Official Report 1740KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on an update on the MV Bella 1. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
17:09
There has been significant and appropriate public interest in the MV Bella 1, which is currently in the Moray Firth. There has been interest in the wellbeing of the crew but also in the wider questions in relation to Scots law, jurisdiction and information sharing between Scottish authorities, the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government. There has also been litigation raised, including a judicial review application, which remains live, so I am under some restrictions as a result, but I believe that it is important that I set out everything that it is appropriate to share with Parliament, given the issues that have been raised.
On 7 January, the United States, supported by British forces, took action to intercept the oil tanker known as the Bella 1. The Scottish Government has been clear that it supports that action. Where international sanctions are applied, the Government is a firm supporter of those sanctions being enforced. There is no point in imposing sanctions on Governments that ignore international law, undermine the rule of law and illegally invade their neighbours, as Russia has invaded Ukraine, if you are not willing to take action to enforce those sanctions.
The Scottish Government also supports the assistance provided by the United Kingdom Government in the operation to take control of the Bella 1. I believe in international co-operation, in partnership and in countries standing together. That support is founded on a basic belief that, if we are to succeed in insisting on a rules-based international order that is based on international law, we must abide by those self-same rules-based processes and international laws.
The seizure of the Bella 1 had clear implications and impacts on Scotland, given the location of its seizure and now subsequent events. I therefore wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 January and requested that, in future, the Scottish Government should receive formal, secure pre-notification of such actions where they involve Scottish infrastructure or have implications for Scotland. That would ensure that both Governments work constructively together.
The importance of that joint working and the need for Scotland’s input became glaring when the Bella 1 appeared in the Moray Firth on 13 January. I understand why the United Kingdom Government agreed to our request for the Bella 1 to enter UK territorial waters—the vessel was in need of repair. It is perfectly obvious to any objective observer, however, that, if you bring a vessel such as the Bella 1 into Scottish waters, co-ordination with Scottish authorities is essential. The arrival of the Bella 1 in the Moray Firth was an issue of direct relevance to Scotland and to the Scottish Government, yet the United Kingdom Government still did not give us advance notification. There is an unarguable truth that co-operation and communication between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments is essential if we in the Scottish Government are to fulfil our responsibilities.
The fact of legal action being brought in the Scottish courts shows clearly that Scotland should have been involved from the very start. Scotland’s law officers were required to respond to that legal action, because the vessel was in Scottish jurisdiction. The Lord Advocate exercises her authority on those issues independently of the Scottish Government—indeed, independently of anyone else—and solely in the public interest. Throughout this episode, the Lord Advocate’s priorities have been twofold. The first was to ensure that she discharged her duties in terms of international co-operation in criminal investigations. Secondly, she has been concerned that the rights of the crew under the European convention on human rights should be maintained, including their health and welfare.
It is the long-established and understood convention that the details of legal advice of the law officers are not made public. It is also the case that relationships between international jurisdictions, such as that between Scotland and the United States, are established and maintained through handling areas of mutual interest with sensitivity and confidentiality, and I respect that. Once the Bella 1 was in the Moray Firth, questions were understandably raised about the welfare of the crew, with on-going discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments. The Scottish Government’s understanding is that the Bella 1 crew comprised 28 individuals of different nationalities. We understand that two of those individuals had been arrested by the United States Government as part of the initial action.
It is important to make it clear that, while the Bella 1 was in Scottish waters, at no point were the UK or Scottish authorities in control of the vessel, and the Scottish authorities had no legal basis whatsoever for boarding the vessel at any time.
Information about the crew was provided by the US authorities and then to the Scottish Government either through local partners or through the UK Government. Reassurance was provided by the US Government that the individuals were in good health. Both the UK Government and the Crown Office made clear our expectation that all 28 individuals would disembark the vessel.
The UK Government agreed to a request from the US Government to provide support in repatriating the 26 members of the Bella 1 crew who had not been arrested. Current plans are for all 26 crew members to be repatriated to countries of their choice over the course of today and tomorrow.
A request for mutual legal assistance was issued by the US authorities on 16 January 2026 to the Lord Advocate, as the central authority for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, seeking approval for steps to be taken in relation to the obtaining of evidence. That was considered by the Lord Advocate, who indicated that the request would be granted subject to specific assurances and conditions attached to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the crew and to ensure that the rule of law was upheld. A key requirement was that all 28 individuals were brought ashore to ensure that this was appropriately and lawfully handled.
