THE ANTARCTIC

HL Deb 18 February 1960 vol 221 cc158-91

3.8 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect the Antarctic Treaty signed at Washington on 1st December, 1959, to be ratified; what their policy is with regard to the future of the Antarctic; and in particular what administrative arrangements they propose for facilitating continuing consultation for the purposes of Article IX, and whether they have any proposals for the settlement of questions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction and property rights in the Antarctic. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. My object is to draw attention to the recent admirable Antarctic Treaty which was signed in Washington on December 1 of last year.

I should first of all say that I have never been to the Antarctic and I have no particular desire to go there. In such exploring as I did in my youth I greatly preferred Borneo to Greenland, and I expect that many of your Lordships would share that view. But many men of our race have been to the Antarctic, and many of my own friends have been recently, more especially the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich. I am particularly glad that he is able to take part in this debate because he is an Antarctic explorer of some distinction. He was a geologist 'with the British Grahamland Expedition before the war, and was subsequently Director of the Scott Polar Institute at Cambridge. We are fortunate to have him as an authority on this subject. I am particularly glad, too, that the two noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord McNair, are also to take part in this debate, because there are many interesting and legal questions that arise out of the present situation in the Antarctic.

This is, I suppose, only a very minor international matter, yet over the past few years it has cost the country a great deal of the taxpayers' money. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the extent of Governmental support to the Falkland Islands Dependency Survey, which has been doing such admirable work in the Antarctic: not only scientifically, but also (and this, I believe, though I will not say it has been wasted effort, will not lead to the desired object) in trying to establish British claims to certain territories. Now that this Treaty has been signed, it is right that we should discuss it; and my authority for wasting your Lordships' time is no less than that of the Foreign Secretary, who in another place last week said that this is a Treaty about which far too little has been said.

During the last year or two, while discussions have been taking place, we have rather held our hands; and some of us who would have liked to ask the Government questions have refrained from doing so in deference to the fact that delicate negotiations were going on. I should like to congratulate the Government—and, indeed, all the Governments concerned—in bringing about such an extremely sensible Treaty. I shall later point to some of the unresolved problems, but this is in no way intended as a reflection on the work of our negotiators. I think we ought particularly to congratulate Sir Esler Dening in leading the negotiations in this extremely tricky field, where all sorts of national prides of a fairly strong kind are involved. He was, of course, ably supported by his advisers, particularly men like Mr. Brian Roberts, who was himself, I believe, in the Antarctic with the right reverend Prelate.

We have the satisfaction now of having a Treaty which has been signed by twelve nations; all those with interests, scientific or otherwise, in the Antarctic, including all the seven claimants to the Antarctic's territory. The purposes could not be better put than they in fact are in the Preamble to the Treaty. It recognises that it is in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica should continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, and should not become the scene or object of international discord. I might remind your Lordships that although there has been no violence in the Antarctic, shots were, in fact, fired there a few years ago between different nations; and it is satisfactory that this, we hope, can never come about again. The Treaty also recognises the extreme importance of scientific work and the firm foundation for the continuation of that work which the International Geophysical Year brought about. The Treaty then goes into a number of detailed provisions which I should like to deal with a little later.

I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I first say a few words as to what the Antarctic is, because I think we are all apt to forget our geography, and it is important to know the scene in which this Treaty has been set, and what ultimate problems may arise out of the nature of that territory. The Antarctic is a continent—it is still in dispute whether it is all one land or whether it may be split in two—of five million square miles, of which about 95 per cent. is buried deep under ice. The South Pole is situated on an ice plateau about 10,000 ft. high, and the approaches to it are up the great glaciers which flow down the surrounding mountain ranges. I might remind your Lordships that it is, in fact, the very opposite of the North Pole, which is set in the middle of an ocean 10,000 ft. deep, and which is surrounded by lands which have already been claimed.

There are no land mammals in the Antarctic, other than the scientists who have recently gone there, but the seas are rich. Indeed, Antarctic seas are, surprisingly, richer than tropical seas. A cubic metre of Antarctic water contains more living matter than a similar quantity from the Tropics. If you want to clean the skeleton of an animal in the Antarctic—a penguin or a gull—for scientific purposes, the easiest way to do so is to hang it in the water, and the euphausid (a kind of shrimp) will come along and clean it perfectly within a few hours. There is no vegetation to speak of in the Antarctic, apart from lichens, moss and a few species of flowering plants and grasses; but I expect they are found more in the Grahamland area further to the North. The sound of rain has never been heard; and for long, my Lords, the Antarctic had never seen a woman. That has now been put right, I understand.

The Antarctic, of course, still has its mysteries, although many of them have been solved; and in the solving of them the British—and not least the more recent expedition of Sir Vivian Fuchs—have played a big part. However, there are still many geographical problems. There are large areas which have never been visited; the land under the ice has still to be examined, although with the aid of modern scientific instruments it is now increasingly possible to conduct such an examination. Of course, there are also biological problems. There are very rich biological animal resources in the seas, whether they be the seals or the sea leopards, which are the cousins of the faithful sealion, or whales or killer whales. On land, there are a few species of lowly animals, one or two insects, a few mites and other invertebrates, which, I gather—and here I stand subject to correction from the right reverend Prelate—spend most of their life, if it can be called life, in suspension or frozen.

Perhaps the most jolly of all the biological problems is the mystery of the headless fish. Five specimens of large, unknown headless fish have been found lying on the top of floating ice, and no scientist has yet been able to discover how they got there. The theory is that their heads have been bitten off by seals; that they have subsequently stuck to the bottom of an ice floe and then, as the thaw has taken place from above and new freezing from below, they have gradually moved up to the surface. But I am told that there is also a simpler theory, and that is that their heads may have been bitten off by a skua gull. But perhaps I ought not to give your Lordships a lecture, and I apologise for wasting your Lordships' time.

I should like to turn now to the question of the possible value of the Antarctic. Its chief value today is, of course, as a source of scientific information; and this is of great importance, as we have seen from the really tremendous international effort that has been made in the International Geophysical Year. No minerals of any great value have been found, though there are certainly some there. Large outcrops of surface coal (something at a discount to-day) have been found, but that does not mean that minerals will not be found. As new methods of mineralogical survey are developed, it is possible that we shall find minerals, and possibly uranium. Fortunately, that has not been found yet, but it may possibly be found. Then, we know through the survey of the continent, and from the profile which the recent Trans-Antarctic Expedition produced of it, that even close to the South Pole and even in the very heart of the Antarctic continent, there are mountains coming up to within a couple of thousand feet of the surface. I would say that it is not beyond the bounds of imagination that a way will be found through the ice as has already been found through land. The difficulty is, of course, that it is plastic and presents rather special problems.

