Enforcement of Irelands Maritime Jurisdiction - Demands on the Naval Service

[TangoSierra]

The hope is that people will post news and info into this thread regarding any demands placed on the Defence Forces in relation to enforcement of Irelands Maritime Jurisdiction.



Irelands Maritime Jurisdiction is defined in the Maritime Jurisdiction Act of 2021. - https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/...en/print#sec16



There are a multitude of domestic and international laws and regulations over lapping this area that require enforcement on Irelands behalf.

Recently, on Thursday, 2 February 2023 in the Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees on Housing, Planning and Local Government - The General Scheme of the Marine Protected Areas Bill 2023 was discussed.

During the discussion, several groups mentioned enforcement requirements and named the Naval Service. Interesting reading to those with a maritime interest.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2023-02-02a.797&s=EEZ#g961

A flavor of the lack of knowledge in the discussion:

It is absolutely crucial that we have the ability to monitor acoustically and we do not have that. The Marine Institute does not have a hydrophone, as far as I know. The Naval Service does not have a hydrophone. The only hydrophones that exist in the State are in the possession of third level colleges and NGOs, and one is with a company involved with wind farms.

Its role with the enforcement bodies is also an issue. Obviously, the Naval Service is our principal seagoing agency. In the context of Ireland's huge marine territory, which involves territorial seas and jurisdictions within that, the contiguous zone, the EEZ and right out to the tip of the continental shelf, the practical ability for other bodies to be able to navigate that and have the authority of a Naval Service vessel classified as a warship, with all the authority that has under UNCLOS, is something that needs to be considered very closely.

Should there be a role for it in enforcement or monitoring? Should the Bill be clear on the role of the NPWS and that of the Marine Institute, and how that interacts with the Naval Service?

It will not just be that the MPAs are created and it is a case of job done, we are all finished. There will need to be ongoing consultation. I would also emphasise that if the Naval Service is going to be the enforcement authority for MPAs, it must be properly resourced and equipped to do so and trained in what is required of it. Although it is already familiar with environmental protection, it is something it is not regularly required to do. It is very easy for the Defence Forces, the Air Corps and the Naval Service to enforce fishing no-take zones where we have strict MPAs but where the protection may be a bit more varied, where fishing is allowed or permitted to some extent, then it becomes a lot more difficult. Perhaps training and equipment will be required for the Naval Service so it needs to be resourced properly as the enforcement authority.

It was suggested that a graphic of the architecture of enforcement that is simple to follow would be useful. I would say that if we all had a go at that, we would all come up with a different graphic.

[TangoSierra]

Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2023/2/

A reference in this Act to a member of the naval service is a reference to such member acting at the request made, whether specifically or generally, by a member of An Garda Síochána not below the rank of inspector

Possession of archaeological objects by person other than Board, etc. 113. (1) Subject to subsection (3), a person shall not have in his or her possession an archaeological object which was found on or after 21 November 1994 unless the possession is for the purpose of satisfying section 23 of the Act of 1930 or section 102. (2) Subject to subsection (3), a person shall not have in his or her possession an archaeological object which was found after 26 February 1930 but before 21 November 1994 unless the object was reported in accordance with section 23 of the Act of 1930 or section 5 of the Act of 1994. (3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to— (a) the Board, (b) an officer, agent or servant of the Board or any other person acting on behalf of the Board and who is acting in the course of his or her duties as such officer, agent or servant or other person, as the case may be, (c) an officer, agent or servant of the Minister or any other person acting on behalf of the Minister and who is acting in the course of his or her duties as such officer, agent or servant or other person, as the case may be, (d) a member of An Garda Síochána or a member of the naval service acting in the course of his or her duties as such member,

Obstruction 174. A person shall not interfere with, or otherwise obstruct (including obstruct by withholding information reasonably required by, or by knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information to)— (a) the Minister, (b) the Commissioners, (c) the Board, (d) a local authority, (e) the Revenue Commissioners, (f) an officer, agent or servant of any person referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e), (g) a member of An Garda Síochána, or (h) a member of the naval service, in the performance of their respective functions under this Act

Definition - Chapter 7 199. In this Chapter, “relevant body” means— (a) An Garda Síochána, or (b) the Naval Services of the Defence Forces

Powers of arrest, search and seizure of relevant bodies 200. (1) A member of a relevant body may arrest without warrant any person committing an offence, or any person whom the member believes to be committing an offence, under this Act.

