In Part One, I highlighted the feelings of depersonalisation and objectification I had experienced whist working as a ‘staff’ interpreter. I referred to two of the unique features of workplace interpreting, namely the regularity and consistency of the contact we have with deaf and hearing clients, and the shift in the power dynamic from deaf ‘client’ to deaf ‘boss’. In Part Two, I want to consider how interpreters can change their practice to ‘humanise’ their role in workplace interpreting and how we can begin to open out the issues for discussion with deaf and hearing clients.

Not being ‘seen’ or ‘heard’- the tension created by ‘being invisible’

In his recent article on Educational Interpreters Doug Bowen-Bailey talks about interpreters stepping out of the shadow of invisibility and maximising their effectiveness by bringing their ‘full sense of humanity’ to their work. He asks us to think of a situation where there is a greater power imbalance than when one deaf student is in a mainstream school totally designed for English speaking students who cannot sign. I suggest an equivalent is where there is one deaf employee in a workplace entirely staffed by hearing people. It therefore seems appropriate to echo Doug’s call for interpreters to be more active and visible- the question is how can we do that without impinging on the relationship between the deaf and hearing client?

One way is to consider what Robert Lee and Peter Llewellyn Jones (2011) refer as the interpreter’s role space, this being the degree to which an interpreter is present in any interaction. They describe role space as being a combination of three elements, namely:

• presentation of self (behaviours where the interpreter speaks/acts for and/or about himself/ herself)
• interaction management (behaviours that the interpreter uses to manage the interaction)
• participant alignment (the extent to which the interpreter directs their communication to, or seems to identify with, a particular participant/ group of participants. This can also include how the interpreter reacts to utterances made by a participant)
They state that these dimensions of the interpreter’s role space will contract or expand according to the setting and participants. This idea of being able to maximise and minimise our presence according to the situation in which we find ourselves is helpful in allowing us to break away from rigid role descriptions. It enables interpreters to begin to explore what they can do, rather than focus negatively on what they feel they shouldn’t be doing. For example, in a situation like a team meeting, the interpreter may need to accentuate the elements of interaction management and presentation of self, and devote less energy to the element of participation alignment. By managing turn-taking more ‘overtly’ and by projecting more of their ‘self’ into the meeting the interpreter may be able to register their presence and reduce their objectification. This in turn may enable more effective turn-taking, thus allowing the deaf employee to participate on an equal footing with their hearing peers.

In some situations the interpreter may need to increase the extent to which they align with individuals. Hauser and Hauser (2008), refer to the designated interpreter’s role, describing someone who is a dynamic and active participant in the deaf professional’s environment. The designated interpreter is both interested in and committed to the deaf professional’s work (Cook, 2004), and positively aligns themselves with the goals and aims of the deaf professional (Hauser & Hauser, 2008). This is a fairly large step away from our understanding of our role as impartial and neutral, and may initially make us feel uncomfortable. However, if we can understand and reflect on our rationale for this shift, with a focus on the successful outcomes of the interpreted event, then we can begin to move away from a fixed view of our role.

Understanding the system we work in

Interpreters can draw on the concepts and approaches described above in order to bring a more human presence to their workplace role, but they also need to contextualise their position in the workplace environment. One way of doing this is to gain a deeper understanding of the ‘system’ (Bowen-Bailey, 2013) they are working in. Peoples’ behaviour in the workplace environment is underpinned by a vast tract of unwritten rules and norms. As interpreters, we need an in-depth awareness of these norms and must continually make decisions about the extent to which we can or cannot accommodate them in our role. Deaf and hearing clients will have certain expectations of how the interpreter will behave. Hearing employees may expect us to relate to them as fellow employees, whilst the deaf employee may expect an interpreter who is ‘on their side’. It seems clear that if we continue to operate in the workplace according to the conduit model we will continually run into conflict with these expectations. We therefore need a much clearer and detailed awareness of the norms of the environment we work in, so that we can adjust our role accordingly.

