Mr. Peter Westpfel (Hansard, 3 February 1982)

§ Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)

I am grateful for the opportunity to present the case of Peter Westpfel, a constituent normally resident at 4, Silver Birch Close, Wilmington, Dartford, Kent, to the House and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

During what appeared to me a callous, unforgettable and horrific experience for Peter Westpfel, the help and encouragement given by my hon. Friend and his Department to me and to the Westpfel family was, and is, greatly appreciated.

Peter Westpfel telephoned me a few days ago from Port Elizabeth asking for his case to be raised in the House and for me to seek to elicit answers to a number of significant and important questions that have arisen as a result of his experiences in Zambia. I consequently believe it necessary to give the House the right background to the debate.

Peter Westpfel had been working and living in Port Elizabeth in South Africa for the two years prior to February 1981, when he informed his family that he intended to take a month's holiday in order to motor cycle from South Africa to Zimbabwe and on to Zambia and to make the return journey back to Port Elizabeth.

Mr. and Mrs. Westpfel in Wilmington received a postcard dated 16 March from their son stating that he had rested up and was travelling to Zambia where he intended to take a short cut from Kariba to Victoria Falls. On arriving at the Zambian border, he was kept waiting for more than a day while the authorities decided whether he needed a visa. On 19 March he was finally admitted into Zambia and had travelled 120 kms up the road to Kafue bridge, where he encountered a road block manned by military forces. Every person who wished to cross the bridge was checked and searched.

It was at that point that the authorities arrested my constituent. Two men approached him, one with a belt-fed machine gun and the other with an automatic rifle and accused Peter Westpfel of being a South African spy. He was taken to Kafue police station under arrest and was accused, according to the charge sheet, of being a suspected South African commando holding a British passport". My constituent was arrested on Thursday 19 March and had still not been fed by Saturday when he was taken to Lusaka remand prison, where he was imprisoned with a number of political detainees.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Westpfel was telephoned by the Foreign Office in London on 26 March and told that a telex message had been received stating that Peter Westpfel had been arrested on 19 March and was detained in Lusaka remand prison. He seemed physically well and in good spirits.

Reverting to events in Lusaka, my constituent was kept in disgraceful conditions and was initially denied access to legal or diplomatic representatives. In a letter to me last year, Peter Westpfel said: I wont go into detail as to how they treated me, but I was arrested and the charge sheet read 'suspected South African commando holding a British passport'.I was treated as a prisoner of war for the first couple of days. No physical violence was used, just humiliating body searches and hours of interrogation about South African defence forces. Twice they threatened to 519 shoot me if I did not tell them where the other commandos were. At no time during my month in prison was I ever fed by the prison authorities. I lost 221bs in weight. My money was taken from me soon after my arrest so I was not able to buy food. On one occasion I was put in a cell 8ft by 8ft with 14 prisoners for 12 hours.—there was no toilet—I do not have to say any more. My constituent gave me details of other disgraceful indignities, but, in view of the time, I shall not detain the House by listing them. Suffice it to say that conditions at Lusaka remand prison seem to be worthy of investigation by one or other of the international investigative agencies.

After 17 days, from the time of his first arrest, Peter Westpfell was taken to court, but was returned without action after his lawyer failed to appear. Three weeks passed and on 7 April he was again taken to court and fined for illegally entering the country. With the assistance of the Foreign Office, moneys deposited with the Department were made available to Peter Westpfel and on paying the fine, he was released on 14 April.

I shall raise many questions with my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) although I appreciate that he may be unable to answer them now. I hope that he will answer them and that meetings can be arranged between us in the future.

Perhaps some indication could be given of the reference points and evidence that led to Peter Westpfel being viewed as a South African spy by the Zambian authorities. Secondly, was it necessary for him to obtain, as a United Kingdom national, a permit or visa to enter Zambia? Thirdly, if it was not necessary, as he was in possession of a valid United Kingdom passport, why was his entry, for he was fined, considered illegal? Fourthly, what is the nature of the arrangement by which Zambian authorities notify United Kingdom representatives that British nationals are being held on criminal charges?

A report about my constituent said: In the prison was a black South African interned eight years without trial who received regular visits from British embassy staff. On one of these visits the official heard of Mr. Westpfel, who had been denied access to a lawyer or the embassy. Was it only by chance that my constituent's case was brought to the attention of the British authorities?

Fifthly, what arrangements can be made for the return of goods and money confiscated? May I enlist the good offices of my hon. Friend to consider securing compensation for my constituent?

