Strategic Defence Review 2025
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I shall raise two issues that were not covered in what is otherwise a thoroughly convincing and comprehensive review. The first is soft power. Perhaps the terms of reference were too tightly drawn or too narrowly interpreted, but defence is not just about weapons and Armed Forces—the hard power—and I do not in any case want to diminish at all the importance of what the review says about that. But defence is also about prevention and deterrence in the broadest possible sense.
A potential aggressor is less likely to attack you if you share a significant degree of intercultural knowledge, understanding and experience. To be “strong abroad”, as the review puts it, the UK must be appreciated, respected and even enjoyed abroad. Our soft power comes in many forms, including the World Service, the British Council, universities, the Royal Family, the Premier League and overseas aid.
It is also very sobering to note that Russia makes no such distinction between soft and hard power. Leaping into the vacuum to occupy radio frequencies given up for cost reasons by the World Service, as Russia has done in Lebanon, is just one example of Russian aggression on what I would call a seamless continuum of what we might call soft and hard power, which Russia just calls power.
Does the Minister agree, therefore, that soft power should be acknowledged as one important element within the broad sweep of defence, on the basis that prevention is better than cure? If he does, will he also agree that the Government need to take a strategic and generous view of the financial support that they give to the World Service, the British Council, higher education and the aid budget?
The second issue that I want to raise, which is missing in the review’s discussion of training, education and preparedness, is the importance of language training for the Armed Forces. The Defence Academy at Shrivenham, which I have visited, provides pre-deployment training in 40 languages for members of the Armed Forces. A report by the British Academy pointed out that the role of military linguists is particularly key to ground operations, is a vital component of defence diplomacy and is also essential for peacekeeping work and conflict prevention. As the BA report put it:
“The ability of military officers and patrols to communicate with local communities during ground operations can help not only with local engagement but might also mean the difference between life and death”.
Crucially, the MoD language training uses the NATO standardisation agreement 6001, which is a common framework for assessing language proficiency for military personnel and ensures that all member nations can communicate effectively in a military context, which is vital for interoperability in joint exercises and operations. Can the Minister reassure me that the SDR recommendation that:
“Defence should only run training and education itself when it cannot be obtained externally at suitable quality and cost”
will not apply to the language training currently provided by the Defence Academy? It is very difficult to imagine how local FE colleges could replicate the NATO standards or engage teaching staff qualified in both the military contexts and terminology, as well as all 40 of the languages currently offered. Will the Minister guarantee that the budget for the Defence Centre for Languages and Culture will not be subject to any cuts?
Finally on the subject of language skills, I have to say that I was alarmed two weeks ago at the closure without notice of the ARAP scheme and the ACRS. Since then, of course, we have also had the revelation of the ARR scheme, also now closed. All this will impact critically on the Afghan interpreters who worked with the UK’s Armed Forces and are still vulnerable from Taliban oppression. I have been told that no interpreters were included in the secret ARR scheme, as they were not thought to be at a high enough level of risk to qualify. Yet the Government’s own Explanatory Memorandum for its sudden withdrawal of ARAP admits that
“there is a risk that eligible individuals will remain at risk, or will seek to use irregular routes, including small boats, following the closure of ARAP”.
Is this really the way to treat those who have already risked their lives for us? The numbers are not vast, but these people are the very definition of a special case, and I ask the Minister to ensure that all the remaining interpreters have a viable option to relocate to the UK, subject of course to the relevant security checks.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to wind up this debate, which has been, as usual, of a very high standard and very interesting. I start by saying to my noble friend Lord McCabe that we came into the other place at the same time, and we have followed each other. I slightly smiled when he said that he found it quite sedate in here: that has not been my experience. So our paths have finally diverged. It was an excellent, outstanding maiden speech, and we all both enjoyed and learned from it. What was particularly powerful was his ending, when he spoke about British values and the importance of those to our debate today. We all welcome him and wish him good luck with his career here.
I also say to my noble friend Lord Robertson that it would be remiss of us not to thank him formally from the Government Front Bench, along with General Barrons and Fiona Hill, for the work that they did, plus all the other people that he mentioned. It is a hugely important report. It challenges the Government, the country and our alliances as to how we move forward. In our parliamentary scrutiny here, noble Lords have accepted the premise of the report in this debate, but the challenge for the Government is how they take forward the recommendations that they have accepted in full and how they make them a reality, which is the important task for all of us.