Making changes

Interpreters need to think about how they can work more positively with both deaf and hearing clients, moving away from the old disengaged, non-involved model to begin to open up new working practices. We can effect some change ourselves:

How we talk about ourselves- if you continually refer to yourself as either ‘the interpreter’ or ‘just the interpreter’ then that is how you will be treated. Experiment with different ways of emphasising your presence, e.g. ‘My name is Erica and I will be interpreting this meeting today’ has a different impact compared to ‘I am the interpreter today’.

How others talk and interact- Helen Gillespie and Caron Wolfenden (2012) refer to the need for the interpreter to ‘integrate’ themselves into the specific work culture of the deaf professional, blending in so as to provide access for the Deaf professional to do their job to the best of their ability. This is not possible unless interpreters are fully cognizant with the environment in which they are working. So, observe how other employees relate to each other. Consider their vocabulary, register and tone. Note the patterns of behaviour in a particular Community of Practice or workgroup and try and mirror some of these behaviours yourself.

How we talk with each other- we need to start that conversation! If we want to address some of the uncomfortable tensions that exist as a result of deaf people moving into positions of power, we must acknowledge those tensions and begin discussions with deaf clients. We have to be open and honest about what affects us and how it impinges on our work. We also need to be talking with hearing employees, explaining both the flexibility and limitations of our role. Appropriate training about working with interpreters would benefit both deaf and hearing employees.

Finally, interpreters need to be talking to each other, exploring the difficulties (and positives) of interpreting in the workplace, and working together to devise better, ethically-sound practices suited to this specific setting. One way of doing this is through the ‘professional’ supervision process whereby practice and decisions can be explored, challenged and reflected upon in a safe and supportive space.

Moving forward

This discussion is just the beginning and hopefully will raise more questions than provide answers. How do interpreters create ‘space’ for themselves? What does an ‘interpreter/ employee’ shape look like? How do freelance interpreters manage some of the issues experienced by staff interpreter colleagues? Let’s start that conversation.

References

Bailey-Bowen, D. (2013) ‘Ethical Choices: Educational Sign Language Interpreters as Change Agents’ (Street Leverage Blog) http://www.streetleverage.com/2013/04/ethical-choices-educational-sign-language-interpreters-as-change-agents/

Cook, A. (2004) ‘‘Neutrality? No Thanks. Can a Biased Role be an Ethical One?’ Journal of Interpretation, pp. 57-74

Gillespie, H. & Wolfenden, C. (2012) I think you’re my client, but you think you’re my boss!’, In Dickinson, J. & Stone, C. Developing the Interpreter; Developing the Profession, ASLI Conference Proceedings, Doug Mclean Publishing: Gloucestershire, England pp. 118- 140

Hauser, A. B. & Hauser, P.C. (2008) ‘The Deaf Professional- Designated Interpreter Model’, in Hauser, P.C., Finch, K.L., and Hauser, A.B. (eds.) Deaf Professionals and Designated Interpreters: A New Paradigm, Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 3-21

Lee, R.G. & Llewellyn Jones, P. (2011) Re-visiting Role: Arguing for a multi-dimensional analysis of interpreter behaviour, Supporting Deaf People online conference 2011

Can a ‘staff interpreter’ [1] ever fully integrate into the workplace and be treated as a real employee…or even as a human being? Having worked in this particular domain for over 10 years, this is a question which has been on my mind for some time. I have often struggled with what feels like a lack of basic recognition of my needs as a fellow employee. Sometimes, just getting my presence acknowledged is a challenge. If asked to describe my stint as a staff interpreter I would say that I have often felt as though I have been treated as a ‘robot’, a ‘commodity’, or even as a ‘dog’- these descriptors might seem a little harsh, but from discussions with other colleagues I am aware that such experiences are common in this setting. It seems unlikely that deaf and hearing colleagues are treating interpreters this way intentionally, so we need to look closely at where this issue is originating from. Is it just a lack of awareness about our role? Are we, as interpreters, projecting a message of invisibility? Do we direct the focus of hearing people to the deaf client to the detriment of representing ourselves and our needs? Does this relatively new domain bring with it a need for a redefined, more visible role? Do we need to expand our ‘role space’? (Lee & Llewellyn-Jones 2011). Let’s consider some of the issues in more detail.

