HC Deb 19 November 1968 vol 773 cc1252-64

10.0 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor (Eastbourne)

I beg to move,

has national and even international implications of importance. It concerns the visit to this country between 27th July and 2nd August this year of Señor Antonio Arguedas, who up to a month previously had been the Bolivian Minister of the Interior in the Administration of General Barrientos.

Señor Arguedas fell from power when it came to light that he had sent to President Castro of Cuba photostats of the campaign diary kept by Major Ernesto Guavara, the Latin-American revolutionary Socialist and guerrilla leader, who was apparently killed in cold blood in a remote part of Bolivia after his capture on 7th October, 1967. When Señor Arguedas' action came to light, a Government crisis occurred in Bolivia and he fled to Chile, where he was given temporary asylum. Approaches were apparently made to Argentina and other Latin-American countries considered as refuges but these all fell through.

Eventually it was settled that Señor Arguedas should go to New York via London and he travelled on a B.U.A. plane which arrived at Gatwick Airport on the evening of Saturday, 27th July. On the plane Señor Arguedas was accompanied by two escorts, a Chilean by the name of Señor Pizarro Barrios and an employee of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, Señor Nicolas Leondivas.

When the plane landed at Madrid it appears that Señor Arguedas managed to contact the Cuban charge d'affaires, who informed him of the offer of asylum made by Fidel Castro. Señor Arguedas, however, was anxious to go to New York but agreed to discuss various matters with the Cuban in London. However, the Cuban representative was unable to obtain a seat on the plane and arranged by telephone that a representative of the Cuban Embassy in London should go to Gatwick Airport with the objective of meeting Señor Arguedas on his arrival. This he did, but when Señor Arguedas arrived, he was taken to an office while the question of his admission to Britain was discussed.

Although the Cuban representative made every effort to see him, he was unable to do so. Señor Arguedas apparently left the airport with one or both of the escorts. No one has yet explained satisfactorily why he changed his mind between Madrid and London on this meeting, and the inference is obvious. My information is that at the airport all negotiations on his behalf were, in fact, carried on by the escorts and he was not directly interviewed at all by British officials. He would have preferred to have proceeded on to New York without this stay.

After leaving the airport Señor Arguedas went to the Hotel Apollo, where he was registered, again by his escort, under his mother's name, Mendieta.

I personally became interested in the question on 29th July, in my capacity as Chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom, which follows events in most developing countries. I made inquiries at the Home Office. I was informed that Señor Arguedas's address, quite rightly, could not be given to me, but the Home Office agreed to pass on a letter to him, which I wrote and delivered by hand. In that letter I invited Señor Arguedas to meet me and gave him information to enable him to contact me. On the next day Señor Faevich, who was Señor Arguedas's lawyer, arrived at Gatwick, and again approaches were made to the Home Office producing a similar reply. Señor Faevich was advised to contact the Immigration Department at the Home Office on the following morning.

On Wednesday, 31st July, I again contacted the Home Office and asked whether a meeting could be arranged in the presence of Home Office officials without revealing Señor Arguedas's hotel. I was told that this would be put before the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who was away for the day. However, on 1st July I was informed that Señor Arguedas had met the Bolivian and Cuban Ambassadors on the previous day. On 3rd August I received a letter from my hon. Friend's predecessor enclosing my letter to Señor Arguedas, on which he had written a reply assuring me that his life was not in danger but denouncing United States imperialism.

I was naturally concerned about the difficulties placed in my way and wished to reassure myself that Señor Arguedas was not acting under duress. I was not entirely surprised when, in an interview given after his return to La Paz, Señor Arguedas made statements indicating that he had been prevented from freely communicating with outside parties, that he had been subjected to threats and moral pressure, and that he had been asked to give guarantees before communicating with Home Office officials and the Bolivian and Cuban Ambassadors in London.

It further became clear that Señor Arguedas was removed from the Hotel Apollo to an establishment at Richmond Hill, which I afterwards managed to identify as the Richmond Hill Hotel. Here, he was registered under a false name—Antonio Perez, the passport number for which was given in a Question tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle). Apparently two gentlemen who accompanied him were registered as Mr. Petrelli Suarey and Mr. Stead.

I want to ask my hon. Friend whether the Home Office was aware of all these facts at the time and what investigations have been made since about these registrations in false names and about the passport numbers which were used. Will my hon. Friend explain the reasons why this action was taken?

