Boarding of Sanctioned Vessels

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with their counterparts in the United States about possible future support by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force for US boarding of sanctioned vessels.

My Lords, any future requests from the US for Royal Navy and Royal Air Force support for operations will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This includes appropriate consideration of the legal basis for any proposed activity. The MoD will continue to step up action against shadow fleet activity to protect our national security, our economy and global stability, but we cannot comment on hypothetical future operations.

My Lords, these Benches applauded the successful boarding by the United States of the illegally flagged MV “Marinera” and the detention of that vessel, because that direct interception hits the Putin war machine and the brutalistic regime of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. I understand that there are currently 107 sanctioned vessels flying false flags and, in my opinion, the sooner they are boarded, the better. Can the Minister confirm that the UK has the capability to continue to support the United States in such operations and to commence such operations on our own account, and that the Special Boat Service will be given the necessary resource to train and equip our elite soldiers to do that?

The unity of purpose between His Majesty’s Opposition, the Government and all Members of this House sends a hugely important and significant signal to Russia and our adversaries, so I very much welcome the first part of the noble Baroness’s question. I anticipated her question. I do not normally do this, but I want to read something because if I am not careful, I will stray into areas that would not be appropriate. I apologise to the House, but I think it is important to read something, so please forgive me if I take a little bit longer than I would normally, because the noble Baroness has made an important point.

“As we have made clear in our recent statements regarding the US military operation to interdict the MV ‘Bella 1’, the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels, and we will continue to do so. We are fully committed to tackling the threat posed by the shadow fleet and are working with partners to maximise efforts. We will use the range of tools at our disposal to crack down on sanctions evasion and illegal maritime activity”.

I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Baroness’s question.

My Lords, we effectively run global merchant shipping from London. We have the best Merchant Navy-type lawyers in the world in London, and it is quite clear that these ships can be boarded and it is legal to do it. We already have people trained to conduct such operations. Indeed, some of the takedowns of merchant ships have been amazing. It seems extraordinary that it has taken so long for us to grasp this nettle. Two and a half or three years ago, we were saying, “Let’s get on with it”. Why is it that the Government do not move more quickly and get us to start boarding these very dangerous vessels that are giving a lot of money to Russia and going up and down the channel, for example?

My noble friend heard the careful Answer that I gave to the noble Baroness; I hope that went some way to answering the question that he has posed. It is not as though we have not been doing anything. Let me set out the facts for my noble friend; I asked for them and mentioned them a couple of days ago. As a consequence of sanctions, Russia’s oil revenues are down 27% compared with October 2024 and 544 vessels have had sanctions imposed on them by us, with 200 of these sidelined through actions taken by ourselves and our partners. So I take the noble Lord’s point about the need to go further and faster, but we are taking action, and that action has had some consequence on the Russian war machine.

My Lords, shadow fleets pose a threat not just to the effectiveness of sanctions but to critical undersea infrastructure, and therefore require a more robust response than they have had hitherto. That requires not just expert, trained personnel, which we absolutely have, but the necessary maritime and air support assets, which are much more problematic. It is noticeable that, in the US incident recently, the Navy contributed a Royal Fleet Auxiliary manned by merchant seamen rather than a warship, presumably because we did not have one available. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence is arguing about which capabilities should be cut so that we can live within the wholly inadequate defence budget. When will the Government more widely start acting as though they believe the warnings that they rightly continue to issue about the perils of the international situation that we face?

The noble and gallant Lord will know that we await the defence investment plan, which will lay out the capabilities that the Government believe that we need for war-fighting readiness. The noble and gallant Lord will also know that we have taken action in the Baltic to protect underwater critical infrastructure, with “Proteus” and other capabilities. He will also know that, with respect to the interdiction of the shadow vessel between Iceland and Scotland, we used RAF surveillance aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as the RFA ship. It is also worth pointing out that, notwithstanding the might of the United States, it asked for our support and help in doing what it did, and we were happy to give it.

My Lords, as the Minister has just said, we are waiting for the defence industrial strategy. What is holding it up, the MoD or the Treasury?

What we are doing is trying to make sure that we get it right. Even if you increase the budget by £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion, there will be debate about the correct way to spend that money. What is the war-fighting readiness that we need? What is the capability that we need to tackle the threats that we face? We as a Government are determined to ensure that we can fight the war of the future—that we are ready to fight the war of the future, not the war of the past. That takes decisions, that takes debate, that takes discussion, and that is what is going on.

My Lords, the Minister referred to the legal basis for these actions. Can he confirm that the Government have used the powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act? Have the Government made an assessment of whether they have all the legal powers they need? If they do not, do they have plans to change that situation?

The legal basis is the fact that these ships are operating as either false flag or stateless vessels. That gives us the legal basis. I have read the reports that the noble Lord has read, but the current situation is that that is the legal basis that we are using in relation to the stateless, flagless ships that are sanctioned. We use that as the legal basis for the actions that we either take or support.

My Lords, I understood, as the Minister has just confirmed, that in the case of the “Bella”/“Marinera”, the legal basis was premised on the fact that she was deemed to be stateless, at least at the point at which the pursuit began. If the Government are now considering extending the policy to other sanctioned vessels, including those that do have a nationality, can the Minister tell us what the legal basis would be?

I shall not stray into that territory, because I am sure that other people are more legally qualified to answer than I am. However, the action that was taken was on the legal basis that it was a stateless, sanctioned vessel. It sailed on one flag when it was in the eastern Caribbean and, when it fled from the United States, it changed to a Russian flag. I say to the noble Lord, as I say to all noble Lords, that, when we question the United States and its willingness to take on Russia, the big strategic point that we should not lose is the fact that the United States took on a Russian-flagged shadow vessel. That should give us all comfort.

My Lords, the Minister spoke about global stability. He may be aware that, in both the US Senate and the House of Representatives, bipartisan Bills have been introduced to prohibit the Pentagon and the State Department from using funds appropriated by Congress to

“blockade, occupy, annex, conduct military operations against, or otherwise assert control”

over the territory of another NATO member state. Does the Minister agree that that Bill would be a real contribution to global stability?

I do not know about the Bill, but if the noble Baroness is referring to Greenland, the Government have been very clear that that is a matter for the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland. There is no change in government policy on that. However, Arctic security is becoming an increasingly important challenge for the Government and for all of us. Irrespective of what the noble Baroness is really asking, dealing with that is a challenge for all of us: Arctic security is a priority and we must make sure that we defend our interests there.