It also might have other uses. It has been pointed out that it is the largest reservoir of cold, if your Lordships regard that as a desirable commodity. But it is of value for preservation, and in its rare air nothing, practically speaking, will be destroyed. There is a sterile atmosphere. No weevil or rat or mouse can do any damage. It is completely healthy. One cannot catch colds or 'flu. The problem is that when one comes back to our relatively less healthy climate and loses immunity (as happened to me after being in North Greenland for six months), one becomes susceptible to septic throats. If it were possible to set up sanatoria there, they would be in a sterile atmosphere.

But not only on those scores am I concerned. There are already signs of the development of a tourist trade to the Antarctic. Already a tourist ship has been down there and there have been tourists in many parts of the Arctic. I think it is certain that sooner or later there will be some form of tourist traffic to the Antarctic—of course it is rather expensive at the moment — and it is certain that one day its geological wealth will be exploited. Indeed, it is possible that one day man will find a way of melting the ice. According to one theory—I do not know whether it is supported by the right reverend Prelate—if the present inter-glacial epoch develops, we might find in 40,000 years' time that there will be no ice caps in the world at all—but by that time, of course, your Lordships' House will be under water.

For the moment the Antarctic is a dead land, and a terra nullus. It belongs to no one and there is no natural human population, other than the thousand scientists who are there to-day. The scientific interest has led to a most remarkable degree of international cooperation. This has been a striking example of the possibility of scientists and all men of good will co-operating one with the other. As I have pointed out on another occasion, the Antarctic is a land to which the "cold war" has never come, and this is what the Treaty helps to maintain. There has been close co-operation. When the recent Belgian expedition were in trouble, they were rescued by air by the Russians, and subsequently, when their ship could not get through the ice, the American icebreaker cut them out. The International Geophysical Year Committee has been a model of international co-operation.

Before I refer in detail to the Treaty, I should like to look briefly at the various national claims in the Antarctic. Seven nations have made claims. Broadly, the British Commonwealth have claimed the lion's share. There are the British sectors claimed by New Zealand—the Ross Sea Dependency—and by Australia, and finally the British Falkland Islands Dependency. The Norwegians have claimed a sector and the French have claimed a small sector in the windiest part of the Antarctic. There is one large unclaimed sector, which everybody hoped the Americans were going to claim. In terms of discovery, no doubt the British claims have been the strongest. Argentine and Chile have claims based partly on historic grounds, dating from the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494, in which the Pope divided the world between Spain and Portugal, and partly on geographical propinquity. It is argued that the Andes go down under the sea and come up again in the Antarctic. Their claims overlap with the British claims in the Falkland Islands.

The claiming of territory—and here the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, would be able to give your Lordships a much more expert opinion than I can—is a complicated business. That act of discovery may establish a preliminary title, but even the formal act of annexation is valid only in so far as it is not challenged by someone with a stronger claim based on occupation. There is also the principle of sectors. Somebody has invented this sector principle, by which all land lying between a country's own national territory and the North Pole, between certain lines of longitude, automatically belongs to it. This is a very useful principle. The Canadians have applied it and, implicitly, so have the Russians. But this is not so suitable in the Antarctic, where there is no land.

I think it is generally agreed by international lawyers that neither discovery nor formal annexation are enough, and we have the ruling of The Hague Court on the Greenland dispute between the wars, between Norway and Denmark. I should like to quote certain words in the judgment in that case. The claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular title such as a treaty of session but merely upon continued possession of authority involves two elements which must be shown to exist, the intention and will to act as sovereign and some actual exercise or display of such authority. Writing in The Times a few years ago, Professor Waldock, who, as your Lordships know, is a great authority and has been adviser to the Government, drew attention to two modern arbitrations which declined to attach any weight to alleged historical titles of discovery. Professor Waldock went on to emphasise that: … display of State activity in accordance with the requirements of the territory is the natural and decisive criterion in any territorial dispute today. How does one display State activity in a totally uninhabited territory of perhaps one million square miles in extent, covered by ice?

There is an inevitable compulsion to resort to devices. The historical device of the British, which is consistent with our national tradition, is the building of a post office, and we have dotted post offices in one or two places in the Antarctic. One of the South American countries built a church and sent out a priest, though I should have thought that a priest hardly holds allegiance so much to an earthly power. I should have thought that that would have been doubtful evidence. In the Canadian Arctic (I apologise for mentioning this again, as I mentioned it on a previous occasion) the Canadians established police stations. One land where I went at one time had the distinction of being the only land inhabited entirely by policemen.

If we could have taken our claims to the Hague Court, as we attempted to do some years ago, there was a good chance of getting a favourable result, but neither the Argentine nor Chile were willing to submit themselves voluntarily to a judgment of the Court, and therefore there could be no decision. I believe that it was a vain hope to think that they ever would, and to-day we know that they are unwilling to do so. I think that the Government have been entirely right to play the part they have played in seeking to get international agreement.

We have a Treaty which is a model of international co-operation. Briefly, it seeks to demilitarise, or more correctly, non-militarise, the Antarctic. There is the clear provision, in Article IV, that no change in territorial claims will take place during the next 30 years. All nations will keep their present claims but will take no steps to enforce them. They will keep the status quo. No new claim can be asserted, nor shall any action taken now be a basis in the future for developing such a claim. This seems to be a satisfactory compromise and one which has made it easier for Chile and the Argentine, who have strong feelings on this matter, to participate, while at the same time reserving their position without damage to national pride. It gives us time to think about the future in a situation where competition in territorial claims is no longer important.

I feel that I should mention one or two other Articles. Article V establishes control over nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive material. I think it is perhaps a little unnecessarily restrictive in this, because I am not sure that it might not be better to dispose of radioactive material in the ice of the Antarctic where it could exhaust itself than in the seas. It is interesting to note that Article VI applies the Treaty to all ice shelves as well as to the land; and here again we have the mystery of the problem of whether these bits of ice are resting on land or on sea. There are proposals for inspection—scientific observers can be made inspectors; for the free exchange of scientific information, and for further accessions to the Treaty. Altogether it seems to be a most meritorious and deserving Treaty.

But it is to the inevitable gaps in the situation that I should like to draw attention and ask what the Government's policy is. Article IX provides for con tinuing discussion. I should like to ask the Government how they intend to facilitate this. Is it intended to set up a permanent secretariat, and will it have headquarters? I would urge that in anything that is done we should make full use of our great experience and our trained and valuable personnel from the Falkland Islands Dependency Survey—and I hope, incidentally, that the Government will, among other things, foster that work, and that we shall not as a result of signing the Treaty see a rather cynical throwing away of the scientific work done there.

