asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the arrest of a newspaper photographer at the ESB power station at Ringsend, Dublin on 11th May, 1971.
82.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Power Station Incident.
81.
asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a newspaper photographer was arrested by two armed soldiers while carrying out his duties as a photographer outside the ESB power station at Ringsend, Dublin.
83.
asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to reports that a newspaper photographer and a member of the National Union of Journalists were arrested by two armed soldiers outside the ESB power station at Ringsend on 11th May, 1971; if he is aware of public concern in relation to this matter in so far as it affects the freedom of movement of journalists in the discharge of their duties; and if he will make a statement on this matter.
84.
asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement on the incident involving members of the Defence Forces at Ringsend power station on 11th May last.
85.
asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the incident at the power station, Ringsend; and if he has any comment to make on the matter.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 81 to 85 together.
I have seen the reports referred to in the questions and have had the incident fully investigated. As a result, I am satisfied that there was no question of the press photographer being arrested by the military personnel on duty at the Ringsend ESB power station and that, in fact, the photographer was informed by the guard commander, in reply to a question, that he was not being placed under arrest.
Where a military guard is placed on an installation of vital national importance, in order to protect it against the danger of sabotage, any person, who is unknown to the guard or to the officials on duty and who approaches such an installation and proceeds to take photographs, should not be surprised if he is challenged and questioned in order to establish his bona fides.
I am not aware of any public concern in relation to this incident nor do I accept the implication in the questions that there was unnecessary interference with the freedom of the press photographer. This is an isolated incident in which the guard commander used his discretion.
In the circumstances of the case I consider that the guard commander, a corporal, acted reasonably having regard to his responsibilities. The task of the Defence Forces in assisting in the protection of vital installations is an onerous one and I would expect every citizen to appreciate this and to co-operate with them in the carrying out of this difficult task even if it involves some inconvenience.
Would the Minister consider having discussions with the National Union of Journalists so as to ensure that this kind of incident would not occur again?
I have made a full investigation into this particular incident and I am quite satisfied that the military guard did not exercise any more than normal vigilance in the vicinity of the station. Their responsibility was to protect the station and this they were doing efficiently and correctly and I have no reason to go into the matter any further.
That is not a reply to the supplementary question I asked. I asked if the Minister would consider it appropriate and desirable in the best interests of security arrangements and in the best interests of the Press and Press photographers that he have some discussions, even of an informal nature, with the National Union of Journalists to ensure that this type of incident would not occur in future. That is a fair request which could be helpful to both sides.
Such an arrangement is hardly called for. I can assure the Deputy Press men will receive every reasonable facility in the carrying out of their duties.
Is the Minister saying that the sentries carried out their orders that no unauthorised person was to be allowed to approach the station? Is the Minister satisfied that having carried out those orders it was explained fully to the photographer concerned that this was in effect what was being done or was the man marched down to the guard room and then told what had happened? If that is so, it was a rather terrifying experience for a civilian. It would be much better if the matter was approached on a reasonable basis. I am prepared to accept that the sentries had to carry out the instructions which they got but I think it should be made clear to everybody exactly what did happen.
The military guard were most reasonable in their approach and there was no intention to embarrass anybody.
But they did march the man down to the guard room.
The man went with the military guard to the room. He was informed that he was not under arrest. He made no application to leave; he went with the guard to the hut and supplied the requested information.
It was a pure misunderstanding, but it should be made clear that the sentries were doing their job and he was arrested, which is the expression I would use anyway.