(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make on the strike position in the London docks.

Yes, Sir. Further areas of the Port are affected this morning, with the consequence that the number of men not working is now 12,489. The new areas affected are the Surrey, Millwall and London docks. All necessary steps have been taken to safeguard vital supplies and the use of Service personnel has been authorised.

I would take this opportunity to remind the men that the only question at issue is an entirely trade union matter, with which the public are not concerned; nor is there any dispute with the employers. To have a large scale stoppage of the London docks in such circumstances is intolerable. The men remaining at work are demonstrating their loyalty to their fellow members and to the constitution of their trade union. This is a duty which every trade unionist owes to his trade union. As I stated on Thursday last, the Government are determined to protect the community by every means in their power.

While I am sure that the whole House will support the right hon. Gentleman in his concluding phrases, will he not agree that the statement he has made, that this potential danger to the public has nothing to do with any grievance against employers and nothing to do with conditions of work or labour, is a most serious one, and that when the immediate objective, which is to defeat the strike, has been carried out, a thorough investigation must be made into the situation in the docks, which is rapidly becoming intolerable?

Can my right hon. Friend now answer the question which he was unable to answer when he made his first statement, namely, whether it is or is not a fact that when the original trouble was settled it was a term of the settlement that there should be no victimisation of anybody; and whether, if that was a condition, he is satisfied that what has recently happened at the docks is in accordance and consistent with that undertaking?

I have no information further to that which I had last week, but any undertaking that was given about victimisation was given by the employers to their workers and, in my opinion, does not cover the right of a trade union to take disciplinary action against its own members. The trade union has done that and if we wish the union to regain its discipline, the best thing is to leave it to them and not stir up trouble in the House of Commons.

The right hon. Gentleman used the word "authorised" in connection with the employment of Service personnel. Can he say whether they are actually being employed today or not?

Yes, Sir. They are in and they are working.

In view of the fact that in this House we believe in the democratic way of life, will my right hon. Friend tell us what is his objection to having this matter decided by a ballot of the men?

I have no objection, but unions have their rules and their constitution. The appeal body which decided this matter was a body of men from the rank and file—there were no officials among them—elected by their annual conference to decide these matters. If the members want that machinery altered they should get it altered by constitutional means in the union, and not by imposing hardship on the community.

As considerable concern has been caused to many of us who are interested in military defence by a statement that the use of troops may involve a reduction in reinforcements for Malaya, which the War Office refuses to confirm or deny, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in no circumstances will our overseas commitments be in any way affected by this state of affairs?

All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I have not heard of that statement until now, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to it.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the expulsion of these three men from the union will have any effect on their right or capacity to be employed at the docks, and, if it prevents them from working at the docks, has it not a direct bearing on the undertaking to which I have referred?

That is a question which should not be put to me, and to which I should not attempt to give any answer.

What is the difference in principle between sending sailors to the docks and soldiers to Tonypandy?

Is it not a fact that the disciplinary action against the men who have been stopped at the dock was taken by their own committee of members of the rank and file, and that no officer of the union was involved in coming to a decision in this case?

That is just the statement I have made. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that this matter cannot be settled in the House of Commons. It might make it more difficult for the union to deal with the matter.

Can the Minister say to what extent Communist infiltration is the cause of this strike? What is the good of putting the onus on a trade union, when he must go deeper to the root of the matter and when it is for the Government to crush the Communist menace in the country?