The big questions are those relating to the exercise of jurisdiction. I shall be interested to know what proposals the Government have in that respect. Except for observers, under Article VIII, at the moment there seems to be no provision for jurisdiction. It may be that individual nations can discipline their own scientists. Practically nobody who goes there at the moment is other than a scientist, but this will not be so in the future. We have already had several journalists dropping out of the sky on to the South Pole; and there will be tourists. Who is to enforce jurisdiction on them? And who, if somebody should find some valuable mineral rights, which I am sure will happen one day, is to establish not only national but individual ownership of those rights?

Who will police the land? What courts will administer the law, if there be a law? These are matters of which noble and learned Lords can speak much better than I can, but I did consult Archbold on Criminal Pleading, and I find there that no British subject can be tried under English law, except a servant of the Crown, for an offence committed on land abroad, unless there is a statutory provision to the contrary. There are certain statutory exceptions. A British criminal who commits murder abroad can be brought back to this country and be tried as if the murder had been committed in this country. But a British citizen who commits rape—that may sound an unlikely happening in the Antarctic—could not be brought back. A foreigner who commits a crime against a British subject would not be subject to British law, except I believe in the case of treason, which is a more difficult question raising profound issues on another matter altogether.

There may be even more difficult matters. There are certain countries who have claimed sovereignty there, and it may well be that, like ourselves, they will seek to enforce that sovereignty. That would bring up precisely the sort of situation which this Treaty is designed to avoid, although it does not at the moment prevent it. There are even more anomalies. What would happen if the national of one of the countries not a signatory, say a Roumanian, were to assault a Greek in the unclaimed sector of the Antarctic? Well, I will leave that for noble and learned Lords to supply the answer!

This, of course, is all very hypothetical, but I would repeat that it is now, when there is no problem, that we ought to seek a solution in advance. My view is that there is only one long-term solution, which I hope the Government will support—namely, that the Antarctic should be fully internationalised and, indeed, that it should be the first United Nations territory. I have believed this for many years, and I believe that in time it will come about. I have still a secret belief that the world would be a better place if it would always consent to be ruled by the British, but, unfortunately, the world as a whole does not agree, and we have to recognise this fact. It is because we have this advance in a concept of internationalism and of humanity rather than nationality that I believe this to be an opportunity for an experiment in such international sovereignty.

I feel that we ought to have recognised this before. Immediately after the war proposals for an international solution were not very popular, particularly in relation to the United Nations, because it might have meant bringing Russia into the Antarctic. But it was obvious that Russia would go to the Antarctic. Russia is there in the Antarctic to-day, and, indeed, has played a worthy part in the achievement of this Treaty. Whatever our feelings or prejudices may be on this subject, I am sure that in the long run the solution is to follow the proposals set out by Mr. Nash, of New Zealand, and Mr. Nehru for internationalising the Antarctic. There may be no human beings, and no concepts of trusteeship apply, but I do not think there will now ever be a time when there is not man in the Antarctic.

I would propose, therefore, that the Government should themselves take a lead—and again I pay tribute to the initiative of the Government, belated though it may have been; and that applies to other Governments, too—in achieving this particular Treaty. A Board could be set up similar to the United Nations Agency for the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Already we have the nucleus for an administration in the continuing consultative machinery and in the experience, particularly, of the International Geophysical Year. I hope that this problem will be solved, because if it is not it is likely to cost this country quite a bit in the future, as it has already; and it is better, for once, if it were ever possible, to solve a dispute in advance while still waiting for it to arise.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships further. I would just say that such an agency could be responsible—and most necessary such a responsibility would be—for acting as a Land Registry. I am told that there is no possibility at the moment of owning your own property in the Antarctic; that if one country were to find, say, a uranium mine it would be impossible for them to make good their claims to it, or for an individual to make good his claim, except possibly by resort to force; and that, I am happy to say, whatever happens, is expressly forbidden in the Treaty. Therefore, an international solution and a clear establishment of international sovereignty seems to me in the long run to be the only completely satisfactory solution. It may also be a useful trial run for some of the problems that are going to have to be solved outside the earth, where already distinguished lawyers are thinking about the establishment of some sort of code for space and perhaps the moon. It would be nice to think that the British, whose claims in the past have been so strong and who have pioneered so much in the Antarctic, might take the lead in proposing a really imaginative and world-stimulating solution. I believe it would be no disrespect to those who went to the Antarctic, carrying the flag of their country, if, in this new age, we were to turn their work into an international cause. Therefore I hope that the Govment will take a lead in the discussions that are forthcoming, will declare their position, and will achieve that, for the first time in the Antarctic, the flag of the United Nations shall fly over United Nations territory.

3.40 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has drawn attention to the Antarctic Treaty. I am sure your Lordships will agree that there is no one who is better fitted to raise this subject in this House, not only as the son of one of the great Antarctic leaders, but also in his own right as a polar explorer who organised a most successful expedition to Ellesmere Land, in the Arctic, some years before the war.

Perhaps it is easier to devise the terms of a treaty, to which a number of nations could agree, when it concerns a continent which has as yet no permanent residents and inhabitants. But even so, this Treaty seems to me to be a most notable achievement. After all, it is not so long since the Antarctic looked as if it would become a source of increasing conflict and dispute, rather than, as this Treaty gives one good prospects of hoping, a continent which offers free scope for a number of nations to co-operate. The terms of the Treaty have, in fact, met the requirements of three different groups: first, the seven nations, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has referred, who have made specific claims to sectors of the Antarctic; secondly, a group of countries who have not yet made claims, but who might be interested in doing so, or have stated their interest in doing so; and thirdly, those who have shown no wish to be involved in questions of national sovereignty so far as the Antarctic is concerned but who wish to have free access to the Antarctic. The requirements of these three groups have been met in the most appropriate manner—namely, by freezing the whole position in respect of sovereignty under Article IV of this Treaty.

A further important factor (the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has stressed this, and I should like to support him, particularly in what he said in this regard), which is mentioned in the Preamble, and also in the first clause of this Treaty, is that the Antarctic should be used for peaceful purposes only. This rules out strategic bases, military manæuvres or the testing of weapons, nuclear or otherwise, any or all of which, without such a Treaty, might so easily be introduced to the Antarctic Continent. I therefore join with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in earnestly hoping that Her Majesty's Government will ratify the Treaty; indeed, one hopes that the Governments of all the signatory countries—twelve in number—will do the same. In addition, I hope that the noble Marquess who is to reply to this Question may be able to give an assurance that the British contribution in Antarctic investigation and research under the Treaty will not be less than that which is taking place at the present time.

