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.

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

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.

Monitoring the MoJ

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) started the national language services framework on 30 January 2012. As stated in the agreement the contract would be monitored by the MoJ and covers interpreting across HM Courts and Tribunals Service which covers England and Wales.

The first three month period finished on 30th April. The long awaited stats were released and published on the MoJ website on the 24th May.

The general stats reveal there were 26,059 requests in total for an interpreter. The MoJ (i.e. ALS) say that 11% of these requests were cancelled by the courts. Interpreters report that court staff were being pressurised by ALS staff to report a request as cancelled if they could not fulfil it.

Stats say that of the remaining bookings, 81% of bookings were filled. That leaves 8% unfilled plus whichever proportion of the bookings were falsely recorded as cancellations.

The contract stated there should be a 98% fill rate. The 8% equates to 2,085 bookings, further increased by ‘cancellations’ over the period of three months. This is a clear indication this contract is not working.

Let’s bear in mind the 98% contractual obligation and the fact some courts had given up by March and started to book interpreters directly and some just decided not book an interpreter at all. This started to happen in March for BSL as reported on this blog and recent reports suggest this practice continues. The MoJ had also entered not into a one stop shop but what ALS were starting to call a mixed economy. This is the reality of why the stats improved by month.

There is scant information in the summary report of BSL but none at all in the Excel spreadsheet of raw data. The report states that for courts ‘deaf and deafblind languages’ was the 18th most popular category with 241 completed requests. 190 of those were for BSL. For tribunals the summary reports states there were 163 requests, 127 of which were BSL making ‘deaf and deafblind languages’ the 16th most popular in this category.

As an aside the word ‘popular’ in the report conjures up images of people having a choice of what language they request. It is an inappropriate choice of words. ‘Deaf and deafblind languages’ is a clear misunderstanding of this category which includes lip speaking and as stated on page eight finger spelling. We have seen these kind of misunderstandings on the websites of spoken language agencies trying to break into the BSL market for years. One would think for such a large government contract that someone would have made sure they got it right. It is a clear demonstration of a company that does not understand the Deaf community and the access it requires.

Further, it is interesting to note the Excel spreadsheets have tables breaking down requests for the top 20 languages but though the report states BSL is in the top 20 for both courts and tribunals it does not feature in the tables.

We therefore have no data in either the spreadsheet or the report to say how many requests there were in total and how many could not be filled. The only figures available to us are how many bookings were filled which total 404 including lipspeakers and other ‘deaf languages’. The subcontractor (or preferred supplier) states on their website they filled 94% of the 610 received bookings making 573 bookings which does not match the MoJ’s published statistics. As with spoken language bookings not all bookings at the start of the contract were booked though the main supplier as the MoJ were honouring existing bookings for dates in advance which included bookings into February and March. Furthermore this indicates a shortfall of the 98% target using these figures.

In some ways the stats are exactly what everyone expected. They were not produced by the MoJ but the company who won the contract. There has been no independent monitoring and deliberate obfuscation. The British taxpayer does not know what our funds are being spent on and whether this contract is value for money. FOI requests to the MoJ by interpreters and other interested parties have been refused since the contract started. The MoJ has cited that the cost of centrally recording data was too prohibitive and therefore the FOI requests did not have to be fulfilled. People started to send FOI’s directly to courts to ask questions such as how many times had an interpreter not been provided and whether ‘no shows’ had occurred where an interpreter is promised and does not turn up. Questions are still not being answered. Letters and FOI requests get forwarded to MoJ central where the answer is that data collection is… too prohibitive.

In this report for BSL we have only a few sentences to guide us and no transparency as to how many bookings were unfilled. We have no breakdown within the category of ‘deaf and deafblind languages’ either by cancellation, adjournments, filled bookings or no shows.

The report does not give us any useful information. We are left with the knowledge that this company does not fully understand how to give Deaf people access to the courts, that real data is not being provided, that the MoJ is not monitoring the contract and Deaf access has been relegated to a small part of a very large, unsustainable and unsuccessful contract.

