THE UK Government has hit back at criticism from the Commons Defence Committee over the claim that no native interpreters employed by British forces in Afghanistan have faced threats that justify their relocation to the UK, as “totally implausible”.
In a report yesterday, the government answered the committee’s earlier assertion in its publication “Lost in Translation? Afghan Interpreters and Other Locally Employed Civilians”.
That read: “Given our government’s own stark assessment of the perilous Afghan security situation, the idea that no interpreters or other former [locally-employed civilians] LECs have faced threats and intimidation warranting their relocation to the UK is totally implausible.”
However, the response said an in-theatre intimidation and investigation unit assessed whether reported intimidation could be attributed to the former LECs’ employment and if that was above the general threat level in Afghanistan.
“The levels of intimidation faced in the cases investigated so far have not been such that we have had to relocate individuals to the UK to ensure their safety,” said the government.
The committee said much had been made of the need to avoid a supposed “brain drain” as a major obstacle to a more generous intimidation scheme, which is described as “completely disingenuous”.
It added: “If the ‘brightest and the best’ have to go into hiding, their brains will hardly be available for the advancement of Afghan national development. Moreover, the ‘brain drain’ avoidance argument, if genuine, should also have precluded hundreds of Afghan LECs being relocated to the UK under the Redundancy Scheme; yet that was allowed to proceed without objection.”
The government responded that if an investigation concluded that an individual could not live “safely” anywhere in Afghanistan, they would act to relocate them to the UK regardless of their background, the role they played with British forces and their current employment.
“There is an agreed process for relocating them and their immediate family to the UK outside of Home Office immigration rules, subject to security checks,” it said.
“The levels of intimidation faced in the cases investigated so far have not been such that we have had to relocate individuals to the UK to ensure their safety.
“Our general experience of a large cross-section of former staff with whom we have maintained contact is that the overwhelming majority are well able to carry on their normal work and home life without risks to their safety arising from their former employment.
“The number of former staff relocated to the UK is a small proportion of the total number of around 7000 that we employed. We have sought to balance reward for the most deserving with the need to secure Afghanistan’s future.”
There are two initiatives – the redundancy scheme and intimidation scheme – offering assistance to former LECs and their dependents.
More than 1000 have been relocated to the UK and almost 400 have benefited from in-country training and “finance aspects”.
The committee said the redundancy scheme had been “generous and proportionate” for those LECs who had settled in the UK when armed forces were withdrawn from Afghanistan.
But that generosity contrasted “starkly with the total failure to offer similar sanctuary” to others under the intimidation scheme.
The government said it was the only nation with a specialist team “investigating each case of intimidation and providing a range of security mitigation measures”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here