The truth is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and from the Liberal Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, and as all of us recognise, this report would be important whenever it was written. But the fact that it is written in 2025, with all the challenges that we see: with the war in Ukraine, other challenges such as the stresses and strains in the Indo-Pacific, the change in the nature of warfare, cyberwarfare and with the need for homeland resilience—which I will come to in a minute—we see that all those issues are of crucial importance.
One thing that I have said, which many noble Lords have said in this Chamber, is that we are debating issues now—let alone the Cold War legacy with respect to money—that we never thought we would be debating again: war in Europe and threats to the homeland and attacks on it. Four, five, six years ago—you can argue about the number of years—many of us would have found that difficult to predict. That is what makes the report so important.
I will start to deal with some of the points that have been made. I apologise in advance if I do not answer every single question; no offence is meant to any particular contribution that has been made. If anybody wishes to take anything up afterwards in particular, I will be very happy to meet them and discuss that.
On money and trajectory, as mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord De Mauley, Lord Soames, Lord Dannatt, Lord Hannay, Lord Stevens, and many others, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—I will come particularly to the point about urgency—I will say this as a starting point. When the Government came into power, we were spending 2.3%. The demand then was about when the Government were going to spend 2.5%. Up until three or four months ago, I was being criticised in this Chamber for not committing the Government to 2.5%. I do not say this in my defence because at the time, all of us thought we needed to get to 2.5% and that the debate would then be about where it would go to after that. For a Government taking decisions about proper financial and fiscal management, these are difficult decisions—I will come to the national conversation about that in a moment—but clearly that was the debate then.
At that time the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was demanding more, as were others, but also talking about the urgency of it. So we got to 2.5%, and then it came to, “What about this and what about that?” I say to the noble Baroness, and I do not often do this, because we all know that sometimes press releases reflect a particular point of view, that I thought the press release that came out from No. 10 Downing Street specifically outlined the agreement to meet the NATO commitment in 2035—my noble friend Lord Robertson referred to that commitment. Specifically, that was not the Government making the figure up; it was NATO, demanding of each and every one of its individual countries to come to a 5% commitment by 2035. Is the trajectory clear as to exactly how that will be arrived at? It is not, and it says in the press release that the trajectory will need to be thought through. NATO itself has said it will need to come back to that.
The importance of the 5% figure in the debate we are having—I will come to national resilience in a minute—is, of course, that 3.5% is for core defence. I take the point of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about urgency, but 3.5% is the NATO figure for core defence. The demand from all of us, and from the report by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is, what about national resilience, national security and critical national infrastructure? That is why, for the first time, it is included in the NATO target.
The press release was released on the same day as the national security strategy, which is a hugely important document. These are the words of our Prime Minister. In the same way that Prime Minister Sunak would have made commitments, you have to believe that, when your Prime Minister puts something as explicitly as this, he means it. The Prime Minister said:
“That’s why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to NATO and drive greater investment in the nation’s wider security and”,
as I said to my noble friend Lord Harris, resilience.
The argument will be that this needs to happen sooner, and people will ask, when will it happen, how are we going to pay for it and what will we do with the money? Those debates and discussions will have to take place, but the commitment is there. A year ago, I would not have said that the British Government would commit to 5% on national security and defence. I am delighted that that commitment is now there, as I am sure nearly everyone in this House is, because it is responding to the changed context and more dangerous world in which we operate. That is a real and important commitment, and I look forward to all the noble Lords whose names I read out, including the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, talking to us about the urgency of the situation and asking when it will happen.
The noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord De Mauley, Lord Soames, Lord Hennessy, Lord Howell, Lord Alderdice and Lord Tugendhat, and my noble friends Lord Harris and Lady Goudie, who made a very important point about women, spoke about the whole-society approach and the need for us to defend underwater sea cables. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, asked whether it is a 360-degree approach. The answer is yes—there is not much point defending sea cables in one place and being vulnerable somewhere else. Defending them, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, pointed out, is crucial. We are looking, within the defence review, at how we do that.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that part of the issue about spending is that we have to be clear about what we will spend the money on. That is what the defence review is for. We will bring forward a defence investment plan in the autumn. Those discussions are taking place now.
