House of Lords
Thursday, 17th October 2002.
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St Albans): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Afghanistan
Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What discussions they have had with United Nations officials and the United States Government about the implications of the discovery of human remains and scattered clothes near Shiberghan in northern Afghanistan; what are their conclusions; and what action they are taking.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, sadly, it is alleged that there are a number of mass gravesites in Afghanistan, including the one at Shiberghan. We have discussed these allegations with United Nations and United States officials, and we welcome Hamid Karzai's and regional leaders' statements that they will co-operate with investigations into these sites.
While it is for the Afghan Transitional Authority and the Afghan people themselves to decide how to deal with past crimes, we stand ready to play a supportive role if assistance is requested. We would expect the United Nations to be at the heart of any investigation.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, does she not agree that, apart from the seriousness of the situation that she describes in its own right, if we are to win the battle for hearts and minds in this great strategy in which we are all involved, it is absolutely essential that in Afghanistan we demonstrate not only a relentless commitment to resources and work for economic and social reconstruction, but an equally relentless commitment to justice and human rights? Does she not further agree that we can be neither directly nor indirectly part of any inadvertent attempt, perhaps, to cover up what may have happened and that these matters must be pursued with vigour and expeditiously??
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with what my noble friend said. So far, our discussions with the United Nations indicate that the most proper way forward would be to engage in a two-stage approach to the investigations—first, forensic investigations and the dignified reburial of those who are in the mass graves, and, later, when the security situation improves, more detailed witness interviews and investigations. The security position is such at the moment that there are concerns that to pursue matters rigorously right now with some of the
potential witnesses might leave them open to danger. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that two-stage approach is sensible.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister applaud the impressive work done by the government of Hamid Karzai to overcome the bitter ethnic rivalry that is the root of the violence that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to? Does she recognise that, if further massacres are to be avoided, we must build a stable, democratic, multi-ethnic regime in Afghanistan? Further to the Question by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, what help are we giving by enabling the Afghan Government to overcome ethnic conflict and, in particular, to uphold human rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness said. Although we are concerned with the example that my noble friend cited, I hope that my initial answer indicated that there are a number of these sites, which may have resulted from atrocities by different groups. It is important that all of them are pursued. The noble Baroness asked what we are doing in particular. The Tokyo Conference pledged some 4.5 billion US dollars to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and the United Kingdom's contribution to that has been £260 million. In addition, we have contributed some 33 million dollars to security sector reform. The United Kingdom Government are playing a full part in the reconstruction effort.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, how many prisoners are still held by the Northern Alliance, and for how long will they be held? Will Her Majesty's Government use their best endeavours to make sure that those people are either tried or released?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are varying reports about the number of prisoners still held by the Northern Alliance. At the moment it is extremely difficult for our diplomats to get out of Kabul to verify what is happening in prisons in Afghanistan. The noble Lord will know that the security situation does not allow for that. However, the United Nations is sending out a human rights specialist this weekend. Ms Asma Jahangir will be looking in particular at mass gravesites, but that indicates the level of concern about human rights issues in general in Afghanistan. The noble Lord's question about what has happened in prisons is very pertinent and must be pursued.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her welcome reappearance at the Dispatch Box, which all of us are delighted to see.
Are the recently suggested steps to extend the international security force beyond Kabul to other parts of Afghanistan not very urgent in the light of the evidence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd? Are
steps being taken to extend the reach of ISAF to other major cities and even beyond to the countryside of Afghanistan?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind welcome back.
The United Nations Security Council resolution that authorised ISAF activities in the first place limited its area of operation to Kabul and the surrounding area. Any expansion of the ISAF area of operation would require an enormous commitment of resources, and there is no guarantee that what worked in Kabul would be effective throughout the country. Any expansion of ISAF beyond Kabul may make the task of leading the force much more complicated. However, I take the noble Baroness's point that it is not just a matter of what is happening in Kabul. Indeed, the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, demonstrate that there are concerns throughout the country. The international community must keep the matter under constant review.
West Coast Main Line Franchise
3.8 p.m.
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Following the announcement that Virgin Trains will receive an additional £200 million from the Government as an interim payment pending renegotiation of a revised scope of the West Coast main line franchise, why the Strategic Rail Authority has not sought new tenders for this franchise in order to demonstrate value for money.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the agreement between the Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin Trains covers both Virgin franchises for the current year and the Cross Country franchise for next year. The value to Virgin will not exceed £106 million this year, and it will be less next year. Following a full audit, the SRA will negotiate with Virgin about the long-term future of the franchises. If no agreement can be reached, they will be terminated early and a new competition held.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that full Answer. If his figures differ from mine, why was that information not published at the time of the announcement? It was published by Stagecoach; nothing has yet been announced by the SRA. My question is more fundamental. Around £200 million is being awarded to Virgin for three years
interim. Is it normal for a government to hand out such slugs of money without any competitive tendering process?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not recognise the £200 million that my noble friend referred to. I am surprised by what he said about the figures that I gave not being published before. I shall have to write to him; I understood that they were in the public zone.
We must distinguish two different stages. First, the payments for this year and next year. That was necessary, and it would have been necessary, for any franchisee. The company is losing money and greater progress on the West Coast main line modernisation had been expected. That would have brought more money in for the West Coast main line franchise. There is no advantage in having a change of franchisee now. That would be disruptive for those involved and, more importantly, disruptive for passengers. So this is the minimum necessary.
I said in my Answer that we would be renegotiating in good faith the company's long-term franchise. There is no undertaking that we will reach agreement. If we do not, there will be a competitive tender. That is the right time for a competitive tender.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real scandal is the fact that railway infrastructure costs have increased by between three and five times since the railways were privatised? Will he please give the House an assurance that the Government will use their best efforts with the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and the rail regulator in order quickly to end this scandalous waste of public money, not on railway infrastructure, but on paying all the people who are hanging on to the coat-tails of the people who do the work?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am tempted to agree with the general condemnation made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The Question is about the West Coast main line, and it is true that the cost has escalated from a little over £2 billion to £10 billion. That shows incredible lack of control and forethought by Railtrack. We must get a grip of it, and we are getting a grip of it. However, we were able to get a grip of it only after it went into administration and we were able to take the company back again.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page