Conflict Zones: Protection of Interpreters and Translators

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on her tenacity and determination in pursuing this issue.

The noble Baroness has not confined the subject today to the position of those who were interpreters and translators in Afghanistan but has extended the debate to the protection of interpreters and translators working around the world in conflict zones, and the steps that we can take to help in this regard. However, it is the protection of those locally employed staff who served us in Afghanistan that has raised the profile of this issue more than any other factor.

After the Iraq war, we gave Iraqi interpreters either one-off financial assistance or exceptional indefinite leave to remain in the UK with help to relocate, or the opportunity to resettle through the UK’s Gateway programme run in partnership with the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees.

In June 2013, the Government announced a support package for interpreters who were serving our Armed Forces in Afghanistan in 2012, but said that no support or resettlement options would be given to interpreters who completed their duties between 2006 and 2011. In the June 2013 Statement, the then Secretary of State said that to be eligible for resettlement in the UK, local staff must have routinely worked in dangerous and challenging roles in Helmand outside protected bases, have been in post working directly for us when we announced the draw-down of UK forces on 19 December 2012 and have served more than 12 months when made redundant. Those whose employment ended before the 2012 date and those whose employment was ended voluntarily or for disciplinary reasons were not eligible. The Government estimated at that time that around 1,200 local staff would qualify for a redundancy package, and that of these up to 600 would be eligible for resettlement if they chose to take it rather than stay in Afghanistan.

The Government went on to say in the June 2013 Statement that there was also the issue of other local staff who faced real threats to their safety or that of their immediate family as a result of their service to our Armed Forces. For people in this category the Government said that the existing intimidation policy would remain in place for all local staff, regardless of their date and duration of employment. The intimidation policy offers relocation within Afghanistan and, to use the Government’s words,

“in the most extreme cases, the possibility of resettlement in the UK”.—[Official Report, 4/6/13; col. WS 90.]

The Government also said that they were currently reviewing the intimidation policy to ensure that it continued to provide a fair and robust system of assessing threats to, and ensuring the protection of, local staff.

We have had debates on this issue on a number of occasions, as well as Oral Questions. It is an issue that is unresolved, and recently the Government’s different approach to Afghan interpreters compared to the package offered to interpreters who had worked for us in Iraq was the subject of legal proceedings by two Afghan interpreters. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked what the current position was on this particular point, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give an update on the matter of these legal proceedings. Our view has been that the Government should offer a resettlement scheme for Afghan interpreters who helped British troops and who feel they face threats to their security and safety as a result, particularly now that our troops have left the country.

In response to an Oral Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, at the beginning of December last year, the Government said that of the 600 locally employed staff, mostly interpreters, who were eligible for relocation under the ex gratia redundancy scheme, approximately 390 had chosen the relocation option. The Government went on to say that it was,

“not possible to give a definite timescale for the relocation process”,

but that in the previous four months, 36 locally employed staff and 19 immediate family had been brought back to the UK. No doubt, the Minister will be giving us the latest figures when he replies to the debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, also asked the Government last December to,

“comment on the plight of the large number of interpreters who do not qualify for the ex gratia scheme but who have appealed for help under the intimidation policy”.

She went on to ask whether,

“the terms of this policy could be made more generous, bearing in mind that some of the interpreters could continue working as much needed linguists in the UK”.

The Minister replied that the Government were aware of no staff killed or seriously injured off duty, and said that they welcomed the noble Baroness’s ideas on interpreter opportunities and were,

“working closely with the Home Office to try to take this forward”.—[Official Report, 2/12/14; col. 1225.]

It would be helpful if the noble Lord could say what progress has been made on this latter point with the Home Office since the beginning of last December.

As far as the Government’s statement last December that they were not aware of any staff killed or seriously injured off duty, perhaps the Minister can say whether that is still the Government’s position. Can he also say whether the Government are aware of any locally employed staff who worked for us being the subject of any threats to their personal safety or security or that of their families, and if so how many? Can he say how many staff have approached us for help under the intimidation policy? Of those, how many have been returned to the UK under that policy, and how many staff are there in total who are potentially eligible to claim help under the intimidation policy if they feel that their safety and that of their families is at risk? Can he also say how many people there are in the team in Kabul that is responsible for delivering our intimidation policy, and whether it is engaged full time in that capacity?

I have asked previously, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, how we can be satisfied that we are aware of any threats made to locally employed staff who worked for our Armed Forces in Afghanistan, and particularly as interpreters. The fact that such a very low number have been returned to the UK under the intimidation policy is surely hardly an encouragement for them to potentially put their heads above the parapet and approach us for help when they may know that the form of help they would most like to receive is almost certainly not going to be offered.

Of the 600 staff who are eligible under the current schemes for relocation to the UK, it appears that some two-thirds have chosen this option. Is it the Government’s contention that in reality none of these staff are living under any significant threat in Afghanistan; they just want to take advantage of the offer to relocate to the UK? Unless that is the Government’s view—and if so, what is the evidence to support it?—how do the Government explain the fact that in respect of those whose service with our Armed Forces in Afghanistan as interpreters had been completed between 2006 and 2011, there has apparently been only one instance in which the Government have agreed under the intimidation policy that relocation to the UK was justified on grounds of threats to personal safety and security?

This is one of the key issues that have emerged during every debate on this subject over the last couple of years. The Government maintain that locally employed staff who worked for our Armed Forces and whose service ended between 2006 and 2011 are in no real danger to justify relocation to the UK, and that there is no need to make the same or similar arrangements in respect of relocation for them that applied to interpreters who served our Armed Forces in Iraq. Many others are not so convinced and do not believe that we should be taking serious potential risks with the safety and security of locally employed staff who served us so well in Afghanistan. The additional concern, if we are not seen to fully protect those who have served our Armed Forces in this way, is that we run a real risk of not being able to find sufficient local staff prepared to carry out roles such as interpreters for our Armed Forces when we need them.

That brings us back to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins: that we ought to be looking at steps that we can take and pursue to protect interpreters and translators working in conflict zones around the world, and the safety and security of their families. If we cannot, or will not, provide effective protection, we could be leaving our Armed Forces, if and when involved in action abroad, facing a significant handicap. The noble Baroness has made helpful and constructive suggestions involving international guidance or guidelines, United Nations resolutions and conventions for addressing the issue of protection of interpreters and translators in conflict zones worldwide, and the translator/traitor mentality with which they have to contend. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the noble Baroness the considered response that the points she has raised deserve, as well as responding now or subsequently to the specific points and questions I and other noble Lords have raised.