Regular contact

On the surface, the staff interpreter’s role should be no different to the interpreter’s role in other domains. However, there are a number of factors which make working in this setting quite different to other assignments which interpreters undertake. One issue is the regularity of contact with both deaf and hearing clients. Educational interpreting aside, the majority of our assignments in the community do not result in us working alongside the same deaf and hearing people for months (sometimes years) on end. This degree of regular contact we have with all employees can lead to boundaries being less clearly defined. You cannot work in the same team or organisation, day in and day out, without engaging in personal social conversation. In doing so we often form acquaintances and friendships with the individuals with whom we work and this in turn inevitably leads to a blurring of the traditional interpreter/ client boundaries. Through this regular, social contact we effectively become ‘more visible’- we affirm our presence in the workplace. This consistency of contact should result in interpreters being seen very much as human beings, but research findings (see Dickinson, 2010) and anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not the case. For example, in a previous staff interpreter role, I was continually referred to as ‘the interpreter’ by both deaf and hearing staff, despite having worked alongside them on a daily basis for a number of years. This left me feeling depersonalised and objectified, with a strong sense of not being a ‘real’ colleague or fellow employee. Was I the instigator of this objectification? Did I, through my behaviour and my language choice, subtly reinforce the perception that my role as an interpreter precludes my ability to also be a colleague or fellow employee? Reflecting on my practice in this domain I think that I probably did. I believe that the conduit model of interpreting is so deeply entrenched in our psyche that it overrides what we have been taught about being a ‘pro-active third participant’. We are experiencing a tension between how we think we should conduct ourselves (be neutral, be impartial) and how we need to behave in this new domain (be human, make contact, be involved). I believe we unconsciously resist the pull to engage with our colleagues and fellow employees, so as not to undermine our neutral stance.

A change in the power dynamic – from client to boss

Another major difference is the shift in power in the interpreter/ client relationship. Traditionally, in community interpreting, deaf people have been in a relatively powerless position, often the recipient of services from other professionals. This presents a very different power dynamic to a situation where the deaf employee is on an equal footing with both their hearing peers/ fellow professionals and with the interpreter. Often, the deaf person is now our ‘boss’. Whilst on a conscious level, we can understand the change in power and can accept the ‘control’ the deaf client has over us, we may nonetheless experience ‘cognitive dissonance’ (Kushalnagar & Rashid 2008), i.e. a feeling of discomfort, on a subconscious level, with this shift in power. The other side of the coin with this change in the power dynamic is how the shift affects the deaf person. After years of powerlessness, where a lack of control dominates many areas of their lives, how do deaf people manage this new-found power? It is particularly relevant to examine how they manage this in relation to interpreters, given the undisputed powerful positions which interpreters have previously held in deaf peoples’ lives. It is not hard to imagine that for some deaf people there may be a temptation to ‘control’ the interpreter, to exercise this newly-acquired power by treating them as a commodity, as an object.

Starting the conversation

From my perspective then there are at least two areas of tension in the staff interpreter’s role. There is the pull between wanting to engage on a social level with fellow colleagues, both deaf and hearing, and the need, embedded in our understanding our role and enshrined in codes of conduct, to maintain a neutral and impartial stance. There is also the shift in power- the disparity between ‘I think you’re my client, but you think you’re my boss!’ as Gillespie and Wolfenden (2012) so neatly put it. The tension in both of these areas will undoubtedly produce some strong emotions and feelings. There is clearly a need to start talking to both deaf and hearing colleagues about our role, to begin what might initially be uncomfortable conversations about how to satisfactorily address these (and other) issues. As interpreters we also need to examine our own behaviour and look closely at what lies at the root of how we conduct ourselves in the workplace domain. In Part Two, I will look at ways of beginning that process of self-reflection and at how we can initiate discussions with our fellow colleagues.