The noble Earl brought forward the point about drones. Of course we need more attack and surveillance drones, and we need to develop our small and medium-sized enterprises to do that, but what is the balance between our drones and the number of tanks, fighter aircraft and ships that we have, or indeed the type of ships that we have? What do we do about radar and all the other technology we need? Of course we have to spend that money, but we also have to make sure that we spend it wisely and appropriately on things that will make a real difference. There will be a debate and discussion about that. I suspect that if we had that debate in here now and I said, “There’s £10 billion. What are you going to spend it on?”, there would quite rightly be a discussion about that. The important thing is that there is a rationale to it that delivers the strategic objectives that this country, with its allies, wants not only in Europe but across the world.
On the defence readiness Bill, I will have to resort to the traditional formula when you do not really know, which is “when parliamentary time allows”, but we are developing it. The important point is that a defence readiness Bill is being prepared and there is ongoing consultation on it, and we will come forward with it when we can.
On the national conversation point, I cannot think of anything more crucial. Sometimes I feel a bit more optimistic about it. One reason is that we just need to be a bit more creative. The relationship between the public and the Armed Forces, when we have things like VE Day, as we had, or last night’s military extravaganza on Horse Guards Parade, which I attended with thousands of the public and people from other countries watching the musicians and the other things that were taking place, is very strong. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and others—the noble Lords, Lord Soames, Lord Harlech, Lord Glenarthur, Lord Bailey and Lord Wallace—have mentioned the point about cadets. At many of the Armed Forces events that I go to, there are, if not thousands, numerous young people and cadets there, and that is in every region of the country. I was in Northern Ireland recently and there were lots of young people at the Armed Forces event, and no doubt when I go to the military tattoo in Edinburgh in a couple of weeks’ time there will be lots of young people there.
So that relationship is there, and we need to be more creative and think more about how we talk about the fact that, while that relationship is important, there is also the serious matter of what we have to have our Armed Forces for. Maybe we need to think more creatively about the fact that the Armed Forces are also about the deployment of hard power and the service that we need.
I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord De Mauley and Lord Harlech; I have promised a meeting about the future of the reserves. I very much appreciate their thoughts about how to deliver the target with respect to reserves, which are exceedingly important, when we move forward. I take the point about the estate and about parity, which the noble Lords and others have mentioned. We need to think about how we do that. The defence investment plan will have competing priorities, but maybe that will be one of the ways forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, made the point about soft power. In the report by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, there is a specific commitment to a defence diplomacy strategy, which we will deliver in due course. That will be about soft power and will take forward many of the other things that are particularly important.
The noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, all mentioned soft power, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bates, along with the importance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We have a real commitment to that treaty. We will try to take it forward and try to stop the expansion and proliferation of nuclear weapons—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned Iran and North Korea—and we will take action in respect of all that. We do that within the context of believing that our own independent nuclear deterrent is essential to the defence of our own country and the defence of the alliances to which we belong, and we will continue to do that.
I also take the point about the reinvigoration of the P5 in the context—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, or the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made this point as well—of us being allowed to have nuclear weapons under the international laws and treaties that allow that. There is still a responsibility upon us to continue to ensure that things are as stable as they can be. So I take the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, notwithstanding the point that at present our posture remains the same.
I should have also mentioned the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, about health. I take that point, about the necessity of individual health; it is really important.
Various noble Lords mentioned the regions of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned the western Balkans. I met the Defence Minister from North Macedonia the day before yesterday. It is a new member of NATO, as noble Lords will know. We talked about the importance of the western Balkans and, as others will know, the importance of Bosnia. The noble Baroness will know that I met two of the three Presidents from Bosnia. We continue to understand the importance of that region.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that we have said very clearly that we have a NATO-first policy, but not a NATO-only policy. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, that we recognise the importance of Estonia and the Baltic states, which are right on the front line. I was talking to the ambassador from Finland, another country with an extensive border with Russia, only last night. As JEF nations, they know the commitment we have to them. Obviously, choices are sometimes made about the movement of various military units but, at the same time, our commitment to them remains absolute. I thank him for raising the point about NATO.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made the point about NATO first, the Commonwealth, and not NATO only. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, spoke about alliances and the importance of Europe as well as NATO, and we count that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has always mentioned Japan. He will know the importance of Japan to us with the GCAP treaty. He knows that the carrier strike group is going there in the not-too-distant future.