(7) The Police (Property) Act 1897 and, where appropriate section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act 1951 shall apply to any thing seized under this section (including anything seized by a member of the naval service) as that Act or such section 25, as the case may be, applies to property which has come into the possession of An Garda Síochána in the circumstances mentioned in that Act concerned.

[TangoSierra]

Criminal Justice (Smuggling of Persons) Act 2021

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/....2021.0042.pdf

PART 3

Enforcement measures against smuggling of persons
Interpretation (Part 3)

11. In this Part—
“enforcement officer” means—
(a) a member of the Garda Síochána,
(b) an officer of customs (within the meaning of section 2 of the Customs Act 2015 ),
(c) a member of the Naval Service of the Defence Forces not below the rank of petty officer, or
(d) an immigration officer (within the meaning of section 3 of the Act of 2004);
“master”, in relation to a ship, means the person having, for the time being, the command or charge of the ship.

[TangoSierra]

S.I. No. 590/2021 - European Union (Common Fisheries Policy)(Point System)(Amendment) Regulations 2021

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/....2021.0590.pdf

‘Fisheries Monitoring Centre’ means the monitoring system operated in accordance with Article 9 of the Control Regulation by the Naval Service of the Defence Forces or the competent authority of another flag Member State.”.

[TangoSierra]

Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/....2008.0007.pdf

(4) The operations related to a controlled delivery shall, if the delivery is concerned with the illegal importation of controlled drugs, be regulated in accordance with—
		(a) the Memorandum of Understanding of 12 January 1996 concerning the relationship between the Customs and Excise Service of the Revenue Commissioners and the Garda Síochána with respect to Drugs Law Enforcement and agreed between the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, and
		(b) the Operational Protocol for co-operation between An Garda Síochána, the Customs and Excise and the Naval Service in relation to Drugs Law Enforcement,
		including any modifications or extensions of the Memorandum or Protocol for the time being in force.

[TangoSierra]

Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/....2006.0008.pdf

2) The Authority, subject to the approval of the Minister given with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may—
		(a) for the purpose of carrying out its functions under subsection (1) make arrangements with or enter into agreements including Service Level Agreements or contracts with the Minister for Defence or, with the consent of the Minister for Defence, the Naval Service and the Air Corps of the Permanent Defence Forces, in respect of those functions for which they were responsible immediately before the establishment day or other functions of the Authority as may be appropriate,

[TangoSierra]

Criminal Justice Act, 1994

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/.../en/print.html

FIRST SCHEDULE Enforcement Powers in Respect of Ships
		Section 35 .
		Preliminary
		1. (1) In this Schedule—
		“an enforcement officer” means—
		(a) a member of the Garda Síochána,
		(b) an officer of customs and excise,
		(c) a member of the Naval Service of the Defence Forces not below the rank of petty officer, and
		(d) any other person of a description specified in an order made for the purposes of this Schedule by the Minister;
		“the ship” means the ship in relation to which the powers conferred by this Schedule are exercised.

[na grohmiti]

The 2015 Customs act also gave a member of the defence forces to exercise certain powers as a Customs officer.

