Special Committee Defence Bill, 1951 debate -
Thursday, 1 May 1952

SECTION 266.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 305 :—

In sub-section (1), line 17, to delete " without lawful authority " and substitute " with treacherous intent or traitorously ".

Section 266 deals with the penalty for sketching, etc., fortifications, etc., and trespassing thereon. The section provides quite a number of offences. It says that if any person, without lawful authority, makes or attempts to make any sketch, drawing, photograph, picture, painting, model or note of any fort, etc., he shall be guilty of an offence. I do not think there can be anything wrong in a person taking a photograph of, say, McKee barracks or some other barracks in Dublin.

Chairman

I do not know.

Captain Cowan

I am suggesting the amendment to add these few words. " with treacherous intent or traitorously ". The point I want to make is that if a person takes a photograph of a barracks innocently he is not committing an offence.

Chairman

He may be doing a very dangerous thing.

Captain Cowan

He may. I think the offence should really be in doing it treacherously or traitorously.

Mr. Collins

I feel he could do innocently as much damage as he could do treacherously or traitorously.

Chairman

I agree.

Mr. Collins

If he takes a photograph of some part of McKee Barracks and there is shown up in that photograph something that may be of considerable importance—location or something—and if he does that innocently, it might give as much or even more information than a photograph that is treacherously taken.

Chairman

As the Minister knows, there were certain photographs taken in this country before the emergency, and they were used. There is one example that comes to my mind. I know of one photograph which was taken, and which was marked in error, and which was used by a belligerent in error. It was recorded in error—they had made an error on the photograph. If the correct photograph had been taken, and if some use were going to be made of these photographs, eventually, the correct photograph would have been damaging. What we have to watch here is the protection of these installations, and I do not see anything wrong with making it an offence. People should not photograph these things. If any person does things like that—takes photographs, entries, descriptions or records—there is always the danger of their getting into wrong hands, and if they do the traitorous or innocent intent of the person who was the agent in the first instance does not matter. I would be all for the Minister getting the power in this case.

Mr. Traynor

I am sure we all remember during the last war the British authorities issuing an appeal to all persons who had been on holiday in Germany to send in any photographs that they had taken there. That shows the value which the military authorities must have been placing on the most innocent types of photographs. They felt that if they got a large return of photographs they would net something of value, although they might have to go through thousands of them. I can well imagine somebody sketching or photographing a particular barracks and including in the sketch or photograph sentry posts, for instance, which are not manned at present. The picture would show the positions which would be likely to be manned in certain circumstances.

Chairman

Or alterations in structure or something of that kind.

Mr. Collins

Machine-gun emplacements, for instance.

Mr. Traynor

Possibly it will not be necessary—I hope it will not be—to use this power, but we ought to make it as easy as possible for the authorities to deal with the cases envisaged.

Chairman

This is a matter of vital security and the Minister should have the power he wants.

Mr. Brennan

In support of what the Minister has said with regard to the British appeal for photographs taken in Germany, we can remember 40 or 50 years ago—it was only later we appreciated the real object of their action—the German bands which went up and down this country. When the first world war came, we realised that the underlying idea of these bands was probably making a survey of the country and photographing it. I say that we should prevent anything of that kind happening, no matter how simple it is.

Mr. Collins

Think of the protection we give ourselves sitting in the House. We will not allow ourselves to be photographed there.

Captain Cowan

I agree with what has been said about the importance of not taking photographs of places of importance, but you can always go too far, and in this section I think we are going entirely too far. I am not concerned about the German, the Briton, the American or anyone else ; I am concerned about any one of our own citizens who may take a photograph of a military barracks and who would under the section be guilty of an offence. The military themselves very often put photographs of a barracks on their stationery or something of the kind. They do that occasionally and it is not considered dangerous. So far as we are concerned, there are certain installations in the country that are important—the Shannon scheme, aerodromes, and such places—but an old military barracks in Cavan or Navan is of no consequence, and I think it is foolish to make it an offence for any citizen to take a photograph of it, and that is what we are doing. I have three amendments down with regard to this matter and it is obvious that none will be accepted, but I want to deal with the three of them together. The second point is that if a person goes into the ranges on the Curragh or walks across a fence from the holiday camp into Gormanston with an easel in his hand in the old style, or a camera on his back in the new style, with the intention of taking a photograph of Gormanston Camp, he commits an offence under the section. Under the other part of the section, if he goes in at all on any military property without authority, if he walks across a football field where the military usually train, he is guilty of an offence. I have no objection in the world to these being made offences if what is being done is being done treacherously or traitorously, but I have grave objection to making it an offence for any citizen to trespass on military property which is so widely interpreted here as to include a field on which soldiers may train. The section, in my opinion, goes too wide and should be limited.

Mr. Brennan

Are there not warning notices posted up ?

Mr. Traynor

We can deal only with military property in this Bill. We cannot deal with the Shannon scheme or any other such schemes, and the Deputy would be the first to jump on us if we attempted to do so. The Deputy knows as well as I do that there are certain places abroad merely show places, into which a person will not be allowed to carry a camera. The camera is collected as you go in and given back to you when leaving, and there is nothing particularly wrong about that.

Captain Cowan

I agree that we should do that, if we have places which we do not want photographed, but we should say so in the section and make it an offence to contravene the section in this respect.

Mr. Traynor

All that would normally be done in a case in which a person innocently came into military property is that he would courteously and politely be told that he must leave.

Mr. Brennan

And the film taken from him.

Captain Cowan

We are making this mistake that we are interpreting what we are putting down here as if all these things were to be enforced by the Army only. A member of the Army or a Guard may apprehend. The Army may enforce this, but it is an offence particularly applicable to civilians, and it would be a nice state of affairs if a member of this Committee who was down in Cork and who climbed up the hill and took a photograph of the barrack there found himself in Garda custody. I agree with all reasonable precautions, but this section goes entirely too far.

Chairman

I disagree. I think there is a serious security angle here, and there is very little likelihood of abuse.

Mr. Collins

I do not think the dangers envisaged by Deputy Cowan are real. I think the matter will arise in this way, that, in normal usage, where it is done in error or innocently, there will be no consequences, but, taking the broad aspect of security, the wider powers you give, the better from the point of view of getting your security net tight. From photographs released after the emergency, we saw what innocent photography had done to give complete information about certain areas in the country.

Amendment put, and declared lost.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 306 :—

In sub-section (2), line 33, to delete " without lawful authority " and substitute " with treacherous intent or traitorously ".

Amendment put, and declared lost.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 307 :—

In sub-section (3), line 49, before " trespasses " to insert " with treacherous intent or traitorously".

Amendment put, and declared lost.

Question proposed : " That Section 266 stand part of the Bill."

Captain Cowan

I oppose this section. I should like the Minister to say what does " without lawful authority " mean ?

Mr. Traynor

I think we have discussed that so often that the Deputy cannot be serious in putting that question.

Chairman

What it means is that it is an offence to do it at all unless authority is given by somebody who may lawfully give that authority, and the person who may lawfully give the authority is clearly the Minister, for one.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sections 267, 268 and 269 inclusive, agreed to.