asked the Minister for External Affairs whether he received the signed statements of five Irish seamen concerning their arrest, imprisonment, trial and acquittal in Lisbon in the early part of the present year; whether he is aware these men allege that on January 21st they were improperly arrested by the Portuguese police; that they were detained in a prison in which for several weeks they were obliged to sleep in their clothes on prison boards; that two of them were herded with disease-infected criminals in a filthy and verminous condition; that their food in the prison, Cadeis Civis Limeerio, consisted only of soup twice a day; that some of them contracted fever; that after three months' detention they were brought to trial and acquitted of the charges preferred against them; whether he is aware that no compensation was paid these men in respect of arrest and treatment during detention; that they were not paid money due to them by the Irish shipping companies by which they were employed; and that their property was not restored to them by the Portuguese police authorities; and whether he will state what steps he is taking to obtain compensation for these men from the Portuguese Government, and the payment of the money due to them by their employers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Arrests of Irish Seamen in Lisbon.
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether his attention was directed to the allegation of the seamen, Francis Maher and Christopher Eastwood, that during their incarceration in a Portuguese prison from January 21st to April 28th, 1942, they were not once visited by the Irish Chargé d'Affaires in Lisbon; that they wrote several letters to the Chargé d'Affaires at the Irish Legation, asking for an interview for the purpose of obtaining his advice in regard to their imprisonment and the intolerable conditions of the prison; that the only reply to these communications was a message from the Legation stating that the matter was receiving attention; that, in contrast with the inattention of our representative in Lisbon, the British Consul visited the men in prison and secured their removal to another place of detention; whether the Minister has taken any and, if so, what action on the information in the matter supplied to him on June 11th; and, further, whether he will make available the papers in this case with an intimation that an inquiry will be undertaken into the neglect of duty alleged against the Chargé d'Affaires in Lisbon.
I propose to answer Questions 1 and 2 together.
I have an extensive file about this matter, and my knowledge of it is not confined to the statements referred to by the Deputy. From what I know of it, I am satisfied that there is no case for making any representations or claim for compensation to the Portuguese authorities.
As regards the payment of any moneys due to these men by their employers, that is obviously a matter between the men and the companies concerned.
The statements made in the second question are inaccurate and misleading. The arrest of these men took place on 21st January. The Chargé d'Affaires took up office in Lisbon on 6th February. Shortly afterwards the arrangements for the transfer of the men to a place of detention providing improved conditions were made by the men's employers through their agents in Lisbon at the instance of the Chargé d'Affaires. The Chargé d'Affaires visited the Portuguese Foreign Ministry about the case on the 10th February and on five subsequent occasions. The men were visited by the Acting Secretary of the Legation on 23rd March. The Chargé d'Affaires wrote to them on 26th March, and again on 15th, 17th and 24th April, giving them necessary advice and information. A member of the staff of the Legation attended the trial which took place on 28th April.
The information at my disposal shows that, far from being negligent, the Chargé d'Affaires at Lisbon was active and zealous in looking after the interests of these men, and that there is good reason why they should be grateful for his efforts. The allegation of neglect of duty contained in the question is, in my opinion, to say the least of it, unwarranted.