“officer of customs” means an officer of the Commissioners authorised by them under section 37 to be an officer of customs, and includes—
		(a) an officer of the Commissioners, not so authorised,
		(b) a member of the Garda Síochána, or
		(c) a member of the Defence Forces,
		for the time being employed on any duty or service relating to customs;

[DeV]

Some new potential demand of estimated 5-30 patrol days for the NS of Marine Protected Areas

https://fairseas.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Fair-Seas-Sustainably-Financing-Irelands-Marine-Protected-Area-Network.pdf

[EUFighter]

Sometimes thing get so bad that it is time to say "stop" and take a few steps back and do a real look at what needs to be done. This point we passed some time ago but if anyone had doubts then the news that we can only put 2 OPVs to sea must be a wake-up call. The CoDF was done in the old world order (pre Fed 2022) and even that was a bit lacking in detail when it came to maritime security. So we should be looking at what we need to do the role of securing the state's maritime infrastructure and resources.

Unfortunately after decades of mainly Fishery Protection it seems that many can not see beyond that remit, no matter how narrow it is. Even the much hyped purchase of 2 IPVs from New Zealand was blinkered by this. Did they bring a higher pursuit speed? Did they bring better underwater detection capability? Did they bring an upgrade in weapons systems? The answer for all is no, yes they could keep up with fishing vessels in the Irish Sea but a fast boat would easily give them the slip. But we should just focus on the Naval Service, the Air Corps also has a key role to play. Soon we will have 2 new C295 patrol aircraft, but some of the same questions could be asked. Do they have a longer range? Do they have underwater detection capability? Do they have a weapons system? Again the answer is no. And as for the question of numbers, we see a 1-4-1 replacement meaning there will be times when none are available.

The biggest weakness IMHO is that of underwater infrastructure and resources protection. Here we have a total blank, so what would we need? And the answer is well know from the 1940's up till today, a combination of airborne and surface detection. Aircraft can cover vast areas relatively quickly and if equipped with Sonobuoys and MAD can detect possible underwater vessels. But their time on station will be limited and so ASW equipped surface vessels need to take over at some time. We have neither. And how many would we need? There the vast size of the NATO ASW assets during the 1st Cold War can give us a clue and it is a lot.

We have a vast maritime area which goes well beyond out traditional Territorial Waters and EEZ. To secure all of this against underwater threats would be way beyond anything we could do on our own. So let's concentrate on the key underwater infrastructure of pipeline and cables. Even for this the needs would eat up a large part of the proposed 12 vessels, 6-8 "sub-chasers" would be a minimum given the amount of infrastructure to be patrolled. And for the a similar number of suitably equipped aircraft.

But equipment needs to be manned and here there are only two options (a) pay and conditions that are attractive or (b) fill the ranks with conscripts. As the (b) option is highly unlikely then (a) has to be tackled. There could be an additional option (c) to have more part-timers/reserves cover some ops. If we had some smaller (30m) simpler vessels then maybe at weekends some inshore work could be done by part-timers. In Scandinavia , especially Denmark the Home Guard is so equipped. But unfortunately they have the advantage that most of their "Home Guard" have some service as conscripts!

To move the focus from land to air & sea will be a massive institutional change. Our DF grew out of the War of Independence and Civil War both of which were land based. This combined with the inwarding looking policies of many governments means that we have a DF that 80% Army focused. Leaving aside airspace defence the spilt of resources both the financial and manpower will need to change a lot. Not something I see either the DoD not the Defence Staff promoting anytime soon.

[DeV]

The CoDF was done in the old world order (pre Fed 2022)

Putin has been a war for a long time, the West only woke up in Feb 2022

Unfortunately after decades of mainly Fishery Protection it seems that many can not see beyond that remit, no matter how narrow it is.

never been equipped to do much more than that and now can’t do it effectively either

Soon we will have 2 new C295 patrol aircraft, but some of the same questions could be asked. Do they have a longer range? Do they have underwater detection capability? Do they have a weapons system? Again the answer is no.

they do have substantial longer range & endurance and have LiDAR (which will add some capabilities)

There could be an additional option (c) to have more part-timers/reserves cover some ops. If we had some smaller (30m) simpler vessels then maybe at weekends some inshore work could be done by part-timers. In Scandinavia , especially Denmark the Home Guard is so equipped. But unfortunately they have the advantage that most of their "Home Guard" have some service as conscripts!

there in lies an issue when we are comparing reserves from different countries

Ireland and the U.K. are generally outliners in how “reserves” are trained, many countries “reservists” are people who have completed their period of conscription, others have completed the exact same training as regular professional soldiers.