I say to others that, notwithstanding the unreliability—as some have put it—of the US, we see the US as our strongest partner. It is a crucial relationship, and we will continue to maintain it.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned procurement. We understand the need for change there. We hope the new armaments director will make the difference. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, made the point about the need for sovereign capability, and she and I have been in discussions about the space launch possibility. We can continue to discuss that. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, also spoke about the importance of space, as did other noble Lords. We will continue to take that forward. I have covered a number of points. I want to leave myself a minute at the end to take up something, but noble Lords made other points. If I have missed anything, I will deal with it.
I want to come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. I have never had the privilege to meet him, but he talked about where we should finish in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, spoke about law and order and the international rules-based order, as did many others. The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, referred to it as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have not mentioned it. I have not heard that. I think the Prime Minister has mentioned it a lot, as have most senior politicians in this country, and as has nearly every noble Lord I see in here. Maybe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, had just reminded us about. Increasingly, this Parliament and our leaders have said clearly that we are at a crossroads. Every now and again history brings crossroads, and we are at one of them now. The international rules-based order is facing a challenge from various countries, and sometimes you have to stand up.
That is why people have, in many cases, talked about the importance of deterrence and the awfulness of sometimes having to prepare for war to stop war. That is one of the places we are in now. I am proud of our Parliament. We are standing on the shoulders of giants in what we are trying to do: the leadership we have provided in Ukraine under both the last Government and this Government, and the various attempts now to rearm to get the defence industry and the war-fighting capability that we need—however we have got to this particular point and whatever the reasons for that. I think that if those people from the past looked at us now, they would say, “At last, they’ve woken up and are now trying to take the actions that they should have been taking”.
Why are we doing this? It is because, at the end of the day, we all believe in our democracy, in the values we stand for, in freedom and in the rights of women across the world. We want those values and rights to be available in our country and our continent, and we want to stand with like-minded peoples across the world. That has been our history. That is part of our culture, and we have always stood, and will continue to stand, for that.
It is a privilege to meet the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, even if it is in this strange way. I thank him for reminding us that, sometimes, we have to go back to why we do things and why we bother. We bother because the democracy, freedom and values that we stand for are as important now as they ever have been.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
Will the noble Lord be kind enough to write to me with his response to my points on the Defence Academy and the issue to do with Afghan interpreters?
Diego Garcia Military Base
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. He is right. That is why I read out what the Indian Government said about the treaty and the agreement that has been reached. They say clearly:
“The formal resolution of the longstanding Chagos dispute through this bilateral treaty is a milestone achievement and a positive development for the region”.
I for one am pleased that the Indian Government have made such a positive statement, in the face of some comments.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, if the military base on Diego Garcia is just as important to the US as it is to the UK, was the US ever asked to split the costs of leasing it back?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not sure of the answer to that, but I suspect not. All I can say with respect to this is that, whatever the payment is that the UK Government are making, through the MoD and the FCDO, to the Mauritian Government for the use and protection of the base, we should be clear that the US’s ability to use the base, with its equipment, its facilities, and the soldiers, airmen and sailors of its military, is the massive contribution that the US makes to it. Whatever arrangements we have, the fact that the US and the UK are standing together on that base sends a massive signal to China, the rest of those who stand against us and our adversaries. We are a proud country. We are going to stand with our friends, and we will deter those who seek to undermine us.
Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I also have the privilege of being a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee. I will confine my remarks in this debate to one of the points in chapter 3 of our report, “Nurturing partnerships”. This looks at the concept of defence in a more holistic and big-picture way than just the size of the Armed Forces or the supply chains and capability of weapons, crucial though these things self-evidently are.
Alliances, partnerships and reputation also underpin our defence posture and, in the case of Ukraine, have exposed an important weakness when we consider the situation globally and long-term. We need to think very carefully about the response of the countries which we generally call the global South to the support from the UK for Ukraine, partly so that a rounded view of the current situation can take place, but also so that the UK in formulating its future defence strategies and capabilities can be realistic about those alliances, partnerships and reputational risks on which our engagement in any future combat situation might depend.
As the report states:
“International engagement is integral to deterrence and escalation management”.
At the time of the report’s publication—I am certainly not going to go into the astonishing change in voting behaviour by the US at the UN recently—the UN’s 193 member states had voted on six emergency special session resolutions on Ukraine. Most countries supported the first of these, which condemned Russia’s invasion, with only one-quarter of states not in favour. All those that abstained or voted against were countries in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and south-east Asia: the global South. This pattern held in subsequent votes and few countries in any of those regions have imposed any sanctions on Russia or given any material support to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Russia has been able to divide and rule between the positions of the West on one hand and of the global South on the other, by talking up the Soviet Union’s historical support for decolonisation, attracting support particularly in Africa and Asia. Our report quotes a former Portuguese Minister, who said:
“Ukraine’s plight would receive a lot more sympathy in the Global South if it were presented as a war of national liberation … if you described Russia as the last European empire”.