On 25 January 2026, the Lord Advocate was advised that the request for MLA had been withdrawn, which was confirmed in writing on 26 January. To the extent that the Lord Advocate has any responsibility, it is as the head of the system for the prosecution of crime in Scotland and therefore the central authority in matters involving the investigation of international crime. As a result of the MLA request being withdrawn, the Lord Advocate’s role concluded. The Court of Session heard yesterday—and I want to be clear today—that the Lord Advocate fully discharged all her responsibilities in that regard.
Given the previous concerns that I have set out about communication, it is important to acknowledge that good local partnership arrangements were established between Border Force, Police Scotland and local partners. The partnerships were focused on developing a proposal to support the crew to leave the vessel, to access appropriate support on arrival and to establish their preference for next steps. The operation has rightly been led by Border Force, as the relevant Government agency. However, those discussions have been supported by local partners that are focused on the welfare of the crew.
The crew disembarked from a tender vessel into Buckie harbour on the afternoon of 26 January. They were then transferred to Inverness for processing by Border Force in line with standard operating processes. The timing of the operation to support the crew in leaving the vessel was governed in large part by the weather. Any transfer of crew needs to be done safely, and the detailed plan and timing for the transfer of the crew was an operational decision. Scottish Government ministers were informed of the arrangements. It was very clear that the role of Border Force and the UK Government was to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of the crew—individuals who had not been arrested and had not been accused of any offence.
The operation was not about arresting or forcibly removing individuals; it was about supporting them in their onward journey to a location of their choice. The Scottish ministers and the Lord Advocate have never at any point detained any of the crew and they have never had them in their control. Assistance has been offered by a variety of Scottish authorities, including the police and local authorities, but no individual has been arrested or detained by any Scottish authority. They have not, and they have no power to, make any order to remove the crew from the jurisdiction of the court. All that they can do is provide assistance with any voluntary departure.
I appreciate that there has been considerable interest in the position of the two individuals who had been subject to arrest. The Lord Advocate’s response to the MLA request made clear her position, which was that they should be brought to the mainland in accordance with due process. The Scottish Government is a respondent to a live judicial review that is relevant to those issues, so there are limits to what I can say on that point. However, I want to be very clear that the Scottish Government was informed that the two individuals had been removed from the Bella 1 by the United States after they had been removed from that vessel—not before.
The action to intercept the Bella 1 started as an international exercise that the UK Government suggested that we did not need to be informed about because it did not impact on devolved matters. That position was inadequate at the time, and it feels even more unrealistic given what has happened subsequently. We need proper lines of communication from the UK Government and an acceptance of the principle of advance notification of significant military operations that impact on our devolved responsibilities and the use of Scottish infrastructure.
The events of the past fortnight demonstrate that Scotland is not isolated from international events. Our geographical position placed us at the forefront of events surrounding the Bella 1. This is unlikely to be the last time that that is true. Therefore, we need to be in a position to work together constructively in the interests of security and the safety of people across Scotland. I give my commitment to joint working with the United Kingdom and international partners in pursuit of international law. That will always be the commitment of Scotland.
The First Minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak button.
I thank the First Minister for advance sight of his statement. The whole Parliament has been clear in its condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so my party welcomes action taken to tackle the shadow fleet that fuels Vladimir Putin’s war machine. I also acknowledge the First Minister’s support for the action, which he made clear in his statement.
Following the interdiction of the vessel in international waters by American forces, the tanker’s arrival in Scottish waters necessarily meant engagement and communication between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on their legal obligations. Will the First Minister tell Parliament whether he or the Scottish Government’s permanent secretary has received security briefings on the tanker from the United Kingdom Government in recent weeks?
Mr Bibby is correct in saying that the Scottish Government supports actions taken to apply sanctions to the shadow fleet. I reaffirm that position and acknowledge his support for it.
It is important that that action is taken, but the fundamental point of my statement is that there must be a recognition that the issues arising out of actions in that regard are likely—inevitably, potentially—to have an effect on the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Government when they take place in our territorial waters. There must be, at the earliest possible opportunity, the strongest level of communication and advance notification to enable us to prepare for such events. That did not happen in this case, despite my prompting of the UK Government. I want a lesson to be learned from that. It is important that that happens in the future, because I suspect that we will deal with such situations again.
Security briefings have now been provided to the permanent secretary and to me. I will continue to pursue briefings, because an essential part of my ability to lead a Government that takes forward issues in devolved areas that are impacted by international issues is being fully aware of the implications and consequences of UK Government actions.
The US military has abducted two people from Scotland in the middle of the night, despite our highest court ordering that they be kept here, under our jurisdiction. The First Minister has spent months trying to charm Donald Trump. That strategy has failed. He is not our ally—he is a fascist. Our sovereignty has been violated, our courts have been defied and a foreign military has abducted two people from our territory.
