PORTUGAL (MR. AND MRS. TRIST) (Hansard, 4 May 1959)

§ Mr. William Teeling (Brighton, Pavilion)

I want to bring before the House the case of two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Trist, who, the House will remember, were found dead in a motel just outside Lisbon a few months ago, with their two children, aged four and three, not only alive but apparently unharmed.

This is a particularly tragic case, as it leaves those two children completely orphaned. It is also tragic from my own point of view in that I have always had a deep affection for Portugal, had many Portuguese friends at school, and have many friends in that country now. I also know that the Trists themselves were particularly interested in Portugal, had gone there for their own special enjoyment, and were looking forward to a very happy holiday.

It is also unfortunate that we should now be having some differences with the Portuguese about this case, as this is the year when the Portuguese are about to have a trade fair, in which we are making every effort to take part. The case has also caused considerable international interest. Moreover, by the insistence of the Portuguese that the cause of death was clam poisoning the whole of the sea food industry in Lisbon has, in the last few months, gone almost bankrupt, as people will not take the risk of eating it, as they used to do, late in the evening. Another unhappy feature is that the family has not had a single word of sympathy, or of regret at what happened, 180 either from the Portuguese Government or from the Portuguese Embassy in London.

It happened that when it was first announced that the Trists had died, a journalist from this country was there on holiday, and sent back a report to his newspaper. That report was read by two old friends of the Trists—Dr. Pragnell, of Southall, and Mr. Griffiths. They had been together in the Navy and had continued the friendship afterwards. Dr. Pragnell was not at all satisfied, as a doctor, with the story as he read it in the paper.

Tonight, I want to bring forward three points: first, what really was the cause of their death; secondly, how far the Foreign Office makes itself responsible for helping British people in conditions like this; and, thirdly, what may be done in future to make things safer for people travelling abroad—or easier if anything goes wrong.

Dr. Pragnell tried at once to go to Portugal to see what he could find out for himself, and I will later describe his adventures in doing so. I must stress that, at the time, neither he nor anybody else connected with the family knew that the Trists had taken out any insurance for the children—and for themselves—so that the money then expended by Dr. Pragnell and, indeed, by the Home Office pathologist, Dr. Keith Simpson, and others of the Trist family afterwards—including the cost of returning the bodies to this country—was spent entirely without knowledge that there was any cash coming back at all.

The accident insurance payment for the children of £10,000 is met, but that has nothing to do with the fact that, as the father was earning £4,000 or £5,000 a year, those representing the children's interests could, had the deaths occurred in this country, have been able to sue for compensation for the loss of the parents when the children were only three and four years old, and it is really on that account I raise the matter tonight.

There is a very strong conflict of evidence as to how these two people died. I understand that, according to Portuguese law, one cannot claim for compensation for death caused—as we say—by carbon monoxide from the geyser in the bathroom of the motel, if the Portuguese authorities have definitely stated that they 181 died from some other cause. It is because the relatives, having brought back the bodies to this country and had them examined, are convinced that the Trists did die of carbon monoxide poisoning that we want to take issue with the Portuguese or again review exactly what happened.

It is possible to ask the Portuguese to do this again because the Portuguese verdict, a copy of which the Foreign Office sent to me, is, to my mind, rather vague in its final decisions. For instance, the Portuguese authorities say that they only investigated because of the question of criminal responsibility. I should like to quote two points from the summing up. One is: The Public Prosecutor has to point out that according to the law, the purpose of the investigation is only to gather the data required as ground for a criminal charge and that steps should be taken not only to prove the culpability of the defendants but also those which may contribute to prove their innocence and irresponsibility. It goes on to say: The mere private interests, however respectable they may be, are naturally situated outside this sphere. The report then says: Acting only on the principle that nothing should be taken as proved which is capable of better proof … and then states that they are prepared to look into the matter again if necessary. And finally, they say: Having, therefore, no need to change the position adopted, the record continues to await production of better proof. That is signed at Almada, on 13th April, which is only a fortnight ago.

