« Save See Hear! | Main | Deaf charities disabling? »

Parliament: Regulation of LSPs

Yesterday a question was tabled in the House of Commons around Language Service Professionals. A more accessible page is available on They Work for You.

Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills

(1) if he will take steps to protect the professional title of language service professionals for deaf people, including (a) BSL/English interpreters, (b) lipspeakers, (c) deaf-blind interpreters and (d) speech to text reporters;

(2) if he will take steps to create a register of all language service professionals for deaf people, including (a) BSL/English interpreters, (b) lipspeakers, (c) deaf-blind interpreters and (d) speech to text reporters for public bodies;

(3) when he will answer Questions (a) (i) 115951 and (ii) 115952 tabled on 11 January, and (b) 126821, tabled on 7 March, by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.

The Minister answered with this reply:

Bill Rammell (Minister of State (Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education), Department for Education and Skills)

The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) have responsibility for funding providers of post-16 further education and training. This funding includes Additional Learning Support (ALS) which is used by providers to fund the additional learning needs of learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, including those learners with hearing impairments. Providers determine how their ALS funding is used to ensure that it meets the needs of their learners.

The Department is not responsible for protecting the professional titles, or providing a register of language service professionals, as it is for providers to determine how best to meet the needs of their learners, and therefore which professionals to use to deliver this support.

This totally does not get the issue, not answer it.

Please go over there now and vote no (that it does not answer the question). The link is here (voting is in the right column).

This clearly does not answer the question, and actually detracts completely from the issue. The Government protects professions such as: social workers, teachers, solicitors, barristers, etc. So why is it detracting responsibility here?

As a side note, why are these called Language Service Professionals anyway? I absolutely detest the term. Or should we be welcoming this? Since when is speech to text a language? Don't get me wrong, I recognise there's other forms of communication support, but isn't this an open ticket for more confusion? Its difficult enough trying to get across the issues around minority languages to the mainstream anyway.

I guess in part, a lack of consultation is getting me riled up here, did anyone actually bother asking DEAF people? There is zero ownership in the UK, and deaf organisations here are so bad at it. Now someone is imposing on us that we should be making up sentences such as, "Hello, I will need an LSP to access the meeting".

Does any other country use this (crap) term?

See also:
Interpreters and the whole set up scaring me

Comments (9)

I VOTE YES! Cos I cannot be seen to agree on anything with you.


More confused after reading Bill Rammell what was he refering to??


"Hear, Hear"....hang on, if a Deaf MP get a seat in the Commons, will they have to change this for the risk of offending the Deaf MP's sensibilities? :-)

re. Rammell - if in doubt, say NO.

What is the distinction between a government-protected profession compared to a non-protected profession in this case? Please do tell.

E.g. Solicitors Act 1974, *legally* covers stuff around solicitors. No-one can call themselves a solicitor, if they aren't qualified, registered with the Law Society etc. Also, if you want to practice, then you have to register with the professional body. This means the consumer can get redress if they want to complain. The powers to enforce this are bigger too.

In the case of interpreters at the moment:
- anyone can call themselves an interpreter, even though they are not qualified or registered anywhere. No-one has the power to stop them;
- if e.g. an interpreter is not registered (and they have been used), then there is no-where you can go to complain / no-one can enforce, make an interpreter e.g. abide by confidentiality.

Law in this area could change that. Currently we just have IRP and ASLI, and anyone is basically free to stick two fingers up at them and ignore.

The example I gave in Interpreters and the whole set up scaring me covers some of the issues around non compulsory registration. There's no body with any teeth to sort wrong doing out, or make it illegal not to register.

As for Rammell:
- he's talking shit
- proves the government doesn't get issues
- since this is coming from the DWP, makes you wonder what that so called BSL recognition statement was about.

Accessing SEE HEAR will be no different in the future to how it is now, via mid-week viewing, lots of deaf cannot watch it on a Saturday, and make arrangements to video it because its on after midnight (Repeats).

Personally I welcome the shift away from the boring present format, to the inclusive policies and investigative reporting Terry Riley has promised us all, OK so deaf are losing 15 minutes, considering the last year it's no real loss at all, they've been struggling to fill 45. Deaf should welcome the fact SEE HEAR will use its program to highlight injustices to us, and follow campaigns, they've already voted with their bums by not watching the present set up, as Terry stated.

It's so easy to blame times of viewing, and these pointless niggles about vid or DVD recorders is just a diversion, these days it doesn't wash, viewing figures are falling, it's pretty much make or break for SEE HEAR the next year or so. For younger deaf, VEE TV was the greater loss, not SEE HEAR which they viewed boring, perhaps a cutting edge will be more to their liking, after all the BSL activists these days seem to be a dying breed. Of course the deaf child STILLhas no real access to media, maybe one day....

Idiot I am. Talk about See Hear this does not. Read posts I can not.

Shut up Radio... Nicholas or whoever you are today, any track back will show these MM-bot, and MM-yoda responses are YOURS, not mine, get a life, or get some counselling....

I hate to disappoint you MM, but MM-Yoda is not me. I would assure you, but I won't bother. There are far more pleasureable ways of wasting time.

As for shut up, I don't think so. We are on MY FIREND'S BLOG, and MY FRIENDS give me the voice and space to express myself.

I have a fair idea who MM-Yoda might be, but I can't prove it. AND IT IS NOT ME.

I only i wish I were that tech savvy!

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

New Here?

Hello! We're UK based, more about GOD.

This page only has one post (posted on May 15, 2007 12:42 PM). For more visit the main page.

Don't miss new content, subscribe to our feed.

  feed.png   Posts Feed
  feed.png   Comments Feed

[Don't know what RSS is? Watch this subtitled video.]

Paying the Host Bill

Creative Commons License

Usually the content of this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence, unless specified otherwise.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33