Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Afghan Resettlement Programme

Monday 10 February 2025 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Ministerial Questions took place on 2025-02-10 regarding the Afghan resettlement programme
  • The Government estimates around 7,000 local Afghans were employed by British forces during Op Herrick
  • Only 2,850 of those employed were interpreters and translators according to the Government's figures

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Ben Obese-Jecty Con Huntingdon
Context

The Afghan resettlement programme has brought over 30,000 eligible Afghans to the UK. However, it is unclear how many of these individuals worked directly for British forces.

Question

How many Afghans who worked directly for British forces have been relocated to the UK under the Afghan resettlement programme? The Government’s own figures estimate that around 7,000 local Afghans were employed by British forces during Op Herrick, of whom only 2,850 were interpreters and translators on the frontline. If the Ministry of Defence does not know why they are eligible to be let into the country, it presumably also does not know who they are or what they have been doing in Afghanistan over the past decade.

Answer from The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)

We owe a debt of gratitude to those people who served alongside our forces in Afghanistan. The programme was started by the last Government and this Government are proud to continue it. Everyone brought to safety in the UK from the Taliban under the Afghan schemes has been vetted in relation to that. There are a variety of roles that cover support to our armed forces in relation to our UK mission in Afghanistan, but I can reassure him that I pay close attention to this area.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific concern about the programme being exploited by criminal, terrorist or hostile state influence was not directly addressed with concrete assurances.

How: Reassurance, Offer To Meet

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)