It seems to me that there is a possibility here that we could bring this matter up once again with the Portuguese Government, although I understand from Scotland Yard that the Portuguese authorities have seen our own verdict and have so far not commented on it. But the Portuguese verdict that death was due to clam poisoning is, in detail, rather vague. I have from Dr. Pragnell a few answers to some of the points stated in it which I should like to bring to the attention of the House. He says: They say ' that sickness indicated poisoning '—it is equally well a symptom of fume poisoning. Other symptoms of food or clam poisoning were not noted—hence my original decision that they had not died in this way. 182 The tests carried out at the Institute of Forensic Medicine are only known through what they told me. The tests which they described to me would have been positive on any body tested 36 hours after death in their climate and cannot be regarded as evidence of poison in either the clams or the bodies. A waiter ate the remainder of the same dish of clams and he remained well. The Portuguese Press and statements have made much of the fact that someone else died of shellfish poisoning soon after and that these shellfish were collected from the same area—but according to their own press statements the shellfish were not clams. We are informed on good authority that there are no poisonous clams around the Portuguese coast at that time of year. At my interview with the Institute they produced an English and French textbook describing clam poisoning. Both described the areas for finding these as in the Americas. Neither of these textbooks mentioned vomit as a symptom and the Institute doctors seemed so astonished when I pointed this out that even my interpreter remarked on this afterwards as having 'got them worried.' Both textbooks said that a lot of clams would have to be eaten to kill, the least number being twelve per person. The Trists only ate 19 between them. When I pointed this out it was said that one was in their experience sufficient, but not less. Therefore, there must have been two clams of a poisonous nature in the Trists' dish. But these originally formed part of a collection of 500 kilos and no one else was ill. The Portuguese say and told me that they thought fume poisoning impossible because the children lived in the same house, but there are many cases on record where that has happened. The Institute doctors expressed themselves surprised to hear this. They say that there is no carbon monoxide in Mr. Trists's body and little in that of Mrs. Twist. They never took muscle from either body and this would be necessary to make a definite statement of this kind. They first made this statement two hours after my visit to the institute in the form of a message to the Embassy saying that there was no such poison in either body 'as was expected'. Nevertheless, two days afterwards they reopened the coffins with the consent of our Consul to take blood specimens without which they could never have carried out any test at all.

The Portuguese have repeatedly claimed that the geyser concerned has been examined and found satisfactory. We never suggested that it was not. The heater concerned is listed by the manufacturers for sink use—that is, intermittent use, not bath water heating. It is eight times the size of one which would be permitted in this country without a vent.

They say that there is adequate ventilation in the window, but the chief scientist of Calor Gas says that the openings would only be sufficient to supply the machine with air and would not allow of any escape of fumes. 183 The Portuguese state that they have both Mrs. Trist's lungs. Yet most of one of these was removed by Sir Russell Brock several years ago."

Dr. Keith Simpson has seen this report which I have quoted and he has agreed with it. He has told me that the vital organs of both Mr. and Mrs. Trist's bodies can still be seen by anybody who wishes to make a test, or study the matter in Guy's Hospital. Therefore, it might be possible that the Portuguese doctors would take up the matter again and look further into it and see whether they cannot come to another decision.

In his final summing up of the case when the bodies were brought back and were brought before the coroner's court here, Dr. Keith Simpson makes some very clear statements, which most people who have followed the case have already read. I will not, therefore, go into any detail except to give Dr. Keith Simpson's conclusions, in which he said: From a consideration of:—

(a) the circumstances of the case:—
(b) the distinctive coloration of the livid stains of the skin and of the blood (and bone marrow and muscle);
(c) the spectroscopic analysis figures measuring 50 per cent. or over of HbCO (and from the negative tests for the specific alcohol/water soluble dinoflagellate plankton alkaloid responsible for clam or muscle poisoning)

… I am in no doubt whatsoever that the cause of death in each case was solely inhalation of carbon monoxide gas (fumes). Postmortem and laboratory tests reveal no other positive factual evidence; indeed, the high saturations reached exclude other possibilities. Surely the Foreign Office will take the verdict of the coroner here, of the Home Office pathologist, Dr. Keith Simpson, and of the Calor Gas experts as sufficient proof and satisfaction that they are correct. That being so, the Foreign Office must surely take it upon itself to press the Portuguese Government at least a little way on the possibility of the case being reopened.