Making a Profit: A Deaf Wage?

Although we have had a two-tier system of access for the Deaf community since the register of interpreters was started, this is getting worse in our current economic climate.

By two-tier I mean the use of registered interpreters and the continued use of the unregistered signer who has yet to acquire the National Occupational Standards in order to be able to register.

We have seen what are called CSWs (Communication Support Workers) in education for a number of years. Started to plug a gap when interpreters were low in number, they no longer are, the use of the CSWs has spun out of control with many believing they are up to the job of interpreting. Many aren’t.

The term CSW has become a way of trying to give the untrained and often not fluent signer some credence, some recognition for the job of filling the gap and an excuse for service providers to say they have made a reasonable adjustment under British Law.

How did CSWs who were deemed suitable for education in the 1980′s become a stop gap for other areas such as community bookings and employment (funded by the government through its Access to Work scheme)?

Even some agencies who state they only use reigstered interpreters use them in other areas. Two I know use them for office interpreting with Deaf staff and one uses them both for their education service and as employment consultants. Whichever way you couch it the work this personnel is doing is interpreting i.e. translating from Sign Language to English or English to Sign Language. As much as an agency can say it only uses registered interpreters, it does not if it only adheres to those standards for certain areas.

So why does this two-tier system exist? Mainly profit and a few myths in existence which now no longer apply:

There are not enough interpreters… We have more interpreters on the register than ever and some are struggling to find work.

Interpreters are expensive…

a) The truth is that many agencies are expensive with some charging 50% more than the fee an interpreter charges. When you use an agency for your Access to Work interpreting it is your budget that is being eaten away in fees to that middle man.

b) CSWs are cheaper and more flexible. Many are not and charge similar prices to interpreters. Someone told me recently of someone with level 2 earning £40k a year by their own admission. Not bad for a GCSE qualification and someone is paying them. That does not constitue value for money by anyone’s standards.

Using agencies for public service contracts will save money…

Many signers are working at community bookings, mostly at the hands of spoken language agencies (one previous example I
have quoted of a level 3 signer in court was a spoken language agency). Having been successful in winning a contract or even a sub-contract many agencies find their profit margin decreases so they must squeeze the fees of the interpreter. FOI requests show per booking the cost of providing a signer was no cheaper than a registered interpreter. The cost of having to book an interpreter, often to repair the damage a signer did, can be worse. Use a cowboy, you usually then have to spend more to fix it.

In this two-tier market there are agencies and CSWs who continue to make a living out of the Deaf community without care or concern for the potential damage they do or the reduction in choice for the Deaf client.

There has been a phrase that Deaf people have used to denote a living someone makes from the Deaf community by someone that gives nothing back. It has been said that the person is making a ‘Deaf wage’.

Regardless of whether your marketing suggests you give something back, if you or your business make a profit by supporting this two-tier system, I suggest you could be deemed as earning a Deaf wage.

BBC: See Hear Interpreting Special

In the face of growing threat to the Sign Language Interpreting profession in the UK and the lack of access Deaf people are experiencing in the light of budget cuts, the BBC’s Deaf community programme, See Hear, has produced a special about Sign Language interpreting. Since 2010 the interpreting profession in the UK has been threatened with changing market forces, BSL agencies being squeezed out of that market and the subsequent loss of expertise. The changes have now filtered through to the rest of the UK with more devastating effects.

The programme features, in no particular order, an interview with me as owner of this blog; Kate Furby, an interpreter based in London; ASLI representatives: National Chair, Sarah Haynes and Working Group Chair, Bibi Lacey-Davidson; Paul Parsons from the NRCPD explaining interpreter registration and the complaints process; interpreting students from Wolverhampton University who are concerned about rising debts and whether they will be able to find work once they graduate; Terry Riley who is Chair of the British Deaf Association and feedback directly from the Deaf community talking about what they require from interpreters and their views on standards of interpreters.