This question depends, of course, upon a prior question—namely, whether there is any point in our spending human effort and money in the Antarctic. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I supplement some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has made in that respect. The character of this Continent, about the same size as the United States and Europe put together, is now roughly known. Almost the entire 14,000 miles of its coastline have been roughly charted, and the greater part of the interior has now been seen from the air and is known to be covered with a vast sheet of ice. We know that the climate is severe, the lowest recorded temperature being l57 degrees of frost, with much of the continent constantly swept by winds. It is arguable that such an inhospitable part of the world may best be left to its own devices, now that it has been discovered and roughly mapped, and now that the challenge which it presented to man's spirit of adventure has been met, as it was in the earlier days by incredible feats of endurance under such leaders as the father of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, Captain Scott, Amundsen and Mawson, and, more recently, in journeys of great enterprise, resource and tenacity, such as the first crossing of the Antarctic Continent under Sir Vivian Fuchs' leadership. In all this type of exploration there has been the intense interest of opening up part of the world which was completely unknown until recent times, and a part of the world which is quite unique in its character.

The sense of this has been expressed, perhaps a trifle dramatically, in lines the authorship of which I cannot remember: To make timeless Scythian tracts Become the provinces of knowledge, To unrol Nature's Sibyllene Scroll Make mysteries speak that had been dumb And to enlarge the bounds of man's imperious soul. There was something of this in the past achievements of Antarctic exploration. But what about the future, now that the continent is no longer unknown? Is the appeal to further exploration more than a rather artificial attempt to perpetuate the adventurous response to challenges which were made in the past but which do not present themselves in the same terms and in the same way at the present time? I feel little doubt about the answer that will be given to that question. It is, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has already said, impossible to predict the possible future uses of this continent. It is not altogether out of the question that certain coastal areas could be made habitable. There may be other uses which at present would seem rather far-fetched. But there are more immediate and more certain grounds for believing that the continued exploration (and there is an immense amount of actual land exploration still waiting to be done) and scientific investigation in the Antarctic are objectives really worth carrying out.

These grounds are not, in the first instance, purely economic, though, of course, economic assets which are at present unknown may come to light in the future. Up to the present, the greatest economic resource does not belong to the continent itself at all—namely, whaling, which is largely carried out from pelagic factory ships, and, on a very much smaller scale, sealing. There may be minerals worth exploiting, but these have not been discovered in any significant amounts. When one considers the difficulties of country and climate, and the great distances from any market, it is highly unlikely that it would pay to mine and export most of the known minerals, even if these were found, as so far they have not been found in rich deposits. The benefits which we may expect to derive from the Antarctic are therefore unlikely to be the orthodox exploration of mineral resources, a development which human nature, being what it is, might in any case lead to difficulties.

The chief prospective export from the Antarctic is that which is envisaged by this Treaty—namely, an ever-increasing range of scientific information, much of it of considerable interest of an academic kind, and some of prospective benefit to mankind. There is, for instance, the value of Antarctic stations in long-range weather forecasting: a value increased by the prospect, for instance (and here I do not wish in any way to pose as an expert, for I do not have much knowledge of this subject), of a satellite in full orbit which could transmit information to a receiving station at the South Pole to be relayed from there to other centres. Such a satellite might transmit a daily picture of the cloud cover of a large part of the earth, which could be an invaluable aid to weather forecasting. Another instance is the value of geophysical studies conducted from Antarctic stations in the high atmosphere or ionosphere to world radio communication, work which requires international co-operation of just the kind which the Antarctic Treaty sets out to foster. It would be wearisome to list all the varied fields of scientific inquiry in which valuable research can be undertaken in the Antarctic, but in some of these, and in particular in geophysics, meteorology, glaciology and some branches of biology, the particular position and the particular conditions of the Antarctic are the very factors which give to their scientific inquiry a special interest and value.

If it be conceded that further work in the Antarctic is worthwhile, I think that this country can continue to make, as it has done in the past, a significant contribution—a fact to which again the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, alluded, between 1775, when Captain Cook's circumnavigation of the world had dispelled the idea of a southern continent extending to temperate regions, and 1943, there were 87 expeditions to the south. Of these, 41 were British. Of the 87, 20 were scientific expeditions which spent one or more winters in the Antarctic, and of those 20—and I think this is a remarkable record—ten, one half, were British. I do not include within that number the whaling and sealing voyages which in the early years were predominantly British and American, and latterly Norwegian as well.

In 1944, with the establishment of permanently occupied bases the pattern of scientific work in the Antarctic changed, and here again the contribution of the United Kingdom has been a notable one. In 1953 there were 16 such stations in the Antarctic; 6 United Kingdom, 7 Argentine, and 3 Chilean. By the beginning of the International Geophysical Year the total number of stations South of Latitude 60 had risen to 46 occupied by 11 nations, and of these 15 were operated by the United Kingdom. The development of the work has been extremely rapid. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me one personal observation. In the years when I was myself wintering in the Antarctic, the population of that continent in the first winter was 16 and in the second 9, and it was strange to reflect that in this parish of five million or six million square miles one knew intimately all the parishioners. Now there is a difference. At the height of the International Geophysical Year, two years ago, it was estimated that there were 6,000 men, 1,200 working ashore and the rest of them in ships, actively engaged in Antarctic work.

In addition to the historical pioneer expeditions, the United Kingdom has undertaken two major projects of a continuing nature in the Antarctic, projects which have been of great value. In the first place there were the Discovery Investigations. These were initiated by the formation of the Discovery Committee in 1923, which undertook work in the main from the three Royal research ships, "Discovery", "Discovery II" and "William Scoresby". Apart from the intrinsic value of those investigations, the research provided the essential foundations for control of the whaling industry and led to the international Agreements to conserve the stock of whales.

Secondly, and in sequence to the Discovery Investigations, there was the Falkland Islands Dependency Survey, established in 1943 and built up by the Colonial Office, and by successive Governor; of the Falkland Islands, into a highly successful research organisation operating from a number of permanently occupied stations. The area which this Survey has mapped in detail over the past fifteen years is approximately the same as the area of England and Wales. That may be a small proportion of the whole continent, but since the topography is extremely rugged in that part of the Antarctic, and difficult of access, the preparation of 85 large-scale map sheets and the planned progress of the Geological Survey in the dependencies, together with the records of the permanently occupied meteorological stations, constitute a unique achievement representing 800 man-years on the part of those who have served in this organisation. And I believe they are to be most warmly congratulated on what they have done.