There is also the British Medical Association article which appeared on 11th April, which gave full details and which. I understand, has also been seen in Portugal. Surely the B.M.A. and the Portuguese doctors, even if they do not belong to the same international organisation, could somehow come together and discuss the matter and see whether the case cannot be reopened.

184 I do not have time to go into the complaints that were made by Dr. Pragnell—as I promised to do in this debate. but I will send them to the Minister—about some of the things that happened at the start of the case when he was going abroad, including the unwillingness of, admittedly minor, officials at the Foreign Office to take the responsibility for stopping the funeral and his difficulties in seeing the bodies or interviewing people connected with the matter in Portugal at the time, but I ask the Foreign Office this question: what is the position with regard to British citizens abroad? We have the case now of a girl in Northern Italy who was sent to prison, and the only way that we were able to get her out was through a Conservative candidate, somewhere in the Birmingham area, financing the case and going bail for her.

The case of my own constituent, Mr. Topham, comes to mind. He has still not received any compensation for having been shot in Cuba. Generally, there is a feeling among many people that the British Consular side, since the amalgamation of the whole of the Foreign Office, is not really as vitally interested as it used to be in looking after the individual interests of British travellers abroad. If the Foreign Office cannot do so, I am not complaining about it, but I should merely ask that it should give us some outline of what it can or cannot do. In the old days one sent a gunboat. Those days are well and truly over, but there is such a thing as using a little trade influence, especially in places like Cuba, where one could insist that we wanted to try to get something for our people.

Then there is the question of people who die abroad. They have to be brought back. The Trist family, who are not at all well off, have themselves had to find at least £500 to bring the bodies back, and it was only by bringing them back and having them examined here that we find the difference of opinion on whether the poisoning was by clams or by carbon monoxide. That being so, is there anything that can be done to help people going abroad?

I believe that if one is in the Merchant Navy there is a special Act of Parliament whereby the companies concerned have to insure one, so that whatever happens to one abroad, if one is ill, alive 185 or dead, one's body is to be brought home. The same idea applies to motor cars which one takes abroad, and in Hungary, I am told, there is an arrangement whereby one leaves the country only if one insures compulsorily.

Is there nothing that we could look into for the future, whereby it may be made almost compulsory for a very small insurance to be taken out to cover the case of people dying abroad? There is the grave risk that cases like this may happen again, and that is why I beg my hon. Friend to look into this matter on those lines. The Trist children will one day grow up to find that they have been left this £10,000, but that is the insurance here. They will ask: "What did people do, when we were aged four and three, to make sure that we got some compensation for what happened to us in Portugal?"

I should also like to speak for the people who will be travelling there in the future. There are about two dozen motels, all round Lisbon, to which people go, and I understand that they are very dangerous. The Calor gas people say they are actually lethal. Admittedly, as Dr. Keith Simpson has told me, about 850 people a year die of carbon monoxide poisoning in this country, so Portugal is not alone in this. A majority, I understand, live in caravans in this country. There is a danger connected with all this, and everything should be done to make sure that there is safety for people travelling abroad from carbon monoxide poisoning in small rooms.

I would beg the Foreign Office to do everything in its power to make it possible, whether by legal action or otherwise, for a fresh opening of the case in Portugal, so that a decision compatible with our own decision here can be reached, or attempted.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan)

The case which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. W. Teeling) is one which has shocked and distressed us all. The circumstance—death on holiday—of this young and successful couple was, in itself, bad enough, but it was made worse by the terrible experiences of their young children. My hon. Friend and others 186 associated with him are, I know, raising this matter and pursuing it at considerable inconvenience to themselves in an attempt to look after the interests of those children, and, naturally, they command much of our sympathy.

My hon. Friend mentioned early in his remarks the absence of any expression of regret from official Portuguese circles. I find it a little difficult to know exactly what could have been done. After all, these two people died in Portugal as the result of an accident—using that word in its widest and lay sense. In similar circumstances in this country I doubt whether there would have been official expressions of regret. There is no doubt, however—and I should like to stress this, and it was indicated in the remarks of the Public Prosecutor at Almada—that Portuguese opinion was greatly moved by this tragedy; and from other reports which I have received there is no doubt that the sympathy of the Portuguese people did go out to these children.