While the UK has been reluctant to embrace this narrative, Russia has gone full speed ahead with diplomatic initiatives to court and secure support from the global South.
For example, it held a Russia-Africa summit and parliamentary conference in 2023 and described a new foreign policy approach in opposition to the so-called western neocolonialism. It also held the first ever Russia-Latin America conference in the same year. This has resulted in countries of the global South feeling aggrieved at what is perceived to be a distracting concern of the West with Russian aggression. They would prefer to see attention towards issues such as debt and climate change, rather than what is being viewed as western hypocrisy and double standards, particularly towards the suffering of people in regions of the world other than Ukraine.
Evidence we received from the Henry Jackson Society suggested that these undesirable trends could be shifted by a more assertive role by the UK in the Security Council and the G7, away from a subordinate position of reliance on the US, and stressed the importance of maintaining a physical presence in regions of potential conflict.
I suggest that this all adds up to a clear pointer that the Government’s recent decision to fund greater defence spending—vital though that must surely be—by raiding the international aid budget might be short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating. If the UK’s future defence capability, strategy, deterrence and engagement are to command the respect of global leadership rather than risk a global cold shoulder, we will need a more holistic definition of defence and the support, not the cynicism, of the global South. We should pay more attention to Latin America and avoid short-changing Africa. On the surface, I can see that that sounds literally miles away from our defence agenda, but the interconnectedness is now more important to understand than ever before. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these points.
Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the review of unsuccessful claims under the ARAP scheme was meant to cover all cases, not just the Triples. Can the Minister please tell the House how many interpreters who worked with our Armed Forces and how many British Council staff have also had the decision on their claim for relocation reversed as a result of this review?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This review dealt with the Triples; interpreters and others were outside its scope. For people who are making or have made asylum claims, there are opportunities for them to claim asylum through those processes, and there are appeals processes within that. The interpreters and others that the noble Baroness mentioned were not within scope of this review.
Former Afghan Special Forces: Deportation
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Minto (Con)
In the interests of brevity, I quite agree.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why it is no longer possible to provide a breakdown of the jobs of people applying for relocation under ARAP? It is impossible for us now to tell what the success or failure rate is among members of the Triples, or those who do any other job. After all, for the past 10 years or so and until recently, I have been able to find out exactly how many Afghan interpreters have been relocated. Why is the data not now collected on how many applicants are soldiers, interpreters or anything else?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very good point. The accuracy of the data held on large numbers of people requires double- checking and checking again. At the heart of approval under ARAP is the accuracy of exactly what these individuals did.
Afghan Interpreters: UK Relocation
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 28 April (HL15285), what plans they have for considering applications for relocation to the United Kingdom from the 15 Afghan interpreters who have fled to a third country.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy for locally engaged staff requires applicants to be in Afghanistan, because that is where they are likely to face the greatest risk. The Government keep the Immigration Rules under regular reviews, and officials from the Ministry of Defence continue to work with the Home Office to consider options to support those under threat. We will always consider exceptionally compelling and compassionate circumstances on a case-by-case basis, as demonstrated by recent relocations from third countries.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, although I thank the Government for and congratulate them on the excellent programme that they are currently rolling out with the RAF to rescue the majority of our Afghan interpreters, I implore the Minister to put this last piece of the jigsaw in place and offer the same chance of relocation to the 15 who arguably need it most, having been so terrorised by Taliban threats that they fled to a third country. There is a precedent—we rescued one interpreter stranded in Greece—so will the Government immediately establish channels of communication with the 15 so that their cases can also be assessed?