The Scottish and UK Governments need to respond to that. The US military uses Prestwick airport as a de facto base. The Scottish Government owns the airport. Will the First Minister show Trump that his piracy has consequences? Will he evict all American troops from Prestwick airport immediately?
I understand the strength of feeling on the issue, which is why I have come to Parliament to give this statement. It is so important that I am clear with Parliament and the public that, in every respect, the proper application of the legal processes of Scotland has been applied in this case.
What the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate cannot do is exercise powers that we do not have. In my statement, I made the point that at no stage did we have the legal basis to board that vessel. That limited what the Scottish Government could do. We have indicated that, where there is to be any question of individuals interacting with the legal process, those individuals have to be able to exercise their rights in the Scottish jurisdiction. As Mr Greer knows, that will involve ECHR rights, too. I assure Mr Greer that all those factors and powers have been properly and fully applied by the Lord Advocate.
Prestwick airport operates at arm’s length from the Government and it has particular responsibilities to exercise. We will consider the issues that Mr Greer has raised in his question.
I am slightly concerned by Ross Greer’s use of the term “piracy”. We should be in no doubt that the vessels of the Russian shadow fleet are evading sanctions and, by so doing, are assisting Putin’s war machine and extending the suffering of the people of Ukraine. They are fair game, and I and my party welcome their seizure.
Oil tankers are not the only hostile agents operating in or near our waters. Subsea cables, particularly those supplying our northern isles, are potential targets for sabotage. What reassurance can the First Minister offer our constituents that both of our Governments are acting collaboratively to counter threats from hostile powers in our waters and under them?
It is important that we have an active, visible and effective naval defence presence, to ensure that our infrastructure is being protected, given the significance of our dependence on that infrastructure. That reliance on that infrastructure is extensive and, therefore, it is important that the deployment of resources is undertaken in a way that ensures that that is the case.
I do not think that that is the current arrangement in the deployment of naval resources. That issue requires to be addressed by the UK Government, which has reserved responsibility for matters in relation to all those questions, including for ensuring that naval resources are deployed in a way that meets the needs of the infrastructure of Scotland.
It is critical that, in cases where military action involves Scottish infrastructure and has implications in Scotland, the Scottish Government is formally notified. Can the First Minister say any more about the implications of inadequate communication for the Scottish Government’s ability to discharge its responsibilities effectively?
Part of what I have been trying to do in this case is ensure that ministers are able to exercise their responsibilities to the fullest extent. However, we cannot do that if we are not given adequate engagement on the issues with which we are wrestling. We requested of the UK Government advance notification of the operation in relation to seizing the tanker, and, in the light of that, I was surprised that we were not given advance warning that the UK Government had agreed that the Bella 1 should be brought into the Moray Firth, which immediately brought the vessel into the jurisdiction of Scots law and of the Lord Advocate. That issue should really concern this Parliament.
I thank the First Minister for providing some clarity about complex events over the past two weeks. The First Minister will be aware that shadow fleets are becoming increasingly common, with Venezuela, Iran and Russia all accused of using them to avoid sanctions on oil. Financial intelligence firm S&P Global estimates that one in five oil tankers worldwide are used to smuggle oil from sanctioned countries. France recently seized a second tanker from a Russian shadow fleet.
As the First Minister mentioned the question of the 26 crew members in Aberdeen, can he confirm that their human rights have been upheld and that the ECHR has been complied with? Does he agree that that should be the case whenever such things happen across Europe?
There has been no legal issue with those 26 individuals. They were transferred voluntarily to Scottish soil. There was no reason for them to be detained and they were never detained at any stage by the authorities in Scotland. They were supported with accommodation and given assistance with transport. The logistical arrangements are in place, and it is expected that, today or tomorrow, all those individuals will have left Scotland voluntarily for destinations of their choice.
Pauline McNeill raises an absolutely critical issue about the application of ECHR rights to individuals. That is one of the fundamental points that the Lord Advocate has been anxious to be assured about. In response to the request for mutual legal assistance, the Lord Advocate made it clear that the rule of law would have to be followed in that process and that that would involve respecting the ECHR rights of all individuals involved.
There are many elements of what has happened that are concerning, and the correspondence that the First Minister received from the Secretary of State for Scotland is particularly concerning. It completely failed to respect the principles and the practical realities of devolution, to say nothing of the importance of co-operation and courtesy in intergovernmental working.
Notwithstanding some of the responses that the First Minister has already given this afternoon, following further engagement with the UK Government, is the First Minister convinced that the secretary of state and other Labour UK Government ministers now have a better understanding of the importance of devolution and of adequate communication on such matters?