My hon. Friend referred rather briefly and vaguely to certain complaints which might have been made about officials in the Foreign Office and in Portugal. I should like to go into this in some detail with him, because I have gone into this case thoroughly, and I have in my head, and in these papers here, facts which will show, I think, that everybody concerned in this case has acted reasonably, sympathetically, and as speedily and efficiently as the circumstances permitted.

My hon. Friend also said, in that general connection, that he would like to know what the Consular Service really does. Consuls in posts abroad afford whatever protection and help they can within the framework of the laws of the countries concerned to help British subjects, companies or institutions in their districts. Consuls perform many other necessary duties, such as registering births, marriages and deaths, legalising and witnessing documents. They have special duties in connection with shipping. In any difficulty or dispute a British subject abroad can turn to the consul for help. An important part of a consul's duties is the maintenance of good relations with the local authorities so that they may give British travellers and residents the best assistance they can.

If a British subject—and this is germane to the case we are discussing— 187 wishes to take legal proceedings in a foreign country the consul will help him to select a suitable local lawyer. He will, if he is asked, keep in touch with the lawyer during the proceedings, and will endeavour to ensure that British subjects are not subjected to any discrimination, or denied any of the proper facilities which they need to maintain their rights.

So far as I am aware, the merging of the two Services, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has been to the great advantage of both Services.

Before I come to the main issue I should like to take one other point he mentioned, and that was the question of insurance. The idea which he raised is, of course, a wider one than one which would affect the Foreign Office only. I think that it is a proposition which deserves investigation. I would say, however, that the Foreign Office, even now, does attach considerable importance to insurance and does try to draw travellers' attention to it. For instance, we put out a notice in the Press and asked the B.B.C. to put out a notice, last month, which, after drawing the attention to the heavy expenses which may be incurred by intending travellers, ended by saying: Insurance cover at a small premium is a wise precaution which many travellers are now taking. We are now beginning to lay emphasis on the importance of insurance in a leaflet called "Essential Information for Travellers" which goes out with passports. We are also trying to negotiate reciprocal agreements whereby the benefits of the health services in countries could be interchangeable.

In the very few minutes left to me I should like to go back to the main question. I cannot go into it in very great detail, because it is largely a conflict of medical evidence, on which I am not qualified to speak. My hon. Friend referred to the decision of the coroner here and to the evidence of Dr. Keith Simpson. He referred to Dr. Simpson as the Home Office pathologist. That is, of course, 188 true, but I must stress that in this case Dr. Simpson was employed not in his official capacity, but privately, and, therefore, his findings are not official findings but findings simply in his capacity as a pathologist.

One does not need to be a criminologist to know of the international reputation which Dr. Simpson has. His evidence must carry the greatest weight. It is also, however, important to point out that the Portuguese medical experts who came to different conclusions from Dr. Simpson worked on the spot, immediately after the events, that they had certain special knowledge of local shellfish, and the fact that the Portuguese had no doubt about their verdict is proved by the considerable steps which they took, with the resultant hardship which was noted by my hon. Friend, to prevent the sale of shellfish in a wide area.

It is not for the Foreign Office to decide between these conflicting medical accounts. This matter has already been before the judiciary in both countries. However, my hon. Friend has made certain points, and, without committing myself, I should like to consider whether we could not draw the attention of the Portuguese Government to some of the things which he mentioned. I do not know, for instance, whether they have seen the evidence which was placed before our coroner—though they have seen the verdict of our coroner. Perhaps we could find out.

However, the hard fact remains that two judicial bodies in England and Portugal have reached different conclusions. This conflict can now only be reconciled through legal processes, and here the Foreign Office is not involved. Finally, I would simply say that if the representatives of the late Mr. and Mrs. Trist wish to take legal steps the Foreign Office is, of course, only too ready to help them both here and in Portugal in every way that it possibly can.