[1] If an organisation has one or more Deaf employees, they have the option of employing an interpreter in a salaried post. This can be arranged with the agreement of Access to Work, and whilst the funding is partly provided through this government scheme, the interpreter is directly employed by the organisation, rather than being contracted on a freelance basis or through an agency. This arrangement is often referred to as a ‘staff interpreter’ post.

References

Bailey-Bowen, D. (2013) ‘Ethical Choices: Educational Sign Language Interpreters as Change Agents’ (Street Leverage Blog) http://www.streetleverage.com/2013/04/ethical-choices-educational-sign-language-interpreters-as-change-agents/

Dickinson, J.C. (2010) Interpreting in a Community of Practice: A Sociolinguistic Study of the Signed Language Interpreter’s Role in Workplace Discourse. PhD. thesis, Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt University

Gillespie, H. & Wolfenden, C. (2012) I think you’re my client, but you think you’re my boss!’, In Dickinson, J. & Stone, C. Developing the Interpreter; Developing the Profession, ASLI Conference Proceedings, Doug Mclean Publishing: Gloucestershire, England pp. 118- 140

Lee, R.G. & Llewellyn Jones, P. (2011) Re-visiting Role: Arguing for a multi-dimensional analysis of interpreter behaviour, Paper presented at Supporting Deaf People online conference 2011

Kushalnagar, P. & Rashid, K. (2008) ‘Attitudes and Behaviours of Deaf Professionals and Interpreters’, in Hauser, P.C., Finch, K.L. and Hauser, A.B. (eds.) Deaf Professionals and Designated Interpreters: A New Paradigm, Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 43-57.

BSL level 2 signer pay
Level 6 BSL signer pay
How much do level 3 BSL interpreters charge?
ads for unqualified BSL interpreter low rates
Court signer
Can I interpret in courts with a GCSE
There are two comments:
- The terminology of Signer Vs Interpreter – There is a clear distinction between signers who have some BSL qualifications but have not yet attained fluency in sign language against the National Occupational Standards. Registered Interpreters have attained fluency and have additional training in interpreting. Not everyone with language skills can be an interpreter. Any news item on the Ministry of Justice contract shows that with clearly.
- It is shocking so many people want to either hire those with basic levels of sign language or want to work using these qualifications. Let’s leave Deaf people alone, this includes children, and give them the service they deserve i.e. Registered Interpreters who have the appropriate qualifications and experience.
BSL tutors, you have a responsibility to the Deaf community at large not to encourage those that are unskilled to work as unqualified interpreters.

Do I need to register as an interpreter?
Yes.

Do I need to book a signer for a job interview?
Can children interpret for Deaf parents in the police station?
- The Equality Act 2010 states that Deaf people have a right to access services. A signer does not need to be booked for a job interview, a Registered Sign Language Interpreter does or whichever service a Deaf person has requested such as a Registered Lip Speaker.
- Absolutely not. Using children to interpret is tantamount to abuse. It may have happened years ago but no-one should be using children any longer. The Met has one of the best systems for booking interpreters and its guidelines are transparent.

Why do I need a CRB?
If I set up a business agency why do interpreters need CRB checks?
- CRB checks protect any vulnerable people interpreters may be working with. Any agency should be aware of the importance of these checks especially if they are booking interpreters for the following: child protection, mental health, courts, police, social services and medical bookings. Agencies are not monitored, registered or regulated and this is just one example of why their working practices and their employment standrards should come under close scrutiny. Especially with funds coming from the public purse.

Who is against compulsory CPD?
What are the arguments against CPD?
- The system we have for compulsory CPD is very new and as a consequence too basic. It is nowhere near the kind of regular check an interpreter should have to gauge their skillset. The system of collecting points is not an ideal refection of the safety of someone to practice. Is it just the system of collecting points that people are so against? We have even seen one organisation supposedly set up in opposition of CPD make a major u-turn and they seem to have now accepted that principle though many of their members still do not. A clear indication there is no representation of their membership.

Will the Big Word give me lots of work?
- If you are cheap, yes, or if you do not mind working for less under a sub-sub-contract. Currently Remark and Action on Hearing Loss are providing The Big Word with reduced-rate sign language interpreters.

Sign language devalued interpreters
Spending cuts on interpreters since 2010
- This blog has reported both the devaluing of interpreters and the affects of outsourcing and spending cuts on the interpreting profession in the UK regardless of the law or the government’s commitment to equality.

Access to work fraud
Access to work I need an interpreter not a CSW
- Access to work is currently a bit of a mess. Valued and absolutely necessary to Deaf employees and business owners but the bane of many people’s lives when they spend much of their time trying to get claims assessed, fighting for interpreters rather than unqualified personnel and sorting out the subsequent claim forms. Not only that but some agencies that Deaf people relied on to book interpreters have been involved in fraudulent claims, not doing any favours to the Deaf community they purport to serve. There will be a future post on this topic.

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.

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’.

The rise of outsourcing of interpreters, a triple dip economy, a lack of service userinvolvement and a battle of the more unscrupulous agencies fighting to supply the cheapest have left us with a situation akin to the recent horse meat found in burgers scandal.

Professional Interpreters and service users have been left out in the cold with little say in quality and standards, the NHS and the Ministry of Justice being the worst culprits by far. With little monitoring and a lack of standards written into the contracts, this leaves us with little quality control and a sour taste in our mouths.

The first solution to the current market proposed on this blog was the most important: protection of the title of Interpreter making it illegal for anyone to call themselves an interpreter unless they had reached the appropriate standards such as those upheld by the national registers: NRPSI for spoken language interpreters and NRCPD for sign language interpreters.

The next solution proposed is the greater use of co-operatives. They are a British invention, examples including, The Co-operative Group and John Lewis. They have been proven  to work time and time again. There are over 5,000 in the UK already and it is increasingly the business model of choice as an antidote to the economy.

For years we have already had various networks, national and regional, formal and informal, and we need these more than ever if we are to protect our profession.

At the most basic level interpreters already pass work to trusted colleagues and have done for years. Many interpreters get several calls a week for work which they can not accept due to full diaries or other commitments. Many refer callers to the directories on the ASLI or NRCPD websites. For Deaf people asking, many interpreters go the extra distance. We often recommend someone we know who would be good for the job and may have other advantages such as living nearby, works in a particular specialty or would have a good rapport with the person asking. Sometimes we may even send out a text to our local network to see if someone is free or ask other local ASLI members.

Another example of local networks are websites that advertise the names of interpreters, some complete with testimonials and bios. Examples are BSL Interpreters in London and Conversant in Brighton. Ones that are run by trusted interpreters and that only advertise the details of NRCPD Registered Sign Language Interpreters (RSLIs) are obviously better. There are some terrible examples of websites of people saying they are experienced in interpreting but they do not have the safeguards in place that come with registration such as the right qualifications, professional indemnity insurance, CRB checks, adherence to a Code of Conduct and being subject to a complaints procedure.

Co-operatives take this to the next level and there is talk of a few being set up in order to combat the economic position we are left in. These would especially suit interpreters covering small geographical areas who have been hit by the worst contracting decisions leaving experienced interpreters with a shortage of work in favour of the barely fluent and untrained so-called signers.

The Co-operative Group states that,

‘A co-operative is a group of people acting together to meet the common needs and aspirations of its members, sharing ownership and making decisions democratically. 

Co-operatives are not about making big profits for shareholders, but creating value for customers – this is what gives co-operatives a unique character, and influences our values and principles.’

In short, setting up such a business would involve getting together with colleagues, creating a business plan and legal structure, discussing the hiring of staff and whether you would also want to bid for contracts. The sky is the limit.

With local interpreters on the board and the potential to consult with service users, co-operatives could provide the answer to many of the issues of outsourcing. It is not just about protecting the jobs of professional interpreters but the standards long fought for and protecting consumers of interpreting services. Users of languages other than English are now left out, unable to request the interpreters they want and often too disempowered to be able to complain. Contracts are between service providers and agencies. If a service user requests a particular interpreter this request can only be passed to the agency, often to be ignored. If there is a complaint, this too may be passed to the agency who may not do anything to resolve the issue. As far as both service provider and agency are concerned, they sourced an ‘interpreter’, job done. Stretched personnel such as hospital administrators, nurses, court clerks or judges do not have time to chase up complaints, check on standards or monitor contracts. Commissioners and government departments are allowing contract holders to do their own monitoring leaving us wide open to scandalous wastes of money.

Co-operatives have the potential to provide some real advantages to working interpreters and users of interpreting services including the following:

• Members are more in control of local work.
• Service users could have greater power in requesting interpreters.
• Contracts can be gained along with all the advantages that brings for interpreters and local communities.
• Greater protection of interpreting standards.
• Keeps local interpreters working locally without having to travel further distances.
• Co-operatives are social enterprises and can reinvest in local community projects.
• Mitigates economic risk.

As with anything, there are some disadvantages:

• Just as in a new business, setting up a co-operative can be hard work and requires the work of all of its members.
• There are associated start up costs which need to be agreed and financed, though these can be kept to a minimum.
• Potential conflict between members.
• Needs all members to participate and share workload.

It would be nice to think this blogpost has inspired more interpreters to move on from networks to establishing co-operatives. This would go some way to better guarantee that the interpreters working with Deaf people in all areas, and especially courts and health services, can continue to work in their desired profession and are delivering a greater quality of service sandwiched between their hands.

More tips on setting up a co-operative can be found at the following websites:

Co-operatives UK – What is a Co-operative?

Bectu – New Guidance on Setting up a Co-op

The Ecologist – How to Start a Co-operative in Five Easy Steps

The Guardian – How to set up a co-operative – part one

The Guardian – How to set up a co-operative – part two

The Guardian – How to set up a co-operative – part three

The Guardian – Live Q&A: Starting up a co-operative

Seeds for Change – Worker Co-operatives Code of Conduct

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.

In an initiative supposedly brought in to increase local democracy, £100 million was spent yet the turnout was as low as 1 in 10 in some areas. At one polling station in Newport, Wales, there were no voters.

Why is this important for interpreting? Although the main aim of PCCs will be to reduce crime they will also be attempting to reduce ‘waste’, the catch-all Conservative term for spending. ‘Waste’ will inevitably include interpreting and translation. Any police force who has managed to escape the disastrous Ministry of Justice contract, a system that is more inefficient and wasteful than the previous, may not last much longer. Another criticism is that PCCs will politicise police forces. In Hertfordshire, Conservative candidate, David Lloyd won and was the only candidate to support outsourcing. The rest held a much more sensible view.

If Chief Constables were under extreme pressure before, that may have just got a whole lot worse. We may now see even more parts of police forces outsourced and auctioned off to the lowest bidder. David Cameron stated that the “turnout was always going to be low, when you’re electing a new post for the first time…” That is not a legitimate reason when in an election understood and supported by voters the turn out would have been higher. The media has called into question whether these posts are therefore even legitimate.

If you want to dispute the elections write to the party leaders online and write to your new PCC and explain why interpreting should not be outsourced causing a further privatisation of our police forces and putting users of interpreting services at risk.

What do we know now? Not much is new if you have been following the contract since January. What we have seen throughout the hearings is ministers and other government personnel attempting to defend their actions or lack of them. We also saw Gavin Wheeldon (ex-owner of ALS) still accusing interpreters of intimidation. Funny seeing how in reality it was the other way round, attempting to bully interpreters into less than the minimum wage. His legal team also threatened this blog with legal action. The government are still defending the contract even though the hearings clearly expose a lack of due diligence in awarding the contract, ignorance of a basic knowledge of interpreting including procedures that should have been in place for vetting and assessments and a complete lack of monitoring. This includes not allowing court staff to give the hearing figures they know will highlight delays, wasted costs and a failing of this contract.

There seems to be some allowance for what is now Capita Interpreting and Translation to get their act together although the boycott is a strong as ever. It is not clear how they will fulfil the contract when they check everyone registered with them has qualifications, as directed, and they have none.