To move the focus from land to air & sea will be a massive institutional change. Our DF grew out of the War of Independence and Civil War both of which were land based. This combined with the inwarding looking policies of many governments means that we have a DF that 80% Army focused. Leaving aside airspace defence the spilt of resources both the financial and manpower will need to change a lot. Not something I see either the DoD not the Defence Staff promoting anytime soon.

to be honest, CODF seemed to call for a larger fleet but was thin in detail on personnel

Google Ireland sea blindness

[EUFighter]

never been equipped to do much more than that and now can’t do it effectively either

I would dare to differ, the original outfit of the LE Eithne was equipped as a more rounded naval vessel than anything we have now. It had for its time at entry into service a decent array of sensors covering air, surface and sub-surface sensors. Even if the helicopters were not the wanted Lynx there would have been the opportunity to get an upgrade.

they do have substantial longer range & endurance and have LiDAR (which will add some capabilities)

While LiDAR does have some capability do see below the surface this is very limited. And as for range they are almost identical with little or no real difference.

[DeV]

I would dare to differ, the original outfit of the LE Eithne was equipped as a more rounded naval vessel than anything we have now. It had for its time at entry into service a decent array of sensors covering air, surface and sub-surface sensors. Even if the helicopters were not the wanted Lynx there would have been the opportunity to get an upgrade.

1 ship!

the corvettes were soon obsolete when purchased

While LiDAR does have some capability do see below the surface this is very limited.

it is but it is an improvement over zero

And as for range they are almost identical with little or no real difference.

According to military.ie, CN235 range is 1,440 nm and endurance is 8 hours

according to DoD press release the C295 range is >2,300 nm, according to Airbus endurance is 11 hours

[na grohmiti]

I would dare to differ, the original outfit of the LE Eithne was equipped as a more rounded naval vessel than anything we have now. It had for its time at entry into service a decent array of sensors covering air, surface and sub-surface sensors. Even if the helicopters were not the wanted Lynx there would have been the opportunity to get an upgrade.



While LiDAR does have some capability do see below the surface this is very limited. And as for range they are almost identical with little or no real difference.

Fair to say that what was delivered with P31, was the base level for any modern OPV in service OUTSIDE ireland today. The fact we chose to design an OPV that was larger than P31, but which was without a helideck is a logic only the design team can come up with. But hey, lets stick a 76mm up front, with only optical controls. The fact that NZ had a similar requirement yet managed to squeeze in a helipad to the same hull form (essentially returning with what looks like a 21st century reboot of the P31 design) is again something only something the design team can explain.
I predict a mid life upgrade of the P60s, where the 01 deck will be extended aft, the TEU spots on the main deck will remain, but under a hatch when not in use, and maybe even fit an air search radar on top of the mast designed to hold it?
I make that a 20M Space. Large enough for a EC135 size aircraft to land at least. We arn't gonna pretend they'll stay for long, but at least there are options.

[EUFighter]

Fair to say that what was delivered with P31, was the base level for any modern OPV in service OUTSIDE ireland today. The fact we chose to design an OPV that was larger than P31, but which was without a helideck is a logic only the design team can come up with. But hey, lets stick a 76mm up front, with only optical controls. The fact that NZ had a similar requirement yet managed to squeeze in a helipad to the same hull form (essentially returning with what looks like a 21st century reboot of the P31 design) is again something only something the design team can explain.
I predict a mid life upgrade of the P60s, where the 01 deck will be extended aft, the TEU spots on the main deck will remain, but under a hatch when not in use, and maybe even fit an air search radar on top of the mast designed to hold it?
I make that a 20M Space. Large enough for a EC135 size aircraft to land at least. We arn't gonna pretend they'll stay for long, but at least there are options.

Isn't the NZ vessel also 5m shorter than the P60 design!