Much of the focus is on a decrease in the standards of interpreters, the effect of one stop shop contracts with spoken language agencies and how community interpreting and Deaf access is in jeopardy by agencies’ use of unregistered, untrained signers.

The programme was first aired on Wednesday 23rd May on BBC2 at 1pm. It is available on the BBC’s iplayer until the 27th June 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01j8chn/See_Hear_Series_32_Episode_8/

If you have any comments about the programme that you would like to share here please leave a comment on this blogpost. The effects of outsourcing have been affecting Deaf people’s access for over two years and interpreters are starting to leave the profession as some can not earn an income. The subsequent affects could make access even less likely. This is certainly an issue we all need to talk about more.

Interpreting by Numbers

Some interesting stats:

1000 Sign Language Interpreters on the NRCPD register (I include Trainee Interpreters who are not registered as such).

400 who could register but don’t, a guesstimate.

250 on the register who are not members of ASLI, the professional Association for Sign Language Interpreters in the UK.

Before I extrapolate, some general comments:

There are other registers. If you are going to comment on this please do so by providing the number of sign language interpreters who are on other registers such as ITI or NRPSI and provide details of how they are accessible for Deaf people to make complaints. It would be genuinely interesting to find out more.

Some people believe ASLI and NRCPD should join together or at least have a joint fee. Many more don’t and rightly so. As interpreters we need a separate registration body and one which we can hold to account.

So why don’t those 400 or so interpreters register? A lack of faith? Too expensive? Or is it that they can still get work without being registered and thereby save themselves the current fee of £165?

I met one such interpreter last year. She stated she worked in two different schools supporting Deaf students with additional ad hoc work. She could be a Trainee for the purposes of the register but couldn’t see the point as her employers were not going to pay for it and she was freelance. As someone who is self-employed you can claim registration fees against your tax. Even if you feel its expensive, registration is still important. It shows respect for the profession and for Deaf people, who will not be able to complain should they receive a sub-standard service.

For every unregistered interpreter who struggles to get work there are many more who successfully work. Why? Unregulated agencies making extra profit by using anyone with a sign language qualification on the presumption they can interpret effectively. A new agency pops up every week and many do not know what they are doing. If you are the client and you’re booking a signer rather than a Registered Interpreter it is unlikely you are getting value for money.

Sometimes it’s a Deaf person using someone for a bit of communication support. I witnessed this, yet again, the other day when a Deaf advocate brought along her CSW (Communication Support Worker) to a meeting at a mental health trust. The booking had overrun by half an hour already and I stated I had to leave soon. The Deaf professional gave permission to use her support and the CSW was happy to do so. Given her level of language and her unregistered status for what was effectively a mental health appointment, this was clearly not appropriate. Many signers also charge only slightly less (some charge more) than an Interpreter so it is less value for money. Why waste public money on a lesser set of skills.

Onto interpreters who are not members of ASLI. There are 250 Registered Interpreters who are not ASLI members to which we can presumably add the majority of the 400 who could register but do not. There are many reasons people have used for not being a member. In these economic times it’s even more important that those 650 people support their profession. Why? There are 20 or so previous posts you could read through.

People state political reasons for not being a member:

1) CPD. The ASLI system has improved dramatically. Most of us complete CPD anyway as we understand the importance and to formally record it on ASLI’s database takes mere minutes. You can access heavily subsidised training via ASLI. There is also a myth that CPD has to be training. CPD comes in many guises including attending ASLI meetings, writing up a feedback session or your thoughts on an article. It needn’t be expensive.

2) Some say they do not know what ASLI does. ASLI volunteers represent members and the profession at meetings with government and recent successes include campaigning for RSLI as standard with the MoJ. ASLI has been present at many meetings with government departments and other organisations that are too numerous to mention. In fact the more members ASLI has, the more capacity it will have to do more representation and work towards protecting the profession.

3) ASLI is a company. Yes. It is a grown up association with a board, annual returns to companies house and a rather large membership. It has an office, staff and is the face of the profession. A face of the profession that has a website full of resources and someone that answers the phone. A face that people take seriously.