Having considered these facts, would anyone in his right mind deny that the information which has been placed before the House justifies a full and proper inquiry to ascertain what actually occurred, particularly in view of the widespread knowledge of C.I.A. involvement, which has been added to by the information given by Señor Arguedas since the events to which I have referred? I recognise that the statements which he made could all have contained falsehoods. However, I have checked them on a number of points and my investigations have completely proved the truth of the allegations at those points. For example, on the question of the Richmond Hill Hotel, Señor Arguedas did not give that name, but investigations revealed that what he said accorded entirely with the facts.

If we were dealing with an organisation like the Girl Guides, and not the C.I.A., it might well be argued that the idea of interrogating people under moral pressure was preposterous; but the C.I.A. has never been renowned for high standards of veracity. For years, denial after denial was issued about the use of C.I.A. money to subsidise or infiltrate student, labour and cultural groups, but in 1967 the whole story came out, and Mr. Thomas Braden, a Californian newspaper publisher, actually claimed credit for it. Again, reports were denied that the general strike which took place in Guyana in 1963 against Dr. Cheddi Jagan was financed by the C.I.A., but they were later shown to be true, and the money was shown to have been channelled through the Public Services International, which has its offices in London.

Bearing in mind the obvious reluctance of the directors of the C.I.A. to be identified as practising their trade in Britain, there is cause here for great concern. Everyone who is familiar with the developing countries knows that the commitment of the C.I.A. is enormous. Fortunately, the organisation is not always successful, but it remains true that many of the coups and attempted coups which have taken place in developing countries throughout the last 10 or 15 years have involved the C.I.A.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must come back to Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Newens

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was just endeavouring to show that it would not be unusual to find that the C.I.A. was interested in a gentleman who previously had held high office in a developing country. It is clear that the extent of the involvement of the C.I.A. in Bolivia whence this gentleman came was considerable.

No British Government should be prepared to allow foreign agents, whether Russian, American or any other, to carry out their duties on British soil. In the case of Señor Arguedas, there is overwhelming evidence that this occurred. If the Home Office did not know what was happening at the time when the former Bolivian Minister of the Interior was in the country and considered that my doubts had been satisfactorily dealt with by the action taken, it is clear that a serious review is required of the way in which cases of this kind are handled. If Señor Arguedas was treated in this way—if the facts which I have put before the House tonight are correct—there may be many other people, perhaps not coming to the notice of Members of Parliament, who may be subjected to similar or even worse treatment. There have been many instances of that kind recorded as having taken place in other countries.

We in this House have a right to be satisfied on these issues. It is difficult to imagine that agents of the U.S.S.R., for example, in a position equivalent to that of C.I.A. agents, would bring their victims to this country. But, if they did, it is extremely doubtful, one hopes, that they would be permitted to behave in the way in which the escorts of Señor Arguedas did. In the circumstances, we in Britain should insist on the same treatment for the agents of any foreign Power which seeks to operate on British soil.

In my view, the facts which I have put to the House tonight are of sufficient importance and give rise to sufficient concern to justify a full inquiry into all the issues which they raise. Hon. Members have a right to be assured that the British Government will in no way permit agents of any foreign Power to operate on British soil. Without such an assurance, serious concern would be felt among many sections of our population.

I make no apology for bringing this case before the House, and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say.

10.15 p.m.

The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) is greatly concerned about the circumstances of the case of Señor Arguedas, formerly Bolivian Minister of the Interior. He has shown great interest in the matter over the months before I had any responsibility for it.

I should like to make two points straight away. First, I can speak only for what I have responsibility for, and I am not responsible for the C.I.A. Second, I am aware that the gentleman is in prison in his home country.

Thee relevant facts are that Señor Arguedas arrived at Gatwick Airport on 27th July. He was accompanied on his journey from Chile by a Chilean police officer, who had been charged by his own authorities with the duty of safeguarding Señor Arguedas's physical safety during his journey, and who, having carried out his task, wished to return home as soon as possible. The circumstances of the journey of Senor Arguedas from Bolivia into Chile, following the matter of the Che Guevara diary, provided some grounds for the apprehensions entertained by Señor Arguedas and the Chilean authorities at that time.

