Mike Penning MP

Minister of State (Disabled People)

Department for Work and Pensions

Caxton House

Tothill Street

London SW1H 9NA

Date: 24^th March 2014

Ref: ML.N0091.AR.24.03.14

Dear Mike,

I am writing to you regarding the changes to the Access to Work (AtW) policy and the provision of support for Deaf people.  As you know, until recently working Deaf people were awarded a budget to arrange for their support from interpreters in a manner which best met their needs; this has been through freelance interpreters, agency staff, or, in some cases, salaried interpreters.  However, under the changes to AtW, it is now stipulated that:

‘If a Support worker is required full time, for example 30 hours or more a week, Access to Work will normally fund on the basis of an annual salary rather than an Agency worker employed on an hourly basis’.

I share the concern of constituents who have contacted me about the potential implications of this change.  One who is a British Sign language/English interpreter wrote that she believes the shift in policy denies Deaf people choice and control, that it does not meet the variety of their workplace support needs, and that it compromises the work of both Deaf people and interpreters alike.  As such, it risks denying Deaf people equal access to the work environment. 

As she notes, the policy is being implemented already, and without any consultation between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing Deaf people and the Association of Sign Language Interpreters (ASLI).  Some of the difficulties she has highlighted include: 

• Employers of Deaf people are now expected to employ an additional member of staff (an interpreter) and bear the associated costs of doing so, such as providing line management time and HR department costs.  This is problematic for Deaf people already in employment and possibly worse for those seeking employment as they will have to describe to their prospective employer the need to not only employ them but a “plus one”; this complication will make Deaf candidates less desirable and more disadvantaged.  There is great potential for indirect discrimination as a consequence – this contradicts the very ethos of the scheme.
• There seems to have been no consideration of, and consequently the DWP is unable to provide guidance relating to, employment rights for interpreters and costs to the Deaf employee/employer, including annual leave and sick pay, training, pension contributions, career progression and salary increments.
• There are no indications that Deaf people will be supported by the DWP in the recruitment process for salaried interpreters, nor is there any clarity on who is expected to be the line manager to the interpreter and provide professional support such as supervision and mentoring; this could not be the Deaf person and it is unlikely that there would be suitable people already working in an organisation seeking to employ an interpreter that could fulfil these functions.
• Health and Safety concerns for interpreters: it is typical for two interpreters to work together for events of over thirty minutes where no breaks can be taken.  This would include: meetings, workplace training events and staff conferences.  The AtW “single salaried interpreter” policy makes no provision for these situations and is therefore unworkable.  Deaf people will not have complete and equal access to communication in their workplace(s) and for BSL/English interpreters, Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) becomes a concern.  The AtW policy only increases the risks of developing this painful condition and it becoming a chronic illness; interpreters would no longer be able to work, creating a further shortage of a valuable resource to Deaf people.

She does agree that there are situations when having an interpreter on an annual salary can work effectively.  However, she says that this is only the case for the minority of working Deaf people to her knowledge, and that applying this policy as a blanket rule is simply not workable.

Another constituent who has expressed concern came to last week’s Deaf lobby of Parliament.  She is a teacher, with 16 years experience.  She is currently contracted to work 37 hours a week.  Under the proposed changes, she would only be entitled to 30 hours per week assistance, meaning she couldn’t do her job properly.  I share her palpable sense of frustration that the changes could result in her being out of work and claiming benefits. As she argues, it would be far more cost effective to cover the extra hours of support. 

As these two examples illustrate, the proposed changes will have a negative effect on people on both sides of the changes – Deaf people who rely on the support that the AtW policy provides, and interpreters who face a threat to their employment as a result.  I therefore urge you to reconsider the changes and to consult further with relevant stakeholders about the best way forward.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Caroline Lucas, MP, Brighton Pavilion