I hope I am not doing that. It may seem that when a Debate of this sort has been going on for so long that there is nothing left to say. But there is something left to say. I believe that when we are analysing a situation of this sort, when we are trying to find a solution for it, we ought to know all the facts, and that all the facts ought to be considered. The situation in relation to this matter is this: this was declared an official strike. A ship known as the "Seaboard Ranger" came to Liverpool. It came to discharge its cargo when there was a dispute in the Canadian Seamen's Union. By agreement with the trade union and the Dock Labour Board, that boat was never unloaded in Liverpool. It lay there for weeks before the Liverpool situation developed. That is an important factor in relation to later events. Nobody said subsequently that there had been some alteration in the position concerning the Canadian Seamen's Union.

What precipitated the difficulty in Liverpool—and I believe the action suggested today by the Government—arose out of what happened then in Liverpool. I should like to give the details. There was a ship known as the "Dromore" which plies between Canada, Avonmouth and Liverpool. It always carries Avonmouth and Liverpool cargo and always calls at Avonmouth first. The whole of the cargo is either discharged at Avonmouth or the cargo for that port is discharged there and then the ship goes to Liverpool where the rest of the cargo is discharged. This ship came into dispute at Avonmouth. Part of the Avonmouth cargo was unloaded there, but when the dockers were told that this was a ship which was in dispute they did not unload the whole of the Avonmouth cargo. They refused to unload any more.

One would have imagined that the wisest action would have been to retain the ship at that port, but that did not happen. It came out of port with the Avonmouth cargo over the Liverpool cargo. It came out illegally from Avonmouth without tugs, with the chief constable on board, and the dock gates were opened by unauthorised persons. A crew of English seamen was recruited to the ship. On the voyage between Avonmouth and Liverpool the men were offered double pay to move the cargo lying on top of the Liverpool cargo, so that the Liverpool dockers would not know that the ship was concerned in the dispute. The shipowners in Liverpool were notified. They did not want her to come to Liverpool because the "Seaboard Ranger" was standing there unloaded. However, the ship came into dock at Liverpool. The Avonmouth cargo had been moved by the seamen recruited to the ship who were given double pay. The Liverpool dockers started to unload, and in the process they came into conversation with the seamen, who told them that they had been recruited and had been paid double pay, that they had moved the Avonmouth cargo from on top of the Liverpool cargo, and that the "Dromore" was a ship in dispute so far as the Canadian Seamen's Union was concerned.

The Liverpool dockers working on the ship stopped work immediately. They said, "We will have to see the control room because the 'Seaboard Ranger' is here and obviously this ship is here under the same circumstances." They saw the control and were told that unless they unloaded the "Dromore" their books would be impounded. Their books were impounded, which meant that they were not permitted to work on any other dock or for any other shipping company.

I heard these facts because the biggest number of dock workers in Liverpool are constituents of mine. They came to me not as members of a trade union but as constituents. They said, "The situation in Liverpool is serious. The whole of the docks will stop. We do not want people to stop. Is there any suggestion which can be made?" I felt it my business and duty to find out what the position was. I did something rather unusual. I think that if the Press had got to know about it at that moment there might have been great comment made about it, but this is the first time that this story has been told. I think the House and the front bench, although some of its occupants know about this already, are entitled to know what the situation was.

I rang the Chairman of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board who happens to be the Chairman of the Docks Labour Corporation, and I asked him, "Are you prepared to talk to me?" He replied "And who else?" I said, "It does not matter. Nobody else." I met by appointment the Chairman of the Docks Labour Corporation, and I had a discussion with him for an hour and a half. I came to this conclusion—and this is the difficulty with which we are faced—that no steps had been taken at all by the Government to convince the dockers that what had been done was not a direct attack by the shipowners to destroy the Docks Labour Corporation Scheme. I found—and this is important—that the Board should be composed of six employers and six workpeople, appointed by a ballot from nominations received. I found that there were only five representatives of the workers' side. I found that there had been only five for quite a number of weeks, although the nominations for the panel and the voting results had been sent in, and had been in the hands of those responsible for quite a time previously.

