UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Mountevans Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, and all the committee on a first class report. This is a very important region, set only to increase in importance given the current geopolitical situation and outlook. As the Minister for the Polar Regions, Stephen Doughty, said in a speech late last year:

“There is no global security without Arctic security”.


As noted in the report, the UK is the closest neighbour to the region, and of the eight Arctic countries, seven are now NATO allies. All can be numbered among the UK’s very closest friends. In fact, with the exception of some Commonwealth countries—other than Canada, which was already included—there are not so many other countries that would be added to that list. The UK shares values and long trading histories with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. An important additional tie, as noted by other speakers, is Norway’s key position as leading energy supplier to the UK. Of course, our links with Canada and the USA, while different and more recent, are profoundly strong.

The report is admirable—stellar—in its comprehensiveness. There is so much that is rightly highlighted. I will not go through that, in the interests of brevity, but in the time available I will elaborate on some of the questions raised and pose a few of my own.

My career and background have been in maritime. The report notes that reduced ice coverage and the richness of the region in energy and rare minerals are both likely to lead to an increase in maritime activity and resource extraction. In the meantime, Russia regards the Northern Sea Route as its seaway. As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, it wishes to treat this as a domestic channel, which is a very serious matter for us all. There are numerous challenges to safe navigation, including sea ice, limited availability of meteorological data, of charts and of other navigational aids, and, at times, restricted visibility. It is worth taking a moment to consider the difficulty of locating and assisting casualties, be that ships or aircraft.

Dealing with pollution is also particularly challenging. The ice moves and oil can then shift under the ice, making it very difficult to locate and harder to disperse. With seaborne movements of oil from Alaska, there are arrangements in place to locate specially equipped planes there quickly in the event of an oil spill. The Norwegians also have arrangements in place.

In those latitudes, the distances are sometimes not great. However, in the event of a spill off Russia, in current geopolitical circumstances one has to question the prospects for any immediate co-operation. Without going into specifics, is the Minister satisfied that the UK is adequately supporting capacity for search and rescue, perhaps as well as anti-pollution measures? Will the UK Government support calls for a review of the governing polar code? The report asks more than once whether the UK is devoting adequate resources and training to meet possible future needs, protect UK interests and meet NATO obligations.

A specific point made in the report and highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, is that the UK has one ice class patrol ship. The ship, HMS “Protector”, will be 25 years old this year. In the meantime, she is required to perform duties in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. Early ordering of a second ice class patrol ship would do much to boost operational security and demonstrate UK commitment.

More widely, the Minister will not be surprised if I add my voice to the calls to increase defence expenditure. Very many outside government acknowledge the need for defence expenditure to rise to a minimum level of 3% of GNP at the earliest opportunity. I know it is easy to say it standing in this Chamber, and we all know the pressures on the Government, but with the greatest respect, the defence of the nation and its interests has to be the number one priority of any Government.

The report notes the importance of contributing to the fullest extent possible to discussions with the Arctic states, be that with the seven friendly members of the Arctic Council or through other fora. The report pressed for ministerial as well as cross-government engagement. From what I have gathered, there has been some progress on the cross-government aspect since the report was published, and it is pleasing on one level to see UK ministerial engagement upgraded from a junior Minister in the last Government to Minister of State level in the new Government in the shape of Minister Doughty. However, the Minister’s responsibilities include Europe, including Gibraltar; central Asia; the US and Canada, which are both very demanding briefs at this time; the overseas territories, including the polar regions; NATO and Euro-Atlantic security; sanctions—another big file at this time—and more. The Minister is of course part of a team headed by the Secretary of State and supported by other Ministers but, with the best will in the world, he would appear to have a very heavy workload. Is there a case for the appointment of a junior Minister to support the Minister of State on polar matters?

I have some other questions for the Minister. What level of China-Russia co-operation do the Government expect to see in the region? Can he enlighten us in any way? Are the Government seeking to identify business opportunities for the UK in the Arctic? How committed are the Government to ensuring that we take advantage of business opportunities, and how can the business opportunities be exploited in a responsible manner? Finally on business, what scope is there to enhance government co-operation with business so as to optimise Britain’s efforts, contributions and success in the Arctic? There may be lessons to be learned from Norway, especially in the area of protecting critical infrastructure. What plans are in place to co-ordinate with our allies to combat Russian grey zone activity in the Arctic? Is the Minister able to enlighten us on this?

In conclusion, this is a critical region for Britain and the world. It is an area where, once again, the rules-based order may be expected to come under pressure. Can the Government gear up Britain’s contribution? We are widely viewed as a significant and benign actor in the Arctic; I make a plea that we do not let our position ebb away.