The British contribution has been notable and we are in a good position to continue and to develop it in the future. There is an increasing supply of men, mostly young men, who have the interest, the knowledge and the personal qualifications for such work. There are also the organisations. There is the Falkland Islands Dependency Survey Bureau in London, under the directorship of Sir Vivian Fuchs. There is the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, a centre of information and research for the Polar regions. There is the Royal Geographical Society, under the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, always ready to play a prominent part in fostering research and exploration in the Polar regions; and there is the National Institute of Oceanography. I hope that in future British activities under the Treaty due regard will be paid to the value of those agencies, and that support will be given to them to enable them to play their part, not only in the national interest but, as the Treaty implies, as a partner with other countries in international collaboration.

There were in many of the earlier expeditions cases of individuals from other countries being members of essentially national expeditions. The first truly international expedition was the Norwegian-British-Swedish Antarctic expedition of 1949–1952 under the leadership of the Norwegian John Giæver. That expedition was inspired by the distinguished Swedish glaciologist Professor Hans Ahlmann. It was extremely successful, both scientifically and in personal relations. Each of the participating countries was responsible for organising the three main fields of science in which this expedition was mainly occupied. Norway undertook the meteorology, Sweden the glaciology and Britain the geology. Each country contributed its ideas and experience about equipment. So far as language went it will probably not surprise your Lordships to learn that the expedition were all speaking fluent English after the first few months—such is the courtesy of other nations to our linguistic limitations.

The International Geophysical Year of 1957–58 was a different type of co-operation. Its scope was immense and its success remarkable. It engaged the co-operation of 67 countries and showed that in sharing scientific work the problems of peaceful international co-operation could be overcome. One of its chief activities was a concerted drive for the scientific study and exploration of the Antarctic on a scale far beyond all previous efforts; and it is the experience of the International Geophysical Year which has made possible the terms of this Treaty. It has led to the setting up of the Special Committee on Antarctic Research—an international Committee composed of representatives from the same twelve nations that have signed the Antarctic Treaty. The Committee held its first meeting in February, 1958, and is proving itself to be well suited for the purposes of international collaboration under this Treaty. It is my belief that this co-operation in scientific work, for which the Antarctic provides a unique and peculiar laboratory, is of far greater consequence than that of advance in science alone. Here is a sphere of common interest in which men of different background, different ideas, different attitudes and nationalities really can get to know, to understand and to respect each other, working together on a common ground of mutual interest and on personal terms. To foster such cooperation, which as I see it this Treaty will facilitate, is, I believe, to make some contribution to the cause of peace.

4.1 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, today is one of those occasions when, traditionally in your Lordships' House, in a debate of this sort following upon the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the speakers are experts on the subject. I think that all the speakers to-day, with the exception of myself, are in one way or another experts on this or similar matters. I shall keep your Lordships for only a few moments—in fact, I am only on my feet at all because my noble Leader was not able to take part in the debate, as he would have liked to do, and because he wished to express the agreement of those on these Benches with the speech, the attitude of mind, and the approach of the noble Lord who has asked the Question.

Those of your Lordships who are a little older will remember that at one time when banquets were more common than they are to-day and consisted of eight or nine courses, about half way through the banquet there was introduced something called a sorbet—a sort of water ice. The idea was to allow one perhaps to digest and think of the courses one had had, and to enable one the more to enjoy those that were to follow. I find myself at the moment in the place of the sorbet, in that your Lordships have heard two most informed speeches from two experts on this matter, and at any moment you will be hearing the great experts of the law on the judicial side of this most interesting problem.

In the meantime, for two or three minutes, may I just put forward the attitude of the man in the street to this question, which is one of great interest, particularly as it was put by the noble Lord whose father's name will be for ever associated with that part of the world's surface? It has been taken up in a most interesting speech from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich, who, I believe, has considerable knowledge of that part of the world, though most modestly he glossed over that aspect of the matter.

The noble Lord who asked the Question referred to his hope that this might prove to be the first United Nations territory. I think that there is nobody in your Lordships' House to-day who would not agree with him on that, and would not profoundly hope that here is a chance at last, not only for the signatories to this Treaty but for others, to agree that here is a new territory where perhaps we could make a new start with goodwill. The past hundreds of years have shown that wars and troubles of all sorts are caused more often than not by density of population in one place and sparsity of population in another. There is no need to say that to an assembly as erudite as this one, nor is there any need to invite your Lordships to look at a map of the world showing population density, because your Lordships are well aware of it. If one looks at such a map—I am glad to say that I was given a brand-new one for Christmas this year—one sees where the trouble spots have beer and are likely to be caused by the density of population.

We have had the cry of Lebensraum in Europe. Napoleon Bonaparte had the same sort of idea 150 years before. We have had the Japanese gazing towards Australia and elsewhere. Now we have China with India on her southern border, Your Lordships all know what happens. But this is not the time or the place to go into all that. Now we have this huge territory virtually unpopulated. Is it a new chance for nations and men of goodwill to show that they are indeed men of goodwill, instead of employing the "smash and grab" methods of other years? I profoundly hope that it is.

I was amused by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the first post set up by Great Britain was a post office, and by the Canadians a police post, and by a South American country, the name of which he did not specify, a church, presumably with a priest or clergyman inside it. This, I think, is a clear indication of the national approach to affairs of this sort by the countries concerned. Where Great Britain is concerned it shows, beyond ally possible doubt, I think, that we are in fact governed by the Civil Service and not by the Government of the day, whoever they may be. Secondly, in regard to Canada, as an under-populated country, still a young country, they are nervous and their minds turn immediately to security and the police. The unspecified South American country took perhaps rather a longer view in setting up a church—that in the long run it would be there after the post office and the police post had proved unnecessary. I rather hoped that the right reverend Prelate would have taken up that point. He did not do so; and so perhaps I may be forgiven for doing it for him. Perhaps he will agree with it.

My Lords, before I resume my seat I should like to congratulate the noble Lord who asked this Question and who made such an able speech, not only on his interesting approach to it but on the importance he gave to this matter. I believe that one day—ten, twenty or thirty years hence—this may turn out to be a most important debate. It is for that reason that we are all looking forward to hearing those noble Lords who speak with legal knowledge of the matter. I hope that when the noble Marquess comes to reply he will not only reply with the charm and courtesy to which we are accustomed from him, but that we may have a little more than that—a clear pronouncement by the noble Marquess that the Government are earnestly interested in this important matter.

4.10 p.m.

LORD DENNING

My Lords, it is a risky thing for an English Judge to stand on the slippery slopes of international law, especially the international law of the Antarctic, where the ice is so thick, for to me it is just as perilous to skate on thick ice as it is on thin. It seems to me, however, that this Treaty shows for the first time a co-operation between all nations interested in laying down a system of positive law for a whole great continent. The four great principles of law which have been enunciated are, first, that use shall be for peaceful purposes only, and that there shall be no weapon testing there and no military fortifications or bases. Secondly, there shall be freedom of scientific investigation for everybody everywhere, so that any people of any country can go to any part of this great continent. Thirdly, there is prohibition of any nuclear tests or disposal of radioactive material—all that is prohibited. And, furthermore, observers may be appointed by any country to go and inspect what any other country is doing there, and to go on the ships of other countries in port or wherever they may be, and see what is happening.

That entails on the part of every country—and particularly on the part of the United Kingdom, which has the strongest claims of any here—a limitation, and an agreed limitation, of sovereignty; and the only hope for the future of international law throughout the world is an agreed limitation of sovereignty. This country, I suggest, has shown the way in agreeing, for instance, that in relation to territories over which it claims sovereignty, those territories shall be used only for peaceful purposes; that observers may come anywhere there, and that there shall be freedom of scientific investigation.

Now, however, there is the qualification which my noble friend Lord Shackleton has indicated. It is all very well to have positive laws, but laws are no good in the long run unless we have machinery for enforcing them. Indeed, in the past, the weakness of international law—even in this area—has been the lack of any machinery for enforcement or of any way of getting the parties before a court. The United Kingdom took the matter before the International Court of Justice and asked those who opposed her claims to come before the Court, too, but there was no response. We must have some machinery for enforcement of the law, and that is why I hope that these Consultative Committees of all nations, set up in perpetual session, may be able to help.

Just take the cases which may arise at any time. Suppose not only one of these twelve countries but some other country says, "I want to put a base on this territory and I will do so", or that some other country says, "I want to dispose of radioactive waste in this territory, as that is the best place to do so"; or suppose some country wants to have there a nuclear test explosion. Suppose, again, that some country says, "I do not want your observer to come and look over my ship; I object to his doing so". How are those disputes to be resolved? In this Treaty there is the clause, so often found in international treaties, providing that a dispute can be submitted to the International Court of Justice with the consent of the party affected. If that party does not consent there is no way of resolving the dispute. The greatest gesture of all would be for lawyers and countries to agree that if there should be a dispute it should be submitted to the jurisdiction of that Court.

So much for the international plane. But what of the plane of private law, of individuals and properties? What law governs this continent when individuals are concerned in disputes? Let me tell your Lordships what happened in the unsettled lands of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland two hundred years ago, on which cases came up to our courts. One of the earliest arose when a naval expedition went ashore. Some settlers and camp followers set up a provision but and supplied intoxicating liquor to the sailors. The admiral commanded that the but should be pulled down. There was an action in the courts; but no remedy lay, because the English courts had no jurisdiction over such territories. Again, some Canadian fishermen set up a hut and English fishermen pulled it down, and there was no remedy in our courts. Then, in South Africa (more nearly pertinent to this) the British South Africa Company sank a mine and another company challenged its right to do so. The question was whether the English courts had jurisdiction; whether that was held by this House sitting judicially; and the answer was, No, No English court has jurisdiction over land abroad. No English court has jurisdiction over crimes abroad other than murder by British subjects. Indeed, a case of cruel assault in one of these waste lands in Canada could not be tried in England.

Suppose that, in this great new continent, there is some question of property, of sinking a mine somewhere, or there is a cruel assault, or an observer goes from one place to another and is ill-treated and misused: what court can deal with such matters? Certainly no English court, on the cases of which I have told your Lordships; and I believe through all the laws of all countries, none of them has such jurisdiction. Who is to have jurisdiction in this territory in matters of property or of person? All the Treaty says is that the observers shall be under the jurisdiction of their own country. So the English observers are under the jurisdiction of this country—but that is of little use when there are neither the courts nor the machinery to deal with such cases. Indeed, it is little more than saying that there is immunity, the same as armed forces in this country at one time had immunity from courts in this country, or diplomatic immunity. At present there is no law at all to cover individuals or property in the Antarctic. There is no international machinery for settling disputes by a compulsory form of arbitration.

Is not the next great step—having agreed upon the positive principles of the law—for these Committees of all nations to work out co-operation on some machinery for settling disputes if and when they arise—an international licensing authority maybe? If that could be done, if in cases of dispute there could be compulsory submission of disputes to the International Court, or, in the long run, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, if this territory could be made international territory, this could be an example to everyone in the way of the future of law and order in the world itself.

4.19 p.m.

LORD MCNAIR

My Lords, I feel we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for drawing our attention to this Treaty. It has not received the degree of publicity which its importance warrants. From the scientific point of view, I have, naturally, very little to say. I have had the benefit of discussing the Treaty with an old friend who was one of Captain Scott's companions on his last expedition to the Antarctic—Professor Debenham of Cambridge, former Director of the Polar Institute—and it is quite clear, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich has shown us, that from the point of view of those who are interested in the scientific use of the Antarctic, this Treaty is a great achievement. There is no doubt that one of its benefits will be that it will prolong, perhaps even make permanent, the valuable work that has resulted and will result from the International Geophysical Year.

When I turn to the legal aspect of this document I fear that I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who raised a number of legal questions, both British and international, many of which have been further developed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. With regard to the questions of British law raised by him, I would only say this: that this country has had a good deal of experience in the past in dealing with foreign jurisdiction overseas. There are foreign jurisdiction Acts on our Statute Book, and I do not think that it is beyond our legal abilities to find a solution of those private law difficulties which may arise. But when I turn to the international legal aspect of the matter, I propose to resist the temptation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, has exposed me, to say something about the various questions of title which might have arisen but for this Treaty. The great merit of this Treaty is that it freezes the legal status quo in the Antarctic. For that reason I venture to think it undesirable that anything should be done now to raise those questions which have thus been put into cold storage and which may not arise for a great many years.

As the right reverend Prelate made clear to us, the twelve States which combined to negotiate this Treaty fall into three categories: those who had definitely staked claims in the Antarctic; those who had not done so but had the basis of claims, and who declined to recognise the claims of others; and thirdly, those who had merely manifested an interest in the Antarctic. It would have taken many years, and probably resulted in a good deal of acrimony, if an attempt had been made to settle those claims either by negotiation or by adjudication; and, indeed, there was no need to deal with those claims at present. Had it been a question of ownership, had it been necessary for the development in the ensuing decades to deal with questions of ownership, it would have been a different matter. But the genius of this document, as I see it, is that it has substituted the principle of the common peaceful user of the Antarctic for the older practice of "scramble and grab" in order to establish a proprietary title. That, to my mind, is the great achievement of this Treaty. In other words, the negotiators of this Treaty adopted the homely principle of not crossing a river until one comes to it; and by means of this establishment of the common user of the Antarctic the world will be able to derive all the benefits that we are likely to derive from the Antarctic in the foreseeable future by means of the piece of international cooperation which has been established by the Treaty.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, drew attention to one point which seems to me to be full of interest and full of value on a wider scale; that is, the introduction of the principle of observers—that observers are free to range about the Antarctic, to visit installations and boats, and so forth. It seems to me that this is a principle which may prove to be of very great value in other respects.

The Treaty has also established, although in embryonic form, the machinery for an international administration. Each of the parties to the Treaty, including those who may accede, will be able to send representatives to the administrative Committee; and the Treaty enumerates the immediate problems with which that administrative body will have to deal. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to the possibility of placing the Antarctic under the administration of the United Nations. That may well happen in time, but what I want to see happen at once is a meeting of this Committee to establish its procedure; and then the course of time will show what is the best ultimate solution of that question.

There is just one other aspect of this Treaty which is full of possibilities for the future, and that is the analogy that it may supply to those who are attempting to work out the legal problems of space. That possible analogy has already been noticed and has come under discussion, to my knowledge, in certain American publications. My Lords, those of us who believe that the world is moving inevitably (some of us like it and some do not) to some kind of world government must see in this Treaty another step in that direction. For all these reasons consider that our Government and the other States that have negotiated this Treaty deserve our congratulations, and I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will take a very strong lead in securing the widespread ratification of the Treaty.

4.30 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I should like shortly to say that all my noble friends on this side of the House agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, in welcoming this Treaty wholeheartedly—and, indeed, in congratulating Her Majesty's Government upon its conclusion. It is a step. It is not perhaps all that we should have hoped for. It is rather negative: it is a freezing of the status quo.

It gives some form of machinery in the future for dealing with the affairs of the Antarctic, although, with great respect, I would question whether Article IX really constitutes, as the noble and learned Lord said, machinery for international administration, or a continuing machinery. It makes arrange ments for a meeting at Canberra after the coming into force of the Treaty, and for subsequent meetings of those representatives, but I suggest that something more definite and more permanent would be needed to keep the situation under review continuously. Perhaps the noble Marquess could clear up that point, whether Her Majesty's Government regard it as a satisfactory arrangement for the future.

Of course, as my noble friend said, we should have liked something in the nature of an international sovereignty. Instead of no sovereignty or a freezing of claims, we should hope in time that that, the only area of the world not parcelled out into individual sovereignty, might be the prototype of something approaching a World Government, and a tract of the earth which is under the government and under the sovereignty of the United Nations. As has been said by other speakers, we hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the lead in moving forward from the stage of this present Treaty towards something which will give a more permanent assurance that national rivalries will not take place in the Antarctic.

We should have liked to see a closer link with the United Nations. The only mention in the Treaty of the United Nations is, I think, in the Preamble. That is to the effect that the Treaty will further the purposes and principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)

It is mentioned in Article III, paragraph 2.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I am sorry if I have missed it. I see that it says it will work in close relation with the Specialised Agencies. It is essentially a regional Treaty, something on the lines of others that have arisen in recent years, and it would surely be preferable if it could be linked more directly to the United Nations—but perhaps that is looking a gift horse in the mouth. Any step towards resolving international rivalries and competition is a step towards mutual confidence between nations.

I think that the most remarkable Article in this Treaty is the one on inspection and observers. If there is complete freedom for movement of observers, and inspection, and complete freedom of communication between the observers, there is no reason for suspicion and fear to arise among the different nations concerned in that area. That seems to me to be the greatest advance that this Treaty marks. Article XIII, which permits any State that is a member of the United Nations to accede to the Treaty, is a safeguard against nations remaining outside the Treaty and asserting claims or rights in Antarctica. The noble Marquess will, I hope, be able to tell us whether the Government think it will be possible to increase the number of signatories by inducing other countries to accede, because so far only twelve nations have agreed on this Treaty. Surely, until every member of United Nations has acceded to it, there will be a danger of independent action by some other nation contrary to the spirit of this Treaty.

The last question I should like to ask is: when do Her Majesty's Government expect to ratify it, and when do they expect the Treaty to enter into force? Subject to that, I should like to repeat that we wholeheartedly welcome the Treaty.

4.38 p.m.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, I rise only to ask a question, but I could not resist the temptation to say how heartily we all rejoice in this Treaty. It is a Treaty about land and frontiers, and all sorts of things. I do not know how far it goes. It is very vague, no doubt, as all the lawyers have pointed out, but it is a Treaty where two great Powers—namely, the Soviets and the United States, have agreed. That it has been possible to make such a Treaty, is in itself an immense step forward. I should lice to say that the country owes a great deal to the Prime Minister for breaking the ice when he paid his visit to Moscow a short time ago.

The question I want to ask is about accessions to the Treaty. That is dealt with in Article XIII, which has been referred to by lily noble friend. This Treaty is sponsored by the founder members—twelve, I think—and it is open to accession by any member of the United Nations. Then, beyond that (because there are countries which are not members of the United Nations to be found among us), it is open to accession by any one who can secure the unanimous support of the founder members. That means to say that it would be possible under this Treaty to exclude a country if it happened that it was not pleasing to one member of the founders and was not a member of the United Nations. It might be excluded from the whole apparatus; and that, I think, would be a very harmful thing. I have in mind a great country which has been excluded from most world contacts at the present time. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has thought of this point and whether there is any way in which we could lift this organisation right above all the nagging land quarrelling that is going on, even in the United Nations, and make this very slender beginning, but still a beginning, the foundation of agreement for a real world organisation.

4.40 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those of the other noble Lords who have spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for asking this Question. Certainly there is no more fitting Member of your Lordships' House to do so. Perhaps I may be allowed to stray from the subject for a moment. I remember vividly, I think now about 40 years ago, listening to a lecture by the noble Lord's distinguished father, and the great satisfaction that I got out of having been introduced to Sir Ernest at the end of the lecture, which I immensely enjoyed. To-day, if I may say so without presumption, I immensely enjoyed listening to the speech of the noble Lord—a speech full of knowledge, a speech full of philosophy, and a speech which clothed what I had believed to be empty wastes with intriguing figures, which I have no doubt were not figures of the noble Lord's imagination.

I would also add my sincere praise to Sir Esler Dening and his colleagues and advisers for their contribution in bringing about this Treaty, which has received from all quarters of your Lordships' House such unstinted and well deserved praise. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said in the course of what I thought was rather grudging praise of the Treaty, that perhaps we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. Perhaps that was not the way he intended it, but his remarks did not sound so wholehearted as observations from other noble Lords. I am sure that the noble Earl is aware that we cannot look on this as a gift horse. It is not a gift. This is an achievement, a great achievement, a compromise and a co-operative effort between twelve countries, and I think that we should all be grateful, as most noble Lords appear to be, for what has been achieved.

I could not help writing down the words of praise used by noble Lords during the course of their observations: the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton— "an extremely sensible Treaty" and "a model of international co-operation"; the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate— "how heartily we rejoice"; the right reverend Prelate—"a notable achievement", and also, "some contribution to the cause of peace"; the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair—" a great achievement". All this is high praise indeed, and I am happy to be able in addition humbly to offer my own.

As regards the ratification of the Treaty, Her Majesty's Government hope to ratify it at an early date. As your Lordships know, a Treaty cannot enter into force until all the signatory States have ratified, and I understand that a number of the Parliaments of the Governments concerned are not at present in session, because of the latitudes in which these countries are, and will not be in session for some time, so inevitably there will be a degree of delay.

In his original Question, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is in Antarctica. I can say, without any hesitation, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to promote the basic aims of this Treaty which we have been discussing this afternoon, a Treaty which I think we all agree is a wonderful example of international co-operation and which was achieved only through mutual willingness to compromise. This Treaty should ensure the use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes only, and we hope that it has established a firm foundation for scientific cooperation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair said, it also provides for the maintenance of the legal status quo—"freezing" I think was the word the noble and learned Lord used. In that, I would associate myself with him. I believe that to be a great merit. It is not for me, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, hesitated to embark on the slippery slopes of international law, to run that risk; but it appears to me that there is great merit in this "freezing" of the status quo which makes it unnecessary for claims to title to be dealt with at all. I believe that that can be one of the most important achievements of this Treaty.

The Treaty gives away no British territory. Article IV, to which allusion has been made, provides for maintenance of the status quo and ensures that our rights under international law are not prejudiced by participation in this Treaty or by anything that may occur during its currency. It is true that Her Majesty's Government would have preferred a more comprehensive system of administration, but it was not possible to achieve this at the Conference. I think that this is a great step forward, and we must not carp at not having got all that we might have hoped for. What has been obtained is undoubtedy a great improvement on the situation as it has existed, in which, as your Lordships know, scientific co-operation has been hindered by political differences. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who said that even shots had been fired.

The administrative arrangements for consultation are a matter which has concerned several noble Lords. I was particularly gratified to note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, seemed satisfied that Article IX, as drafted, will achieve its objective. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that such consultations as will take place under the provision of Article IX will render valuable service in reducing the possibility of political friction in Antarctica. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will agree with me about this.

In this connection, I feel that I should answer the direct question which the noble Lord put to me about a permanent secretariat. So far as I am informed, this is still under discussion in Washington and I am not able to, and, indeed, should not, say anything at this time. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we would certainly agree that some form of permanent secretariat will be required, and that is a matter now under discussion. I sincerely hope that what we wish for and what I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton wishes for will in fact be brought about.

On the question of the exchange of strictly scientific information and the planning of research, which comes under Article III of the Treaty, the opinion of Her Majesty's Government is that Governments should not attempt to supersede the existing organisations such as the Special Committee on Antarctic Research, which, as the noble Lord knows well, has been working effectively since 1958. Your Lordships will observe also that under paragraph 2 of Article III of the Treaty—and this was the paragraph to which I drew the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan—it is said: … every encouragement shall be given to the establishment of co-operative working relations with those Specialised Agencies of the United Nations and other international organisations having a scientific or technical interest in Antarctica. There is an attempt to strike a proper balance. We should make full use of a piece of machinery which has recently been created. I hope it will not be superseded and that we shall continue to make use of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government expects the Falkland Islands Dependency Survey to continue—the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich, who asked me a specific question about it, knows well that it is a principal contributor to Antarctic research.

Her Majesty's Government, as I said at the outset, would have wished the Treaty to go further than it does in dealing with certain matters, and one of them, of course, is the question of jurisdiction. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, those people who are most immediately affected by the Treaty, such as observers, exchange scientists, their staffs, and so on, are in fact covered. But, as was indicated at the Conference, Her Majesty's Government will revert to this question of jurisdiction over the persons and the property of those persons after the Treaty has entered into force and when the representatives meet under the provision of Article IX. I can assure the noble Lord that it is not a matter that is being overlooked and we hope that when this Treaty comes into effect it will be threshed out under Article IX. It is certainly something which is miles beyond my comprehension, but which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, said is a most interesting model problem of international law. Let us hope that some satisfactory solution will be worked out.

On the question of inspection, this, as your Lordships can see, is provided for under Article VTI of the Treaty. Clearly it will have to be implemented with a good deal of common sense, because some of the bases are so small that they could not possibly house or support more than a very few observers at a time. That clause will therefore have to be interpreted in a sensible and reasonable way.

In conclusion, I come to the question of accession. Not for the first time the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has posed me a question to which I am unable to give him a satisfactory answer. He drew attention to the Article which deals with the question of accession. I think it should suffice for this evening if I say that in this Treaty a great step forward has been taken, as the noble Viscount himself was good enough to say. The cold wind of the cold war did not blow through this Treaty, and we have gone a long way in getting agreement between the twelve signatories. What the noble Viscount said as to the possibility of exclusion is, of course, true and cannot be denied. I wish I could give him a solution to the problem now. He was good enough to tell me in advance that he wished to ask this question, and I have given it a great deal of thought since, but I cannot give him an adequate reply. Once again I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for having raised this question and having given Members of your Lordships' House the opportunity of praising what I regard as a most important Treaty and a great step forward in civilisation.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the gist of his answer about this country that would be vetoed—and we all know about whom we are talking—is that this vast country will be immune from any obligation under this Treaty that she will simply enjoy all the rights that others have put in cold storage by the Treaty and still be observing strictly International Law?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Although I have not attended your Lordships' House for a long time, I am beginning to learn caution when asked questions by the noble Viscount. I think that is an extremely difficult question and I should prefer notice of it.

LORD CITRINE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a question? He has said that he is unable to give a solution to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Stansgate in regard to exclusion. As it is the maintenance of the principle of the Veto that has caused so much trouble in the United Nations, is the noble Marquess in a position to inform us what country or countries have insisted on this provision?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

No, my Lords, I am not in possession of those facts.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Would the noble Marquess tell us what instructions he would give to—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I asked the leave of the House. If the noble Earl objects I will not go on, but this is important. Would the noble Marquess tell us what would be the instructions given to our representative if this question of Veto arose?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, with the greatest respect, I think it is a great pity to introduce into this discussion an element of controversy of this sort. We have achieved something very considerable, and I think it would be a great pity if this evening we introduced a note of discord. I would prefer not to pursue this matter further.

LORD CITRINE

My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that precisely that argument was put when the question of the Veto was first raised in the United Nations: "Do not raise it now; we have made a good step forward"—and we found subsequently that it was a very big step backward?