There were six representatives of the employers. Two of them, however, were on the Continent when the Board meeting was called. It was quite obvious that the motion to isolate the cargo of the "Dromore" would not be carried by the Board unless all the employers' representatives were there, so an aeroplane was sent to the Continent to bring back the two representatives in order that the employers should have a full representation at the meeting. So, the situation was that there were six employers' and five workers' representatives. The six employers voted that there should be no isolation of the "Dromore" cargo, and that it must be unloaded under the Docks Scheme. As there were only five of the workpeople's representatives there, there was not an equal number of votes.

I begged Mr. Hodges, the Chairman of the Board, to prove there was no truth in the insinuation that the employers desired to break up the scheme, to do what he had done in relation to the "Sea- board Ranger"—to isolate the "Dromore" until the whole matter had been discussed and a statement could be made on the position. Remember this—and this is the important thing—that the "Seaboard Ranger" had been accepted as a ship in dispute, and had not been unloaded by the workers in Liverpool. It was obvious that the Liverpool dockers, at any rate, would think there was a dispute, and that if the "Dromore" was a ship in dispute it ought to be automatically isolated in the same way as the "Seaboard Ranger" had been. I asked him to use his influence—and I knew that he could do it—to avoid a conflicting situation, and he refused to do so. He said that the Avonmouth situation would be cleared up and the men would be back at work. I said, "Suppose it is not so?" and he said, "Probably we shall have to talk again." That was the week before the Labour Party Conference, and I made it my business, as I thought it was my duty to let the Minister of Labour know the full facts. I begged him to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) has asked him to do—to hold an official inquiry into the position so that the stoppage should not spread.

I am very sorry if what I say should arouse the ire of Members on the Government Front Bench or elsewhere, but I say emphatically that the Government have failed to handle this situation. They have blamed their inability to deal with it on the Communist Party, who are laughing up their sleeves at the power which is being given to them, which they could not get unless chaos were created. I believe that what happened in Liverpool is, at root, the reason for these regulations today. The Minister of Labour broadcast to the Liverpool dockers, who were so loyal to the Government that they were not prepared to be led by the Communist Party; they unanimously agreed to return to work, and did so. I believe the Government felt that by threatening action they might be able to deal with the situation, but have now found that they cannot do so, and are attempting to invoke the use of regulations of this sort.

I believe that the public relations department of the Government has been at fault. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe served as some enlightenment, because if the Government had that information—as obviously they must have done, because my hon. Friend must have given it to them—it was their bounden duty to take every step in their power to see that every docker in the London area knew the full facts as recited by my hon. Friend tonight. The Government must be careful not to lose control of the situation, because if they do, if they get the backs of ordinary, decent, hardworking folk up—particularly the dockers, on whom we rely so much—the whole economic structure of our society can disappear.

There are two questions to which I should like answers. If anything I have said is not true I want it refuted, but I want chapter and verse for that refutation. If my facts are not correct, the basis of my argument goes. But the information I have, which I believe to be completely authentic, is that the "Seaboard Ranger" in Liverpool was agreed by the Board to be in dispute, and was lying in Liverpool unloaded for a long time. Is that true? If it is true it must follow that a ship which escapes out of Bristol or Avonmouth, and whose cargo is moved by men who are recruited and who come to Liverpool, must be a ship in dispute.

The whole matter could have been dealt with if those responsible on the Front Bench would not be so high and mighty, but would come to those of us who are in the area and ask us for information about what is happening. I believe that is part of the difficulty; too much emphasis is put upon the information given by civil servants and officials; insufficient requests for information are made to the Members who deem it their duty to have full knowledge of all the facts, and whose duty it is to give those facts to the officers, and to those responsible on the Front Bench.