Señor Arguedas was examined by an immigration officer in the proper manner, as were the other passengers on the plane. Señor Arguedas came to the immigration control in the company of the Chilean police officer, Señor Pizarro Barrios, but, while Señor Barrios presented a fully valid Chilean national passport, unfortunately the documentation held by Señor Arguedas was not in order.

He was not at that time in possession of a Bolivian national passport, although he obtained one during his stay in the United Kingdom, and the Chilean temporary travel document he presented was not in order for the purposes of our normal requirements.

It was, accordingly, necessary for the immigration officer to see instructions, after interviewing Señor Arguedas to establish his intentions and future plans. Señor Arguedas told the immigration officer that he wished to stay in this country for a few days, during which time he hoped to obtain a Bolivian passport, and that he then planned to fly on to the United States of America, whence he hoped to return to Bolivia. He proposed to say at a London hotel while here, and Señor Barrios said that he would stay overnight and take the next available flight home the following day.

After consideration of the circumstances it was decided that Señor Arguedas should be admitted on the basis he had put forward, and he was asked to call at the Home Office early the following week to let us know how his arrangements were progressing. He and Señor Barrios then left the airport in a taxi on their way to London.

It has been suggested that facilities were provided at Gatwick Airport by the immigration authorities for the interrogation of Señor Arguedas by foreign intelligence agents. There is no truth whatever in this allegation.

Mr. Newens I have never suggested that to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Rees

I carefully said "it has been suggested".

In view of all that has gone on, it is as well to get this clear. There is no truth in the suggestion. My hon. Friend has suggested in a Parliamentary Question that Señor Arguedas entered this country under the escort of Señor N. Leondiras, that Señor Leondiras was an employee of the C.I.A. and that Señor Arguedas was detained against his will. I think that we have now cleared up that matter. He was not interrogated by Señor Leondiras in the way suggested.

Mr. Newens

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that he was not interrogated by Señor Leondiras at any time during the period of his stay? Could my hon. Friend say something about Señor Leondiras and where he stayed?

Mr. Rees

I must complete what I have to say in 15 minutes, and I have only got to the airport. Let us get that over first.

I will deal, first, with the circumstances in which Mr. Leondiras, who is a United States national, was admitted to the United Kingdom on 29th July. He travelled on the same plane as Señor Arguedas, but he did not come through the immigration control in the company of Señor Arguedas, and he was admitted in the normal way as a visitor. He most certainly took no part in any examination at the Airport. I understand that he left the airport some time before the departure of Señor Arguedas.

The immigration officer did not provide facilities for Señor Arguedas to be interviewed by anyone, including the representatives of the Press who were present, and any suggestion of this or something like it is without foundation.

I understand that Señor Arguedas, who was most anxious to avoid publicity, after spending a night at a London hotel, moved out to an hotel in Richmond, presumably because he thought it was less likely that he would be recognised there and so attract unwelcome attention. On 29th July, my hon. Friend spoke to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Ennals), and wrote to him, enclosing a communication which he desires should be handed to Señor Arguedas. In his covering letter my hon. Friend expressed his concern about the well-being of Señor Arguedas and his fears that Señor Arguedas was being detained against his will.

When Señor Arguedas called by appointment at the Home Office on 30th July, the letter from my hon. Friend was handed to Señor Arguedas who, I understand, responded with a courteous message. On the same day, the Cuban Ambassador had expressed concern to the Foreign Office and a desire to see Señor Arguedas; and the Bolivian Ambassador also expressed a wish to see him. These approaches from the two ambassadors were made known to Señor Arguedas at the Home Office on that day.

Señor Arguedas said that, in view of the Press publicity about his case, he wished his address to remain confidential but that he would be very willing to see the Ambassadors at some other place. Accordingly, it was arranged for the two ambassadors to see Señor Arguedas separately, on 31st July, on Foreign Of- fice premises and these interviews duly took place. I also understand tha, on the following day, 1st August, the Cuban Ambassador extended hospitality to Señor Arguedas. The fact that such hospitality could be extended could not exactly have happened to someone under duress.

On 2nd August, Señor Arguedas left this country for New York, and he subsequently returned to Bolivia. Since his return to Bolivia, Señor Arguedas is reported to have said that he was interrogated by the C.I.A. while in this country. I do not know whether, in fact, Señor Arguedas has said what he is reported to have said; but, if so, he must have reasons of his own for now taking this line.

I can only say that he made no mention of this to either Home Office or Foreign Office officials while he was in this country. He had every opportunity of doing so during his interview at the Home Office when only British Government officials were present. He had further opportunity during the course of the interviews I have mentioned with the Bolivian Ambassador and the Cuban Ambassador. During part of each interview British officials, including a Home Office representative, were present and, indeed, Señor Arguedas expressed appreciation of the treatment he had received while in this country.

Let us look further at these allegations. It is suggested that someone staying at an hotel as a private individual was subjected while a guest in that hotel to restraint and interrogation against his will by agents of the C.I.A., and that, nevertheless, he made no protest about this to Home Office or Foreign Office officials when the opportunity presented itself.

If Señor Arguedas did not wish to associate with other guests in the hotel or to have talks with them in private or in public and was being forced to do so against his will, the remedy was open to him which would be open to anyone else in this country in similar circumstances. He could have complained to the hotel management or to the police. As far as I am aware, Señor Arguedas did neither. Nor, so far as I am aware, did he make such a complaint to the Bolivian Ambassador or to the Cuban Ambassador. Indeed, he spoke to us, as I have said, of how well he was being treated in this country.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) tabled Questions about Señor Arguedas's registration at the hotel in an assumed named, and I undertook to make inquiries. The report I have since received from the police indicated that this was indeed the case.

Article 19 of the Aliens Order, 1953, as amended, places an obligation on all persons, irrespective of their nationality, of or over the age of 16 years who are staying at the premises, to inform the hotel keeper of his full name and nationality, and, in the case of an alien, also to inform him of the number and place of issue of his passport or other document establishing his identity and nationality.

Although there is an obligation to give the hotel keeper the specified information, this may be done personally or through a third party and either orally or in writing. The hotel keeper is placed under an obligation to keep for a period of a year a written record of such information and of the visitor's date of arrival.

It may be—and I use the word advisedly—that there has been an infringement of the requirements of Article 19 of the Aliens Order. If so, the question whether proceedings should be instituted is a matter for the police to determine and they would no doubt have to consider whether any action of this kind would now be appropriate in view of the fact that those concerned are no longer in the country. This, of course, is an academic matter.

Mr. Newens

Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether Señor Leondiras stayed at the same address?

Mr. Rees

That I cannot say. There was certainly somebody else staying with Señor Arguedas. But the point to get clear is that during that time Señor Arguedas met the Cuban Ambassador and the Bolivian Ambassador and everybody else whom I have mentioned and said not a word. Certainly there was no question of our keeping tracks on the man while he was here.

I said that I could not speak for the C.I.A., but I can assure my hon. Friend that we would certainly not allow any foreign intelligence service to intrude into our affairs. Our only concern is that anything which happens does not involve our national security; if it does, appropriate action is taken. It would be a great pity, however, if we were to forbid or restrict, as some countries do, social and business exchanges with foreign embassies because some of them might be seeking information for their own intelligence services, but we would certainly step in if our hospitality were being abused.

I have endeavoured to deal step by step with all of this question in which my hon. Friend shows a great interest. I am aware of his concern, but in looking at this afresh what moves me is that during the time that the man was in this country no representations were made. He met the Bolivian Ambassador and the Cuban Ambassador and there was a meeting at the Home Office; my hon. Friend himself wrote to him and we gave him his letter and no criticisms were made then. I am content that the responsibilities of the British Government and of my right hon. Friend at the ports were dealt with properly, and I hope that I have assured my hon. Friend about that.

Mr. Newens

Will my hon. Friend confirm that I myself expressed doubts throughout the whole period and that I was not entirely satisfied? Those doubts have now been confirmed by what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Rees

I confirm that my hon. Friend expressed doubts. Without being pompous—it is not for me to commend or otherwise—all I can say is that I have looked into this most carefully and in the man's entry to and exit from this country we acted properly and made arrangements quite properly while the man was in this country to be as helpful as we possibly could. Before he left this country, we were complimented on what we had done.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)

Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is a certain amount of corroborative evidence not only in the case of Señor Arguedas, but in the case of another South American, namely, Señor Faevich, whose room at the Hilton Hotel was searched? Surely that is a matter for concern.

Mr. Rees

If my hon. Friend can give me evidence that his room was searched, I shall inquire into the matter, but the inquiries which I have made do not confirm that. My hon. Friend is asserting that it happened, but I have no evidence from anything I have found that it did.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.