That is an entirely fair point and I apologise for not commenting on that. I am assured that everything is in order in that respect.
Perhaps I may help the noble Duke with regard to the fisheries policy. We are not changing the concept of the territorial sea and the 12-nautical-mile limit. On these changes, we are concerned with the issues 200 miles out. The law of the sea defines our position with regard to our waters 200 miles from our coast. Of course, it is not possible to go 200 miles in some directions, due to the limits of the ocean, but in certain directions it is possible. That 200-mile limit is not entirely adequate for us, because we seek to extend the UK’s rights in relation to the continental shelf. Geology does not follow the 200-mile boundary with quite the exactitude we would like. In the Bill, we are seeking, therefore, to extend our position in relation to the continental shelf, but to do that we need to be able to negotiate the issues under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That is why we have to have this clause in the form in which it appears, and in a form which defends it against the noble Duke’s amendment.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 January 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c290 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 21:21:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523926
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523926
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523926