A Profession with Mutual Responsibilities

Submitted anonymously:
Times have changed. Long gone are the days where interpreters fill up their diaries for four months in advance and are able to cherry pick only the most interesting assignments, filling in the gaps with short community bookings. The NRCPD now boasts over 730 fully qualified sign language interpreters in England; search again including trainees and the number jumps to over 970. Let us not forget that this is a good thing for deaf people! But, a reputation that comes with experience seems to be the only thing that differentiates one RSLI from another at the moment.
Many attribute this increase in numbers to the prevalence of NVQ interpreting courses popping up all over the country, but this mass increase in numbers has not been without its criticisms. One of which is that the rapid rate that courses are churning out RSLI’s has resulted in a lowering of standards within our profession. Combined with this, the economic downturn has led to many organisations seeking out cheaper alternatives and using people who are not only ill equipped skills wise, they are also unconsciously dangerous.
So, what do we do about it?
If you are an experienced interpreter, do you often find yourself using the phrase “back in the day…”? Were they really the golden days, or was the deaf / interpreter community just a lot smaller back then? Allowing you less intimidating access to said community and comfortable learning opportunities. Don’t forget, young deaf people don’t congregate in the local deaf club every other Tuesday in the month as they used to. Young deaf people meet up with friends from school, or those they’ve acquired on Facebook. Language acquisition and personal development is a lot more of a challenge than it used to be. There are many new, proactive trainees who are wanting to do more but are often finding that not only are the doors closed, they have a big ‘no entry’ sign painted on the front.
But, what about the trainees!? I hear you cry. Surely they have a responsibility for their own learning? It’s true. Opportunities are out there but you need to be brave about asking for support and advice; you need to take responsibility for your own learning. Did you think the yellow badge was enough? It’s not. Are you only taking on medical bookings because you’re scared you’ll be judged by other interpreters? Chances are that you are aware of areas that need development, so why not get a mentor? Set up a supervision group with a few other interpreters that you know. Supervision groups can be a surprisingly cost effective way of examining your professional practice in a challenging but non judgemental way.
I’ve heard a few things over the last six months or so that led to this blog:
“There are too many new interpreters coming in and taking our work.”
Ask yourself why. Is it because they’re undercutting? Or, is it because you haven’t undertaken any CPD for a while and it shows? Is it because you’re not very personable and now deaf people have more of a choice? Longevity does not automatically give you the advantage, and nor should it.
“Agencies keep asking me to lower my fees. Is it because I’m new?”
Yes. The fear you have about not getting work causes you to lower and accept a lesser fee. You get the job, once, but then you set a precedent and the agency expects you to keep your fee at that level. If you are accepting £85 for a job in London, then you are accepting roughly 30% less than the industry standard for the area. The agency has not lowered their fee. You are just making them more profit. Why would you voluntarily give an agency 30% of your salary? If you were in house, would you walk over to the HR department and offer the finance lady 30% of your take home pay because they processed the payment for you?
 “Oh, I didn’t know that… I guess it doesn’t really affect me.”
If we are not careful, apathy will destroy the profession that many interpreters and deaf people worked hard to establish. You don’t have to be a part of a professional association, but if you choose not to, how do you engage with the profession and keep up to date with current happenings? There are public interpreting forums, but they often descend into sniping and personal grudge matches, so not only does it leave you feeling like you need to hide because the bully in the playground is throwing their weight about, it can actually be difficult to get your own voice heard.
The thing is, at the moment the issues surrounding fees have put the profession on the road to a self-fulfilling prophecy. We are not sticking together and that means attacks from the outside are slipping through the cracks leading to an erosion of standards, a lowering of fees and a constant battle over terms and conditions. If you are an experienced interpreter and you want newer interpreters to stop accepting low fees, which is in turn making it difficult for you to advocate for your worth, do something to help the new interpreters feel worthy about themselves.
ASLI celebrates its 25th anniversary this year. As a new interpreter, I’d really like to look back on this era in another 25 years and say that I was able to attend ASLI’s 50th anniversary conference because I was part of a profession that stood firm and supported its colleagues to make sign language interpreting in the UK a valid and viable profession to be a part of.
“Be excellent to each other…” Bill & Ted said it, so it must be true.

Justice Select Committee Call for Evidence

As reported on this blog on 7th July there was news of parliament deciding to investigate the Ministry of Justice’s National Framework Agreement for interpreting and translation services for courts and tribunals across England and Wales.
If you have any evidence to submit of failures with the contract please see the information below which calls for evidence. Further information about how to make a submission to the Committee can be found on the link provided below.
The provision of registered interpreters that lack legal experience or who are unsafe to practice in legal settings is not a breach of contract so this type of evidence has to be submitted in terms of an agency failing to have the correct experience to undertake the contract.
What can be submitted is evidence, similar to that reported in this blog, which could include the following: the wrong provision such as interpreters provided when it should have been lipspeakers, bookings not made by courts or released too late to source an interpreter, provision of unregistered interpreters, costly delays and adjournments from failures to source an interpreter, interpreters asked by judges or panel members to interpret on their own or for different parties when another interpreter can not be sourced.
If you are submitting evidence it will strengthen the case if you can add dates and the court or tribunal in question. This then makes evidence real rather than anecdotal. It is understandable that confidentiality is a concern. Please make this clear when submitting evidence.
Due to work done by PR company Involvis on behalf of the Professional Interpreters for Justice campaign the issues have remained public with another flurry of reports of failures in the news.
An interpreter who could not attend a murder trial sent along her husband instead as she was too busy. If you wish to read some of the latest news there is an excellent round up on the LinguistLounge.org website.
Alongside the G4S Olympic games scandal with security, it can only be a matter of time before this contract is seen by all for what it is. Another expensive and dangerous outsourcing mistake by government.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/news/interpretation-and-translation-services/
New Inquiry: Interpretation and Translation services and the Applied Language Solutions contract
18 July 2012
The Justice Select Committee is launching a call for written evidence on the provision of interpretation and translation services since Applied Language Solutions (ALS) began operating as the Ministry of Justice’s sole contractor for language services in February 2012.
Specifically we will seek to explore six areas:
The rationale for changing arrangements for the provision of interpreter services
The nature and appropriateness of the procurement process
The experience of courts and prisons in receiving interpretation services that meet their needs
The nature and effectiveness of the complaints process
The steps that have been taken to rectify under-performance and the extent to which they have been effective
The appropriateness of arrangements for monitoring the management of the contract, including the quality and cost-effectiveness of the service delivered.
The deadline for submissions is Monday 3 September 2012.
Further information on how to submit evidence is on the website stated above.