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
Deaf
There are 30 posts tagged Deaf (this is page 9 of 15).
Police Procurement: Obtaining Less Value for Money for Interpreting Services
The deadline for the Home Office consultation is today. It is entitled Obtaining Better Value for Money from Police Procurement. This is the second consultation following on from the first which closed in September 2010. I did not necessarily have the knowledge I needed to fill out a consultation of this kind 18 months ago. I suspect many interpreters feel the same about this consultation. I suspect some interpreting agencies are too busy to consider responding to a consultation about the police when the tendering process for the framework agreement has long passed. And they may be trying to work out how to stay in business or whether to bother going for a NHS tender with a ridiculous unit cost per hour for interpreting services.
The consulation summary states that it will only be of interest to police authorities, unions and staff and businesses who contract to the police so has not been widely publicised. That sums up the attitude for me of a government ‘consultation’. It has become a byword for lip service, for pretending to listen, for ignoring the results whether it has been held locally or nationally.
Back to the consultation. There is already a framework agreement, there has already been pressure for police authorities to sign up to the agreement and many already have. The danger we have here is the consultation is about updating legislation. The proposed amendments to Regulations under Sections 53 (equipment) and Regulations under Section 57 (services) of the Police Act 1996 that would require specified equipment and services to be provided for police purposes through the use of specified framework agreements.
Translation and interpreters come under updates to the services part of the act. Other services include: some utilities, customer surveys, certain training services and certain consultancy services. Nothing else is so specialised as interpreting and no other involves ignoring other pieces of legislation namely: The Equality Act 2010, Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and EU directive 2010/64/EU 2010 on the right to interpretation in criminal proceedings. These laws state registered interpreters should be used, that no delays in provision should occur and interpreters should be of a sufficient quality or they must be replaced.
I have entered this legal argument into my consultation response alongside the explanation that this framework agreement does not obtain better value for money but rather reduces it. We have seen adjournments and delays in the courts and at tribunals. This is hardly going to improve no matter what precautions are put in place. It is an unsustainable contract and that is the simple fact of the matter.
Even though there is a perception that court work is the most important of all types of interpreting it is a myth. Interpreting at a police station is far more important. It has been drummed into me that ‘it all happens at the police station’. Having now done a smattering of police jobs and a lot of court work (before I started my boycott) I understand why the police station is far more important. It is where it all starts. It is where evidence is collected. It is where for cases it is make or break. If the interpreter makes mistakes at the police interview, whether this is for victim or suspect, it can mean abandoned court cases and expert witnesses being employed – do you really want another interpreter scrutinising your work and potentially having to agree in court that your work has been sub-standard.
Interpreting for the police can be the most important work you will ever do as an interpreter and where it has to be the most accurate. The proposed amendments to legislation means that the police have to use an agency which has not provided quality interpreters in courts and quite regularly does not manage to source one at all.
This is going to mean even more wasted public money. No, the Police Act 1996 should not be amended to regulate that police authorities should procure interpreting services. There is plenty of good practice and money savings initiatives by the forces who have resisted pressure to go over to the framework agreement, namely the London Met and Cambridgeshire Police forces.
What we need are best practice models, initiatives involving local interpreters, liaison with existing regulators – NRPSI and NRCPD. We need a way to future proof this profession and uphold standards in the face of a government who wishes to procure everything including specialist services to the now proven non-specialists and in the process waste millions of public money.