Booking an interpreter is an arrangement. Meaningful access depends on what happens beyond the booking.
Interpreter booked. Job done. Box ticked.
That is how easily communication access can become a transaction.
Through my own experiences and wider observations, I've noticed how BSL interpreting is sometimes treated as a service that simply needs to be booked and delivered.
Someone is available, the booking is confirmed, and the expectation is that communication will happen smoothly.
But interpreting involves far more than someone turning up at an agreed time.
Interpreters work between languages, cultures, perspectives and expectations. They make decisions in real time, often without knowing exactly what someone will say next.
They are skilled professionals, not translation machines.
And like everyone else, they are human.
Deaf people can make mistakes when signing. Hearing people can make mistakes when speaking. Interpreters can make mistakes too.
Yet there can be an expectation that interpreters should deliver flawless communication, regardless of the circumstances, preparation or complexity of the conversation.
Is that realistic?
Recognising human limitations does not mean dismissing mistakes or overlooking their consequences.
An interpreting error can affect someone's understanding, decisions or ability to participate. Accuracy matters in everyday conversations as well as legal, medical and other high-stakes settings.
Professional standards, preparation and accountability remain essential.
But there is a difference between expecting professional competence and expecting perfection without providing appropriate conditions.
Interpreters need clear information, sufficient preparation, suitable working arrangements and professional respect.
Deaf people need accurate, reliable communication access and the confidence to raise concerns when something is not working.
Both matter.
Respecting interpreters as human beings should never mean expecting Deaf people to accept inadequate access. Equally, raising legitimate concerns about interpreting should not automatically result in treating an interpreter as incompetent or incapable.
Respect and accountability should exist together, not compete with each other.
There is also a wider organisational responsibility.
When an interpreter is booked, who considers whether they are appropriately matched to the assignment? Who provides the necessary information beforehand? Are the Deaf person's communication preferences taken into account?
And when difficulties arise, is there a willingness to listen, understand what went wrong and improve the arrangement?
These questions matter because the quality of access cannot be measured by a confirmed booking alone.
An interpreter can be present while communication still falls short.
Equally, an interpreter may be doing their best within circumstances that have not been properly planned or supported.
Collaboration can help, but it should not become another responsibility placed entirely on the Deaf person.
Organisations must take responsibility for the arrangements they make, while interpreters remain accountable for their professional practice.
The strongest communication access is not built on an expectation that nobody will ever make a mistake.
It is built through preparation, professional judgement, mutual respect, trust and a willingness to address problems when they arise.
A booking may complete a transaction, but it does not complete the responsibility to provide meaningful access.
Behind every interpreting arrangement are people, professional responsibilities and decisions that affect how communication actually works.
THE QUESTION
What gets overlooked when interpreting is treated as a service to deliver rather than a professional interaction requiring preparation, respect and accountability?
