a deaf person’s preference they would recommend a CSW who has level 4 BSL. But for an interview they would recommend someone who has level 6 BSL.

I mentioned on the initial blog that appa “Offered to help me apply to ATW to cover costs – then their fee becomes all inclusive” They would like it clarified that this is a free service in which they also process all of the paperwork.

I also need to apologise for some further ambiguity. I stated that appa “Offered me an interpreter for the afternoon even though I had requested the morning”, this was based on the information below:

“I do have an interpreter available for next Tuesday 14th august for 4pm

Please let me know if this is suitable for you.”

They later emailed to say “if you would like us to process this request for the morning we can.”

Because they had previously offered an interpreter for the afternoon I was confused and so did not respond. I apologise. I should have taken the time to clarify the information.

And finally, they would like it known that they are in fact ‘appa’ and not ‘Appa’ as I had previously stated.

These amendments have now been made to the original post.

Anonymous Shopping: How Much Interpreting Agencies Really Charge

Submitted Anonymously

I decided a few weeks ago that what the profession needed was a bit of mystery shopping, so I contacted all the agencies on the list via email and requested a ‘signer’ for a small business conducting a recruitment interview for an apprentice, one of which was deaf. We were flexible on times, but needed the ‘signer’ for an hour in the morning. After getting a response I sent an email back with a confused query about qualifications and registration. You can see the responses for yourselves. All discussions took place via email and I have kept the responses should anyone wish to challenge the information provided. My personal opinion is that as a general rule, interpreter led agencies come out on top.