Some people state personal reasons:

1) ‘I don’t get any benefit from membership.’ Subsidised (sometimes free) training, regional meetings and communications (Newsli, newsletters and forums) are the three obvious benefits but then if you don’t attend or read any communications you are less likely to understand the benefits. As with most things in life, you get out what you put in. Secondly, the more intangible benefits are representation with government and organisations, having a presence, having an organisation that is there to offer advice to the general public and being part of an organisation that pushes the profession forward. Oh, and there’s also professional indemnity insurance.

2) ‘It’s too expensive.’ My personal view is that it’s great value for money when you understand the true benefits. It’s not just about the personal gain but the wider profession. And, again, you can claim it as a business expense. Even if you are employed.

3) ASLI is elitist. As someone in training I was always welcomed at meetings. Recent meetings I’ve attended have been welcoming and supportive.

In addition to the above I’ve heard some incredibly bizarre reasons and admittedly some reasons which have some credibility. Nothing is perfect. Time move on and the world of interpreting fluctuates. Currently that’s in ways that cause nausea, havoc and fear.

This is the first time in 25 years that our profession faces threat. The way to retaliate is not by blaming interpreters, the Association or the register. It is by working together to collectively come up with some answers, to join in and fight back, to use solidarity and our collective power to change the status quo.

In one way or another there are at least 1,400 of us and that has the potential to be incredibly powerful in these times. Isn’t it time we stuck together?

When we resign ourselves to acceptance, do we desensitise ourselves to what is happening on the ground?

Have Interpreters resigned themselves to accept and even expect that level of access provided to the Deaf community, that they have trained to serve, to be as poor as it is in this current day?

I am not naive to the fact that the situation we find ourselves in today with ‘signers’ turning up to jobs parading themselves as Interpreters is anything new; it has been going on decades. However we are in 2012. We now have over 700 Registered Sign Language Interpreters (RSLIs) on the NRCPD register and many more Trainee (TI) and Junior Trainee Interpreters (JTIs) quickly following in their footsteps. Is it acceptable that at medical appointments people are still forced to accept ‘signers’ or worse still, use their parents, friends, children?

When the first video was published on Facebook from ASLI’s Professional & Consumers Working Group, urging the Deaf community to come forward with their stories of poor access to Healthcare, it did cause a stir in the Deaf community, but it wasn’t enough for people to come forward. It was perhaps that the Deaf community were just ‘used to’ the level of access they were being provided. Probably because in the areas where there is poor service, it is what they have received for years and so this has become expected. People have perhaps become resigned to their fate.

I believe that Interpreters may have resigned themselves to the same fate. We have become so used to hearing all these stories intermittently through our everyday working lives that we have become hardened to them. This may be a form of self-preservation, professional preservation even, but what does it achieve? The ‘signers’ are still out there, still taking on work, still causing upset and mayhem when they are unable to cope with the level of Sign Language or English used; and they are parading themselves as members of our profession. I’m sure we all agree that they are clearly not professional otherwise they would know and understand their limits and not take on such work in the first place.

But what are we doing about it? There are a few who are standing up to defend the profession, a few working on standards and awareness in an effort to prevent such harm, but a handful of 700 is hardly going to make waves. The ripples can only reach so far. If everyone sticks their head in the sand, or carries on thinking all is well because someone else is already fighting the cause, then we are not going to get very far.

We all need to do our bit, wear our NRCPD badges to EVERY job, even those regular bookings in that office we’ve been working in for years. Remind clients of the standard they should be expecting, so the next time they have a medical appointment they know to look out for the badge. It may even be an awareness exercise if someone had no knowledge of registration of Interpreters in the first place and just ‘liked your signing’; the excuse most often heard from ‘signers’ parading themselves as ‘good Interpreters’.

What will it take for the profession to unite and stand up for ourselves? Mistakes happen, they have been occurring for years. Are we not a large enough group of professionals now to make more noise about it and stand up for ourselves, the people we serve and prevent any more of a reduction in access and standards for the Deaf community?

