A two-month campaign by The Times on behalf of Iraqis who have risked their lives working as interpreters in and around Basra appears to be on the brink of resolution. Gordon Brown is expected to say on Monday that these brave individuals and their families will be allowed to move to this country or be offered assistance to resettle in their region, and Alistair Darling will address the (modest) cost implications a day later. The scheme would apply to all who have worked for the British Government for at least 12 months and operates retrospectively for those who once undertook these tasks but no longer do.

This is an extremely welcome development. It would have been much harder for the Army to operate properly in southern Iraq without the assistance of those who spoke the local language and who had local knowledge. There has already been evidence that they have been targeted by extremists, who have branded them collaborators. It would be entirely wrong for a reduction in the British military presence in Basra province to have been accompanied by an increase in the dangers faced by those who have served with distinction. Military commanders plainly felt that they had a duty of care to their employees. If Britain had not made any shift of policy, then the comparison with Denmark, which has granted asylum to 60 staff, and the US, which has declared that it will take in 7,000 Iraqis this year, would have been uncomfortable. It would also hardly have helped in acquiring similar recruits for the Army in the conflicts of the future.

Having taken the right decision in principle, ministers should now be flexible in practice. The 12-month rule should not be interpreted rigidly. If people served for less than that length of time but can offer evidence that they have been threatened because of working for Britain, they should be treated sympathetically. Officials must also ask whether it is only interpreters who are at risk of reprisal once the British Army disappears. There is reason to suspect that many more of those employed in a range of posts, from administrators to chefs to drivers, would have legitimate fear of reprisal. It would be far better to risk too many people being supported, especially if they want to stay in the Middle East, than too few.

This step will, nonetheless, be an enormous relief to those affected most directly. It has to be part of a process whereby Britain does not rush to the exit in Iraq for the sake of public opinion here. The departure must be dignified and strategic to ensure that Basra is, as it could and should be, a much better place for having had British Forces stationed there. This is a good step. It is unlikely, however, to be the end of the road.