In a letter to me on 15 January in relation to my media comments about the lack of advance briefing on the movement of the Bella 1 into the Moray Firth, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
“This operation was in defence of UK national security and our relationship with a key international ally. As such it would not have been appropriate to provide briefing in advance to Scottish Ministers.”
That should be of concern to every member of this Parliament, because the minute that vessel came into the Moray Firth and into our territorial waters, the legal jurisdiction of Scotland was engaged. There is a fundamental lack of understanding of the implications.
That is why I have given a statement to Parliament today. I want to assure Parliament and the public that, in all the actions that we have taken, the Scottish Government has attempted to fully exercise its legal responsibilities, but there have been significant challenges in the flow of information that have limited our ability to do so. I hope that the United Kingdom Government has learned lessons about that, and we are pressing for that to be the case.
I understand that the vessel is still berthed in the Moray Firth. Can the First Minister provide an update on any correspondence that he has received from the UK Government regarding the next steps for the vessel?
The vessel is currently berthed in the Moray Firth, where it is undergoing repairs. We are currently seeking further information from the UK Government on the next steps for the Bella 1. I am, of course, anxious to ensure that all issues in that respect have been properly considered, especially any risks to the natural environment, which is an issue of deep concern to all of us. We continue to press for such assurances to be offered.
As the First Minister has outlined, for well over two weeks the Marinera and the vessel’s crew were in Scottish waters in Scottish legal jurisdiction. This week, the US Coast Guard has removed the tanker’s captain and first officer from UK waters. The Scottish Government claims to be committed to human rights at home and abroad, but legal experts have already questioned the legality of the Marinera’s seizure, to which the First Minister lent his support.
Given the length of time for which the crew of the Marinera were held in Scotland, did the First Minister make any effort to seek guarantees from the US Coast Guard that it would uphold the human rights of those sailors who were taken out of UK waters?
At all times, the Scottish Government has acted to ensure that the rights of individuals were protected and that the rule of law was applied. As I indicated in my statement, there is no legal basis for the Scottish Government or anyone acting on our behalf to board the vessel. There is a practical limitation when it comes to seeking assurances, but we sought assurances from the UK Government and the US Government on the welfare of the individuals involved.
On actions in relation to the seizing of the vessel, there is widespread public and parliamentary concern about shadow fleets, which are initiatives for avoiding sanctions. My position is clear and is on the record: where sanctions are applied, we should ensure that they are enforced, in order to do all that we can to try to avoid fuelling the regimes that, in the Russian example, are causing such horror for the people of Ukraine, and to ensure that people are held to account for their actions.
If we are serious about our commitment to uphold international law, sanctions need to be both credible and enforceable. Supporting the objectives of sanctions while hesitating to back enforcement—including action against a tanker that is allegedly breaching sanctions—raises questions about that commitment. Does the First Minister agree that backing the international rules-based order means backing action when necessary?
I take that view. We have been well served—albeit that it has not been perfect—by an international rules-based system. We should continue to do everything that we can to encourage all states to contribute to a rules-based international order to ensure that we can continue to live in peace and stability, where the rule of law is a certainty that is guaranteed for all.
We can all unite in opposition to the illegal war against Ukraine and to the operation of the shadow fleet or anything else that funds Putin’s war machine. However, none of us could credibly suggest that, in this matter, the Trump regime is motivated by a deep commitment to international law. Surely the First Minister will agree that, basically, the Trump regime has shown contempt for international law and the Scottish courts.
I assure Patrick Harvie that, in every step of the Government’s actions and the actions of the Lord Advocate, the assertion of the rule of law, the scope and requirements of the jurisdiction of Scotland, and the protection of the human rights of individuals have been the central considerations that have been applied.
In situations such as this, the UK and Scottish Governments need to be able to work constructively together in the interests of security and good governance. It is extremely disappointing that that did not happen in this case. Will the First Minister advise on the steps that he thinks should be taken to ensure that a more constructive approach can be taken in future?
The fundamental point that I have made in my correspondence to the United Kingdom Government is that there is not a neat separation between devolved and reserved responsibilities. As we have seen in this case, an issue that is undertaken under the reserved responsibilities of the UK Government can very quickly have implications for the devolved Government in Scotland and our devolved responsibilities. I do not think that due regard was given to that by the UK Government in any consideration of briefing, engagement or information in the early days.
There have been good examples of collaboration between the Border Force, Police Scotland and NHS Highland on local issues, which demonstrates that it is perfectly easily done. However, a lesson needs to be learned about the way in which those issues should be pursued, and I intend to pursue that with the UK Government.
That concludes the statement, and I will allow a moment or two for the reorganisation of front benches before the next item of business.
Air ais
Scottish Hospitals InquiryAir adhart
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill