Yes, exactly so. I re-emphasise that we clearly have to comply with international obligations. Of all powers to abrogate in any way the significance of UNCLOS, the British would be in the worst position to do so because, as such a significant maritime nation, we depend on it for the effective operation of our trading relationships. As I said earlier, so much of our trade goes by sea.
We undertake to ensure that we will do the most that we can, within the bounds of UNCLOS—I think that the noble Earl accepts the basic point—to meet the anxieties expressed here under the amendment. This is not the only time that the issue has been raised. We think that we have it right. I hope that the Committee will give us due respect for the fact that, in this exceedingly important area, very strenuous efforts have been made. I undertake that we will carry out that check and reassert our position if necessary later.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 March 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
708 c1254 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:11:51 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537241
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537241
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537241