By this stage in this most important Debate it may appear to certain Members that almost every aspect of the subject has been covered. One of the great functions of a deliberative assembly, which I feel is most important, is that it should focus attention and give a clear lead, from the public relations aspect, on important points that emerge during a Debate. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) will forgive me for not following her back into the Liverpool episode, because the Debate in general has centred round the position in the London Docks, and I want in the short time I shall detain the House to deal with that position.

I think that two points have been established and have been made crystal clear. The first is that neither of these two ships is a "black" ship in any sense of the word. I would only ask the House to consider the speeches that have been made by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) and the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), and the other speeches of those who have obviously studied the question most carefully, to get the first plank in that argument. I remind the House—and I think the country should have this point in mind—that that same attitude was taken, not only by the leading officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union, but by the officials of the Stevedores' Union, including their secretary, Mr. Barrett, who, as has been mentioned in this Debate, is a Communist and makes no bones about the fact.

If that is stated by Members of this House who are speaking specially for the dockside areas they represent, and if it has been recognised by both the unions concerned in this matter, then can it not go out from this House that there is nothing in the suggestion that these are "black" ships? I think it is most important and helpful if it is realised that, taking it by and large, this House, with all its shades of opinion and variety of approach to this matter has come to an almost unanimous decision on that point.

The next point on which this Debate has been most helpful is that, apart from the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies), there has been no suggestion that the claim that this is a lock-out is one that can be supported. The Prime Minister dealt with it in his introductory remarks, and again we have had a range of opinion, coming from Members who represent different shades of view on many different points, all agreeing as to this point, that is, with the exception of the two Members I have mentioned. When the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith only goes so far as to say that he thinks he can make a fair case for a lock-out, then, knowing the directness of opinion he generally expresses, that should not take us a great way. And, with all respect to the sincerity which the hon. Member for Merthyr so clearly showed, I suggest that the proposal put forward by him, the suggestion that there was some conspiracy on the part of the Dock Labour Board to sabotage the industrial peace, is really so removed from reality that we cannot pay attention to it.

On the second and most important point, we have practically got unanimity in this diversified assembly. To achieve that is an important and valuable task of this House of Commons. We agree that in substance, as the men withdrew from the ships which they had been working and that that continues, there is a strike, and the matter must be approached on that basis. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General made it clear that this is a strike in connection with which none of the steps under Order 1305 had been taken. Therefore, there is prima facie illegality, not in the straight sense to which the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith took exception, but in the sense that it is against the regulations which have been made under the old powers, and it has continued.

The next point, which again I do not think any of us shirked in approaching this matter, is that that constitutes a very serious position. I am sorry I cannot see the hon. Member for Merthyr present at the moment, but he spoke a short time ago and made a statement which ought to be dealt with. He said, on the one hand, that no Government which had not lost the confidence of organised labour would do this, and, on the other hand, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself were approaching this in a spirit of jubilation. I want seriously to say that no one—and especially those like my hon. Friends and myself who have made the point about the infringements of the law which, according to our view, have taken place—could lightly regard the coming into force of these Emergency Powers. They are the modern equivalent of the old Roman decree, which was only adopted in times of great emergency—"Let the consuls see to it that no harm comes to the State."

It is only because we are convinced that a serious situation has arisen that we agree to these powers. We believe on that hypothesis that that serious state of things has come about and that the powers must be plenary and such as can cope with the situation. We also believe that they must be clearly stated so as to be understood, both by those who are going to administer them and by those who will be affected by them. That is why we believe that they have to be in black and white so that everyone will understand.

Believe me, it is not a light thing for the House of Commons—and I am not speaking merely as a lawyer but as a Member of the House of Commons for a number of years—to restrict the rights of our fellow citizens so that, for example, previous convictions may be taken into account as evidence of loitering with intent. There is power for the first time, even under these regulations, to restrict postal as well as telegraph services, and power to stop and search vehicles not only in the London docks but all over the country. These are very wide and stringent powers. Our fellow citizens will be affected by them, and we must emphasise the seriousness of the position which calls them into effect.

It is because it has been represented to us by the Government with their full information, reinforced by the striking speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) about the underlying conspiracy in this matter, that we agree, with reluctance and because we feel it is our duty to put the interests of the country first and not to make it an occasion for scoring a party point, that these regulations should come into force and that the Government should be given the very wide powers which I have described. Having made that point clear and expressed I hope the spirit in which we are acting, may I say again what my right hon. Friends who have spoken from this Bench have emphasised in the earlier part of the Debate, that we must reserve our rights for the occasion when the period of emergency is over, to discuss the methods that might have been used and that might have averted the grave necessity in which we are tonight? I express this hope. We have not heard—the occasion has not really been given, but I make no complaint about it—how these regulations will be used and what will be the immediate objectives which are sought to be reached.

I want, in conclusion, to make this appeal: I believe that today, hon. Members in all quarters of the House, and I include hon. Members with whom I have the honour to act, have tried to get the full facts of this matter placed before the House and the country. They have tried to display that sympathy for the difficulties of the men on the docks and they have shown, quite irrespective of party, a readiness to probe, and where necessary to criticise, shortcomings in public relations, whether the point told for the Government or against the Government, or for the men or against the men. That has been the approach of the House as a whole.

If that goes out to the men who are in this difficulty, with the establishment of those preliminary points which I have sought to make, can we not hope as a House that they will feel that when their case and their difficulties come before us, they will not only get a just review but get understanding? Knowing that they can depend on that spirit in the House of Commons, can we not in turn ask them to review the difficulties and bitterness which have inflamed them over the last few weeks, to reconsider the points which still appear to them to be difficult and to secure peace in a field so esential not only to their happiness but to the prosperity and, indeed, the very existence of their native land?