The Capita machine rumbles on. They have bought Reliance who provide interpreters to Sussex Police. With these types of investments it looks like Capita will not be backing out of this contract even if it costs them to fix what, perhaps, they did not know was wrong. They have their fingers in the interpreting industry pie and are too big to get burnt. The share price even went down recently due to suspected lower profit margins in the public sector. Capita report they will still have an ‘organic’ 3% increase in profits this year.

What do we know about BSL interpreting under the contract? More interpreters have been on court training, more are being approached to work in courts regardless of level of experience outside of courts. Another two agencies are putting out court bookings who have never done so before. It used to be the case that generally the safest and best interpreters worked in courts. Now it is anyone registered (and some who aren’t). Deaf professionals who work in and outside of court report a denigration of standards and witnessing interpreters who do not know how to make the language accessible for some of their clients, especially the more vulnerable or people with minimal or idiosyncratic use of sign language. Some interpreters are still working for the contract and hang on doggedly to the argument that it is better to have some experienced people in court and show the government how it is done. That would either be naivety or self interest. The government is not interested and neither are the companies it outsources too. It takes voting with your feet. It has been said on this blog before: if BSL interpreters had boycotted this contract it would have failed within weeks.

In the meantime the contract is not going away so there should be some following of some unwritten rules (and some written ones):

Do not accept court work until you have been registered for three years and you are willing to pay for shadowing and mentoring in order to be safe.

Do not do police work before you have six months worth of experience in court. It all starts at the police station and if you make mistakes there you risk the whole case and thousands of pounds of tax payers’ money.

Do not accept work for which you are not capable of doing (regardless of whether you think you have because you have been on a two day training course. This only gives you knowledge and not necessarily the skills or experience to work in courts).

Ask your colleagues to monitor you and give you feedback. There should be a rule in court that every interpreter, for solicitor, barrister or court, monitors the working interpreter and flags up errors. I have had many conversations with experienced court interpreters who note that the role of the solicitor or barrister’s interpreter is misunderstood. You need to be good enough to monitor the court interpreter and confident enough to flag up those errors following the protocols of a court room. Even the court interpreting team should be monitoring each other, feeding each other and discussing their interpreting in breaks. This is especially true during evidence where you should be monitoring the way questions are interpreted as well as the response and how it is interpreted back into English. If you are not willing to accept feedback and enter into open discussions about your work, you should not be anywhere near a courtroom. Even if you have been working for courts for a while.

If you see an interpreter working in courts who does not have the appropriate skill level, whether you are a professional attending court, a Deaf person involved in the court process or another interpreter please inform them of your observations. If you need to, put in a complaint to the NRCPD. Interpreters who decide to work in courts should do so on the understanding that being subjected to a complaint is a reality. Not enough people are complaining about interpreters as they feel it breaks confidentiality. It does not. The complaint stays with the panel and those who already know the details of the situation. It is about time we all signed up to a certain level of transparency.

Lastly, read through the hearing transcripts. Do you really want to work in courts and be associated with this mess? Do you want to be responsible for a Deaf client not receiving access to justice? Or will you insist you are fine to work in a court and be like the interpreter who cost a 63 year old man £10k? Not only do you have your reputation at stake but the knowledge you are contributing to a wider continuation of a decline in interpreting standards and our terms and conditions.

Many interpreters complained when ASLI members voted in compulsory CPD as part of ASLI membership. Many believed it would kickstart the NRCPD into introducing it. They did and ASLI members voted to drop compulsory CPD at the last AGM in September and leave this, rightly, with the registration body. ASLI has better things to be getting on with. ASLI can get back to supporting the members and providing support for interpreters to gain their structured and unstructured hours with quality opportunities at discounted prices. This blog has previously covered how to ensure you are completing CPD in a way that is value for money.

Any interpreter worth their weight not only knows the value of CPD but why we should prove we are doing it. For consumers, the profession as a whole and protecting it eventually. Not only do we have clarity but the trend that can already be seen a month on from the vote is that the number of ASLI members is increasing already.