Finally, are there other British nationals in the Lusaka prison, and if so, how many? I realise that answers to those questions need to be found, and I hope that the Minister can meet me in the near future.

I realise that many years have passed since the Don Pacifico incident, but it is perhaps a matter of great democracy that my constituent knows, that at this late hour his complaints are still being made known in the House of Commons and attended to. I again record the thanks of the Westpfel family to my hon. Friend and his Department and I assure him that the terrible effects of that experience on my constituent are still with him.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce)

I listened with great interest and care to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on the unfortunate experiences of his constituent, Mr. Westpfel. I have carefully noted some of the points that the Foreign Office was not fully aware of and that have been brought to my 520 hon. Friend's attention more recently by Mr. Westpfel. Obviously, it would be wise for me to consider the points carefully.

My hon. Friend posed several important questions and, as he suggested, I should prefer to respond later, perhaps in a letter. It might be helpful to have a meeting to discuss the matter further. The most helpful step that I can take is to paint the background of the case, so that there is a clear understanding of what happened and what the British Government could do. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the Foreign Office's support in the difficulties that Mr. Westpfel faced

We fully understand Mr. Westpfel's concern and that of his family in this country. Mr. Westpfel had been working in South Africa for some time and decided to travel on holiday by motor cycle to Zimbabwe and Zambia. As a resident of South Africa, he was required by Zambian regulations to obtain a visa in advance. That answers one of my hon. Friend's points. He appears to have obtained one. In addition, Zambian regulations require visitors arriving by road to complete Customs formalities at a border post and to declare on entry the foreign exchange they possess. The regulations also lay down certain requirements for the import of motor vehicles.

The first we knew of Mr. Westpfel was when our High Commission in Lusaka learned on 23 March, when visiting Lusaka prison by chance, that he had been arrested on 19 March and that he was expected to be charged with a breach of the immigration regulations. He had retained a lawyer. Our consul in Lusaka immediately, on the same day, visited Mr. Westpfel in Lusaka remand prison. He appeared to be in good health and spirits and asked that his parents be informed of his arrest and reassured that he had no immediate requirements from them. This message was given to his mother on the same day.

On 7 April Mr. Westpfel was found guilty of illegal entry into Zambia and was fined 200 kwacha, some £108. He was told that he would be released and escorted to the Zimbabwe border once his fine was paid. If not, he would have to spend three months in prison in default. On the same day, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed his mother of the position and, to assist her son, and to avoid any delay, offered to arrange the transfer of money for Mr. Westpfel, something which should normally have been arranged through banking channels. In addition to his fine, Mr. Westpfel had to pay his own lawyer and it was thought that the travellers' cheques he had brought into Zambia might be confiscated. As a precaution, therefore, we suggested that his parents might like to supply sufficient money for his return journey to South Africa. We transferred the money, and arranged for £100 to be available to him in Zimbabwe, immediately it was received on 8 April. On 15 April, Mr. Westpfel's lawyer confirmed that he had left Lusaka under escort that morning for Zimbabwe.

There is no suggestion that the Zambian authorities did not act correctly and in accordance with Zambian law. That should be said. It is also clear that they acted with reasonable promptness both in bringing Mr. Westpfel to court and in releasing him on payment of the fine. It is also clear that the Foreign Office and its posts in Zimbabwe and Zambia could effectively and promptly help, as my hen Friend kindly said. Mr. Westpfel made no complaints to our staff in Lusaka about prison conditions at that time. That does not mean that now that he has raised this 521 question with my hon. Friend, I should not take a careful interest in his comments and should not examine all the evidence. It is important that his anxieties and experiences should be examined.

There are certain procedures for notification of arrest. Zambia adheres to the Vienna convention on consular relations. Under that, a detained United Kingdom national is permitted to inform the consulate officer of his plight and the local authorities are expected to offer him every facility for doing so.

We do not, as far as we are aware, have any other British subjects imprisoned in Zambia at present. We have not been notified of any. We have no record of any United 522 Kingdom citizen without other citizenship currently in gaol in Zambia, nor of any having been in prison during the three weeks that Mr. Westpfel spent in remand prison in Lusaka. We have not had any substantial complaints from United Kingdom citizens about present conditions in Zambia.

That having been said, I shall look carefully at the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Westpfel. I shall make a point of getting in touch with him as soon as I have had a chance to study the matter.