AGENCY	QUOTE	NOTES
Aditus	£120 + travel + £30 admin fee	Claimed to only use fully qualified and registered interpreters
		Couldn’t provide anyone in house for the time requested, offered to find an alternative from their databases
		Included full terms and conditions
		Explained the registration process clearly.
Action on Hearing Loss	£168 + travel	Claimed all interpreters used were qualified and registered
	(3 hr minimum)
appa	RSLI – £50 per hour, CSW £45 per hour	Offered to help me apply to ATW to cover costs – then their fee becomes all inclusive, they offer a free service to deal with AtW paperwork
	First booking receives a 10% discount so charges would be Interpreter £45 per hour, CSW £40.50. No VAT added on travel.	Explained the difference between interpreter and CSW as interpreter has level 6 BSL and CSW level 3 or 4, Recommended for an interview someone with level 6 BSL should be used
	(2 hr minimum)	Offered me an interpreter for the afternoon initially though I had requested the morning then later stated they had someone available
Applied Language Solutions	Unknown	Emailed. No response.
Bee Communications	£250 + VAT + travel	Offered advice on interviewing a deaf person
		Try to offer fully qualified (level 5) called MRSLI
		Said I probably didn’t need that level and could book a cheaper trainee
		Later offered someone fully qualified and to lower the fee to £240 inclusive
Big Word	£50 (3 hour minimum)	Claimed that registered and qualified signers were only needed for ‘official representation’ such as courts, but not for job interviews
	Total cost = £150 + VAT + travel time + expenses	Offered to locate an interpreter local to me so as to save on travel costs
BSL Beam	N/A	Stated straight away that they were not an agency, but explained their position in the market
		Offered some reputable specialist agencies local to the area
		Offered a detailed and comprehensive explanation of the NRCPD registration process
		Explained the risks of using someone unqualified
		Provided an explanation of Access to Work
BSL Link4Comm	£136.50 + travel	Claim to only use experienced NRCPD registered interpreters
	(3 hr minimum)	Mentioned equality legislation and the impact of using unqualified people
		Mentioned code of conduct
City Lit (Sign Here)	Unknown	Transparent – said they didn’t have anyone available until Sept
		Redirected me to the NRCPD website – told me how to book direct to save money
		Gave me an indication of industry standard fees to expect and pointed me towards information on working with an interpreter
		Fully explained what registration and qualification meant – only organisation to correct my use of the term ‘signer’ and explain the difference
		Outlined the legal ramifications of using a ‘signer’
Clarion	£159 + travel + VAT	Said “don’t necessarily need a fully qualified interpreter but you would want minimum level 3.”
	(3 hr minimum)	I asked if level 3 was enough, the response was that it depends
Codex Global	Unknown	Refused to quote without full information and details
Cohearentvision	N/A	No one available – pointed me towards the London Interpreters website
Communication ID	£125 + VAT	Explained the difference between RSLI and unqualified.
		Claim to only use RSLI
		Mentioned ASLI and NRCPD
Deaf Agency	One off fee of £42 (first time customer)	Said “We like to keep our costs down and try to be a flexible as possible”
	Usually £126 + travel + VAT	Claim all staff are registered
Deaf Direct	Unknown	Recommended booking an agency locally and offered some contact details
		Mentioned NRCPD and recommended booking someone fully qualified, checking registration status and then explained why this was important
		Told us we could save money by booking an interpreter directly from the NRCPD website
		Explained ATW and provided a link to the website
Deaf Positives	£145 + VAT + travel	Claimed that a registered interpreter was required but not essential
		Clarified what RSLI meant
		Said “The other type of sign language interpreter is Registered Trainee Interpreter and they are trainees from approx level 1 to level 3.”
Deaf Umbrella	£143.14 inclusive of travel and VAT	Told me that MRSLI’s were more expensive
	(2 hr minimum)	Said ” Unless your candidate has specifically requested a fully qualified Interpreter, a lower level of sign support would be completely appropriate. “
		MRSLI did not need to be booked unless client specifically requested one, but they take weeks to book in advance
		They had a member of staff available to interpret
		Suggested ATW as a way of covering the cost of interpreting and a member of staff could help
Diversus	£162 + VAT + travel	Pushy – kept requesting my full details and a confirmation
		Sourced an interpreter before I’d even confirmed I wanted one
Essex Interpreting	£120 + travel + VAT	Claim to use only registered interpreters. Mostly qualified, some JTI
Femaura	Unknown	Said “Level 6 is full qualified”
		Only really wanted to talk over the phone
Interpreting Matters	£170 + VAT	Claim to only use registered interpreters
		Full explanation of NRCPD registration process
	Price dependent on interpreter fee	Explained ATW
		Explained the ramifications of using unqualified people
Islington Council	N/A	Explained that they only cover council bookings in Islington
		Recommended booking a registered interpreter
		Mentioned ASLI
		Offered a guide for industry standard freelance fees
Just Communication	£210 + VAT	Claim to “only use qualified registered interpreters”
K-International	£250 + VAT
Language Empire	£175 + travel + VAT	Said “Interpreters with a Level 4 is the minimum qualification we use…”
	(3 hr minimum charge)	Fees are for ‘Special Disability Interpreting’ – Charges are the same for CSW’s and Interpreters, ‘Finger Spelling’, ‘Deaf Blind Manual’ & ‘Deaf Blind Hands On’ & ‘Lipreaders’
Language is Everything	Wouldn’t state their charges	Claim to use qualified & registered interpreters
	Stated interpreter industry standard charges as:	Clear about the legal ramifications of using someone unqualified – Mentioned DDA
	£90-£130 + travel	Referred me to ASLI
Language Line	N/A	Outsource all bookings to Clarion
Lexicon Sign Stream	Unknown	Explained the qualification and registration process in detail
		Explained minimum charges and industry standard fees
		Offered to source a local interpreter
Merrill Corporation	£260 + VAT + travel	Claim to only use qualified and registered interpreters
		Mentioned NRCPD and safeguarding and standards
		Provided an attachment outlining the roles of BSL interpreters, STTR & Lipspeakers (NRCPD registered) – all comprehensive and accurate
MLIS	Unknown	Claim to only use qualified translators and never trainees
		Very non committal until had all of my details
Neal Communication (NCA)	£150 + travel + VAT	Asked about qualification levels but preferred to speak over the phone so no clear response
	(3 hr minimum)
Newham Language Shop	£120 + VAT	Claim to only use qualified interpreters and do not ever use unqualified interpreters
		Offered to email some advice on how to work with a “signer”
Onestop Agency	£50 per hr, 3 hr min + travel	Claim to only use fully qualified interpreters or trainee interpreters
	Total £150 + travel	Recommend not using level 3 NVQ signers and only use those on the register
		Say their charges are based on interpreter 3 hour minimum charges
		Offered a brief explanation of using a BSL interpreter
Pearl Linguistics	£70 per hour	Claim “we have access to more BSL interpreters than any other language agency”
	(3 hr minimum)	Fully explained the difference between a level 3 signer and what it means to be fully qualified and registered
	Total £210 + travel + VAT	Said “As to your situation, I believe you should be fine with a “level 3”.
Positive Signs	Initially free – money accessed through government scheme	Claimed to only ever use qualified or experienced personnel
	Just said “variable”, has since disclosed fees as £37 RSLI per hour, CSW £32 per hour inclusive of travel + admin fee	Free’ interpreters available through apprenticeship scheme, funded using public funds
Prestige	£289 + VAT	Said all their interpreters were BRCPD registered (could have been a typo) and explained that all people registered had to submit evidence of qualifications
		Mentioned the code of conduct that interpreters were expected to follow
		Mentioned the three hour industry standard minimum fee and their charges reflected that
Quick Lingo	£250 + VAT	When quote was challenged, the response was “we charge for the service which includes travel time, travel expenses, plus minimum interpreting time charge.”
		Said “Level 3 is sufficient for this assignment and we can provide at least that.”
RAD	£130 (2 hour minimum), £47ph thereafter, + travel, no VAT charged	Stated full charges, on charge sheet clearly explained that only NRCPD registered interpreters were used.
Remark!	£120 + £10 travel + VAT	Very pushy, tried to sell me a BSL course
		Offered a RSLI
		Said “Costings for a qualified interpreter can be very expensive as there are not many qualified interpreters out there “
		Sold themselves as deaf led and community focused. Profits fund activities in the deaf community.
		Said they could only find an interpreter (in house) for the afternoon and no interpreters were available for the morning; did not offer to source a freelancer
		I had requested a morning booking. Said short notice meant no other interpreters were available unless I wanted to change the date
Rosetta Translation	£75 per hour	No response when I enquired about qualifications
	(3 hr minimum)
	Half Day £300. + travel + VAT
Sign Language Direct	£250 + VAT (3 hr minimum)	Said “Since this regards an interview, the 3rd level shall be fine.” – in response to my query about qualifications
	Half Day £300 / Full Day £450 (1 interpreter)	Said that fully qualified interpreters were only ‘obligitory’ for police and social services
	Half Day £600 / Full Day £900 (2 interpreters)
Sign Solutions	£145 + travel + VAT	Checked interpreter availability and quoted based on the interpreter fee – told me where the interpreter was travelling from
		Offered to negotiate travel expenses
Signing Works	£135 + VAT + expenses	Explained industry standard booking half day or full day
		Bristol based – offered a comparative fee.
		Claim to only use qualified interpreters for job interviews
		Advised about ATW
		Explained the complexity of BSL levels and why it was specialist and required some who was qualified
Signs In Vision	£35 per hr + travel + £15 admin fee	Mentioned NRCPD & ASLI & recommended checking for badges
	(3 hr minimum)	Explained the NRCPD registration included CRB, insurance and qualification
	Total £120 + travel	Included a Deaf Awareness document
		Included T&C with explanation of NRCPD & ASLI at the top
Silent Sounds	£144 + travel	Recommended a Trainee Interpreter for the interview
		Highlighted the time involved with training
SL-I-D	£120 including travel	Mentioned ATW and reclaiming costs
	(Half day minimum)	NRCPD registered
		Explained the ramifications of using someone unqualified
SLBF	Unknown	Emailed twice. No response.
Surrey Council	£150 + travel + VAT	Claims to only use registered interpreters
(First Point)	(3 hr minimum)
Terp Tree	£170 + travel + VAT	Explained industry 3 hour minimums
	(3 hr minimum)	Claim to only use qualified and registered interpreters
		Follow up email sent with client recommendations
	(Will waive fee if unhappy with service)	Mentioned ATW
The Sign Language Bank	Unknown	Emailed twice. No response.
Today Translations		Said it can be fine for some signers to “freely pass on the meaning of spoken langauge” but as a general rule they won’t risk it.
		Added that “Job interviews are stressful for everyone. If you add hearing problems on top of that…you can imagine how wrong it can go!”
		Said “Most of sign interpreters grew up in a household were one or both of the parents were deaf”
		Explained that becoming a sign langauge interpreter requires study and practise
Total Communication	£200 including VAT and travel	Told me the interpreter quote was for fully qualified. After I asked about level, I was told that they were “Level 6 , Trainee Interpreter. So it is above Level 3″
Ubiquis	£300 + VAT + travel	Claimed to only use fully qualified and experienced interpreters
		Offered information about qualifications and registration
		Stated that unqualified interpreters would charge less
		Offered a local alternative to their company
UK Language Solutions	£60 per hour + £30 per hour travel	Said “A level 3 qualified interpreter may be acceptable for some interpreting assignments”
	(2 hr minimum)	But claim to only use qualified and registered interpreters
Veritas Language Solutions	£164.60 + £32 VAT	Aimed to source an interpreter close to the booking to save on travel
		Said the interpreter had a two hour minimum charge, but would not state whether they were qualified even though I specifically asked
Wolfestone	£75 + VAT	Requested information about qualifications but received no response
	Additional hours £50 per hour

BSL Presentation on Interpreters: A Change of Contract or a Change of Heart

A big thank you to Paul Neal of Neal Communications Agency (NCA) for making this video.

It is a completely accurate description, in BSL (transcript in English available), of what is currently happening to the sign language interpreting profession in the UK.

The registration system for interpreters is often misunderstood with Deaf people confusing level 6 in BSL as qualified and not realising interpreters need to complete interpreter training as well in order to register.

There is a good summary of the risks of using signers or CSWs, not only the obvious immediate risk to the Deaf community, but the short and long-term risks to the interpreting profession as a whole and the subsequent effect that will have on Deaf access if these trends are allowed to continue.

Other agencies seem to have misunderstood, are unaware of these risks or are actively using this to increase their own profits. Shockingly there are some Deaf-led agencies guilty of this, who do not have the insight to see the damage they do to their own community.

For me, NCA is the benchmark other agencies, especially Deaf-led, should aspire to follow as an agency with a complete understanding of the market, the risks to the interpreting profession and most importantly to the Deaf community we are all supposed to be here to serve.

CSWs – Register your Disinterest for proper Deaf access

We have an established register for interpreters, the NRCPD. Though not everyone has faith in that register. I would suggest that is partly due to interpreters regularly accepting work for which they are not skilled enough which has brought about the misconception that the RSLI standard is not good enough. I’d suggest it is in most cases but that interpreters need to be supported to gain experience gradually and safely. There has, as yet, been no moves towards creating a category for senior practitioners to distinguish the more experienced from those that have just started. There is in short no advanced driver equivalent as yet.

A recent letter from the NRPSI, the register for spoken language interpreters, asked for continued support from interpreters to strengthen the register and stated that they were working towards publicising the register.

Where there is little support for the NRCPD I suspect there are a few reasons:

1) Scant work to publicise to service users or commissioners that registration is of the utmost importance.

2) No regulation of agencies – a charter mark guaranteeing quality and adherence to standards would be a start.

3) The previously stated perception that standards have slipped.

4) The removal of the Code of Ethics. We have a weaker Code of Conduct. This was to bring us in line with others on the register. I’d suggest rather than weakening our Code, other professionals should have had the opportunity to abide by an ethical code rather than a pared down, prescriptive, behavioural code. Recent emails on e-groups have shown some interpreters barely understand the Code they purport to follow.

I think, just like the statement by NRPSI, that interpreters should support their register. If we are to be united, especially without a union, this is the only way. One caveat. For the register to be supported those that run it need to listen to the interpreters on that register and work towards making it as robust as possible i.e. if you are not on the register, you can not work as an interpreter.

The latest news and the subject which gets me blogging is astounding. It has been mooted for years and is incredibly unpopular with interpreters: the establishment of a register for CSWs. A letter and a proposal has been forwarded to NRCPD and a process is underway to develop a proposal and take this to further consultation.

I’d urge the NRCPD to think carefully about the disastrous effects this will have on Deaf students. Interpreters, once qualified and working for a few years, understand the difficulty of the job. It can not be done by those not yet assessed as fluent in BSL i.e those with level 2 and 3 qualifications.

Those that run CSW organisations, run training courses for CSWs or agencies that use CSWs usually have a vested interest: money or status. The only training CSWs should be doing is not how to perfect their interpreting into English or courses in international sign. There should be a single focus on the main language and interpreting qualifications in order to make them ‘safe’ and get people to the point where they can register for the sake of students and the wider Deaf community.

Use of CSWs rather than interpreters was only ever a stop gap in the 1980′s, and one which was supposed to be temporary. Harrington’s excellent paper The Rise, Fall and Re-invention of the Communicator: re-defining roles and responsibilities in educational interpreting still makes for interesting reading. This is the history of the CSW and one which various people with those vested interests have worked hard to continue. It is not in our interests to have those working with low fluency in BSL with Deaf children. Many Interpreters around the country who do not have enough work would jump at the chance to be Educational Interpreters. Anyone who supports the Deaf community knows that is what Deaf children and students deserve: proper access to their education.

For too long CSWs have been expected to fulfil the roles of interpreter, tutor, classroom assistant as Harrington states. I started my interpreting career as a CSW. I do not speak from a position of elitism. I speak as someone who understands the CSW as inadequately trained, as an influent and untrained pseudo-interpreter, as someone who is expected to do 80% plus of their work acting as an interpreter but who is ill-prepared and ill-trained.

The CSW course I experienced over nine months had little language training, no interpreter training and was, for me, a disappointment, a waste of time and a waste of money. Most people worked with little support and some were encouraged at the time of the promise of a career that they carried on in the route of interpreting until realising there were never going to be fluent enough to achieve registered interpreter status and eventually either gave up or remained as influent untrained pseudo-interpreters.

Not only do we miss the chance to increase standards for Deaf students but a CSW register puts a proverbial nail in the coffin for anyone campaigning for higher standards of access in schools. The names of CSWs will not be used for education only but agencies will access them as lists of cheap labour to do the job of interpreting in hospitals, in councils, in offices. There is enough confusion surrounding standards and registration categories as it is, a confusion most of us work towards alleviating.

I can see the benefits to the NRCPD of ensuring this proposal goes through: increased revenue from registrations, increased use of the registers by those involved with the Deaf community, an increased profile extended to schools, colleges, universities and all those agencies that will continue to use CSWs to fulfil bookings. I also understand the NRCPD may have to entertain proposals and be seen to be giving ideas a fair hearing without seriously considering the setting up of such a register.

In my opinion these are the risks if the NRCPD decides to go ahead with this proposal:

1) Of 1,082 professionals on the NRCPD registers, 977 are either Registered Interpreters, Translators or Trainees. In other words 90% of the registers. I can not imagine that many of that 90% would agree with a CSW register and would possibly add that to one of the above possible reasons for the NRCPD not getting their full support. Interpreters have already lost out to a weakened Code and some have felt they have not been listened to in previous consultations. It would not be wise to take an unpopular decision at this stage.

2) Signature would make less money from NVQ qualifications were people allowed or encouraged to go on a register and then not further develop their skills by achieving the National Occupational Standards in Interpreting.