Afghanistan
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We will continue to stand with the people of Afghanistan to support a more stable, peaceful future for the country, and we wholeheartedly support the United States-led efforts to energise the peace process. We have been clear that the Taliban must engage meaningfully in a dialogue with the Afghan Government. We have been equally clear that, in going forward, the Afghan Government must respect and protect the advances which have been made in respect of women and children.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, troop withdrawal is guaranteed to exacerbate the danger to Afghan interpreters who have helped our Armed Forces. The new relocation and assistance policy is welcome, but can the Minister reassure the House that the embassy staff administering it will proactively identify interpreters needing protection who could be in danger if they approach the embassy for help? Can she also confirm that the new scheme covers family members and that it will absolutely not be contracted out to a private company?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I have paid tribute before and do so again to her enduring interest in this issue. The relocations and assistance policy, which as she knows was updated last year and launched at the beginning of this month, is open to all our current and former locally employed staff in Afghanistan, irrespective of date, role or length of service. As she is aware, they must satisfy certain criteria, but it is important that any of these staff feeling anxious should contact the embassy in Kabul however they can. I also assure her that eligible locally employed staff can bring certain family members with them to the UK.
British Armed Forces: Iraqi Interpreters
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that Iraqi interpreters are being targeted by militia groups because of their work with foreign militaries; and what steps they are taking to protect such interpreters who have worked for the British Armed Forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, although the Ministry of Defence does not employ interpreters directly in Iraq, its contractors are held to the highest standards. The MoD takes any breach of personal security extremely seriously, and we are currently investigating the allegations.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, last year’s breach of security data revealed interpreters’ IDs and car number plates, increasing their exposure to death threats, including at Covid-19 checkpoints. Can the Minister confirm that the private contractors who should be responsible for the interpreters’ safety are included within the scope of the investigation? Also, will she persuade her Home Office colleagues to upgrade their assessment of the risk to interpreters, currently rated as low, so that those who want a UK visa stand a chance of getting one?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the investigation will involve speaking to the contractor. Steps have already been taken to interview personnel concerned with Operation Shader who were in the camp between January and March 2020. The position is a little complicated in that the contractor changed, and therefore it is necessary to speak to the former contractor as well. We hope to be able to give an update by the end of February, and I undertake to report to the noble Baroness at that time. We constantly assess the risk that our interpreters are exposed to, and we have protections in place with our contractor to ensure that the best possible safeguards are afforded to them.
British Armed Forces: Global Britain
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, our Armed Forces are a shining example of how to teach, learn and use foreign language skills. The Defence Centre for Languages and Culture teaches 40 different languages. Will the Minister confirm that its funding is secure? Local interpreters are vital, but lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan led to a step change in our own language training, essential also for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and humanitarian aid. Language skills are required for promotion, conform to NATO proficiency standards, and attract a financial reward. Will the Minister ensure that this best practice is more vigorously disseminated to promote more widespread cultural change under the banner of global Britain, including throughout the Civil Service? Our Armed Forces show that multilingualism is not just useful but valued—a really important part of what global Britain should look like.
Afghanistan: Locally Employed Civilians
Baroness Coussins Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement on 19 September that eligibility for the Afghanistan Locally Employed Civilians Ex-Gratia Scheme is to be extended, whether locally employed civilians who have left Afghanistan and now reside in a third country will be eligible.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, Home Office Immigration Rules stipulate that applications for relocation under the cross-government Afghan ex-gratia scheme for former locally employed civilians must be made in Afghanistan. This is due to the challenges involved with the capability of the Afghan authorities to verify the documents of applicants who are outside Afghanistan as well as difficulties in completing the vetting process for them. Therefore, former locally employed civilians no longer residing in Afghanistan are not eligible.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the decision to expand the scheme, especially for interpreters, without whom our Armed Forces could not have done their job. I know from the time I served on the LEC Assurance Committee that there is a genuine desire to get all this right. Will the Minister reconsider finding a way to include in the ex-gratia scheme those interpreters who felt so unsafe and threatened by the Taliban that they fled to a third country? They too deserve our gratitude and the offer of relocation. May I also ask the Minister whether the Government will guarantee that all children of those who qualify for relocation, but who have turned 18 during the lengthy process of application and additional delays because of Covid, will still be entitled to come here with their parents?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and I join her in paying tribute to the tremendous support offered by locally employed civilians as our interpreters, working hand in hand with us in Afghanistan; they have been absolutely invaluable. On her first question, as I indicated, there are genuine administrative difficulties in relation to applications from third-country residents. Whether some are able to produce documentation or evidence of their valid entitlement to claim is a matter that would certainly be looked at, but determining the outcome would be a Home Office decision.
On her second point, spouses and children are included in the expanded scheme. I do not have specific information on the technical issue of whether children who have now attained the age 18 would still be allowed to come. However, she has raised an important point and I undertake to write to her.