Bibi Lacey-Davidson

Chair of the Professional & Consumers Working Group, ASLI

Unqualified ‘Signer’ used in Court

It is generally accepted that interpreting provision for the courts has been rather less than efficient over the last three months. It has borne a frightening situation and now an alleged breach of the contract.

As courts have given up with alarming regularity and taken it upon themselves to book interpreters direct. Many of whom on the NRPSI refuse to do so as they understand that working directly for the courts would give the Ministry of Justice an impression all was well. Courts have begged and pleaded for the old system to come back to no avail. We still have a stand off. The three month review period was up at the end of last month yet no information has been released.

It is clear that the main contractor is struggling to fill bookings. Requests for interpreters are being farmed out to other agencies.

I’ve seen three different Sign Language agencies filling bookings either from the main contractor or direct from exasperated court staff. This is aside from the main preferred supplier for Sign Language Interpreting who it would seem does not even get sight of all the bookings as the system is so inefficient.

Firstly if you are a Sign Language Interpreter and you do not wish to work for the main contractor, i.e. ALS, then taking any booking from any agency or court is nevertheless helping them fulfil the contract. You can make an informed decision. If you accept solicitors assignments be warned. The judge may get you to interpret anyway. I’ve had three of these bookings and in all three I was expected by all involved to interpret for the court. Once they purposely booked me to interpret for the court even though the booking came via the defence counsel as the judge explained they could not source an interpreter any other way.

Secondly it is not only BSL agencies that bookings have been given to in an attempt to get anyone in there last minute. One spoken language agency accepted a Sign Language booking for court recently and put in someone with level 3 BSL (British Sign Language qualification equivalent of high school), no interpreter training and who therefore could not have been on the NRCPD register. The Deaf relay interpreter stated they had to look at the solicitor and lip read them to relay this to the client as they had no hope of getting the information from the ‘signer’ in court. I have decided not to name the level 3 signer who runs his own company for unregistered interpreters and clearly does not understand the risks of interpreting in court before competent to do so.

It is clear this is a large contract and one that the contractor can not fill alone. As a result we have this situation: not only is the MoJ not monitoring the contract, it would appear the contractor cannot even monitor itself. Standards have suffered. The risks of using unregistered Interpreters in court whilst the most vulnerable of Deaf people are the ones most likely to be in the system do not bear thinking about. There was a promise that only NRCPD registered interpreters would used in court. A contract clause which has now been breached. Was a level 3 in court the first time it has happened under this contract? Who knows. More importantly will it be the last?

Campaign for Access to Health Care: Petition Launched

The problems of the outsourcing of interpreter provision by the NHS since 2010 have affected Deaf people’s access to quality interpreter provision. This an issue that has been ongoing for years which outsourcing to spoken language interpreting agencies, who have little regard for the use of NRCPD registered Interpreters, has exacerbated.

The recent survey by Deaf organisations showed that 41% of respondents had left an appointment confused about their condition because they couldn’t understand what was signed and 57% had left an appointment confused about how to take medication because no Sign Language Interpreter had been provided.

The government and statutory organisations are ignoring their legal duties under the Equality Act 2010, and Deaf people aren’t receiving appropriate access to health care.

A petition has been launched to mark Deaf Awareness Week, 7th – 13th May, and to highlight the issue of untrained and inappropriate people being used to communicate for health care services rather than Interpreters registered with the NRCPD which proves they’ve reached the required standard of training and are recognised as professionals working with the Deaf community.

Some agencies, which evidence suggests will happily put someone with a basic sign language qualification into a hospital assignment, are either not being monitored effectively or this is lip service. A way for health care providers to think they’ve met their duties under The Equality Act.

Thank you to the organisations involved in the campaign for their good work (Action on Hearing Loss, ASLI, BDA, BSMHD, NRCPD and SignHealth).

Please sign the petition below if you haven’t already and spread the word.

www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/deafaccess