3) Allowing a CSW register takes work away from interpreters at a time when they need the register to fight for them. If interpreters do not have enough work, they will not support or pay for continued registration.

4) A CSW register ignores the campaign work Deaf people and interpreters have done for over 25 years to raise standards. It is not a way to get buy-in from the community for whom you are supposed to be registering professionals.

5) It will negate any further campaign efforts by the community to raise standards in schools such as the parents who successfully campaigned the school their child was at and at the time managed to get agreement for a Trainee Interpreter.

There is more to say, these are just some initial thoughts. I await this news to hit the interpreting and Deaf communities with interest.

Why I am Boycotting the Framework Agreement

I am boycotting all legal bookings connected to the Framework Agreement (FWA) as quite simply I believe the contract is wrong.

I do not agree that it is totally different for BSL interpreters. At the moment full rates of pay are being adhered to but cancellation fees are not. Indeed Clarion state there is now a three day cancellation period which is a huge drop to the majority of interpreters terms and conditions. I think it is scandalous to expect an interpreter to accept an assignment for a week or more with that time period in place, especially as there is no guarantee of filling those lost days with other bookings. I wonder how one is supposed to pay their mortgage, rent, bills and other expenses.

There are some excellent agencies in operation that respect the worth of interpreters and pay them accordingly. I think over the last few years many other companies have erroneously jumped on board the interpreting and translation bandwagon as they see it as an excellent way to make money on the backs of hardworking interpreters and translators. When tendering for contracts it appears they put in the lowest bid to win said contracts with little to no consultation with interpreters. If there is consultation it appears whatever interpreters say in regards to fees, additional costs and cancellations is ignored.

It appears in order for agencies to survive and make a profit they have systematically attempted and often succeeded in cutting rates of pay and ignoring interpreters own terms and conditions. Given comments from various sources in recent weeks it appears those interpreters willing to accept a lower rate of pay may have very little understanding of what they are actually worth. A colleague mentioned recently that when they were working as a Communication Support Worker (CSW) they were paid around £9.00 an hour and to be paid anything above this on a freelance basis seemed like a real coup. When some of these CSW’s then apply for Trainee status with the NRCPD (National Registers of Communication Professionals working with Deaf and Deafblind People) it is no wonder they are happy to accept a reduced rate of pay. In addition there is the risk that they do bookings which would be better suited to a qualified and more experienced interpreter.

I applaud those brilliant agencies that put D/deaf people and Non English Speakers (NES) at the forefront of their ethos by providing the right interpreter for the job at a fee that is commensurate with their skill. I worry that these agencies are being forever squeezed out of the market. I urge all interpreters to boycott this FWA and allow its demise. Signed and spoken language interpreters together can send out a clear message to agencies that supply interpreting provision to local government, health and more; that they need to respect an interpreter’s worth and put in tenders that reflect this.

It now appears Applied Language Solutions, now part of Capita, have in the past few months lost a number of their management team and according to Linkedin Applied Language Solutions founder and CEO Gavin Wheeldon has also left http://www.linkedin.com/pub/gavin-wheeldon/4/a69/230.

The daily reports on the Linguist Lounge website and the enormous amount of tweets being circulated continue to show the boycott is working. It is making a difference.

Paula Fye, Registered Sign Language Interpreter

Hub Programme features BSL Interpreting

The Hub programme was broadcast featuring a section on interpreting with Jeff Brattan-Wilson of RAD’s Deaf Law Centre and author of this blog, Jennifer Smith, representing ASLI as their Communications Director.

The programme covered issues of outsourcing, standards, the Interpreters’ Code of Practice, the importance of having Court Interpreters who are sufficiently experienced in legal settings and the availability of NRCPD’s complaints system should Deaf people or associated professionals want to complain about a Registered Interpreter.

The programme aired on Monday 25th June and can be seen online at BSLBT’s website. The studio discussion was the second item on the programme. If you have any comments about the information covered in the programme you can leave a comment on this post.