I hope I did not misunderstand the Minister, but in the course of his opening statement he made the case that the fact of the existence of a listing of unfair practices in the Third Schedule did not in fact mean that these were practices which were being declared as being unlawful. I am summarising what the Minister said. I can see the force of that argument, but it seems a little difficult to distinguish between practices which are not unlawful but which at the same time by an Act of Parliament are being declared as unfair practices.
The list contained in the Third Schedule are practices which, by and large, people would regard as being unfair practices. I am a little bit bothered about paragraph (f) as to whether or not a strike which might take place regarding some service being supplied might not, on an application to a court of some sort, be automatically regarded as unlawful in the sense that it was listed here as unfair.
Paragraph (f) of the Third Schedule says "without just cause prohibit or restrict the supply of goods or the provision of services ..." I am visualising a case where there is possibly a wild-cat strike, which results in the restriction of the supply or provision of services. I am wondering if, automatically, it would be regarded as unlawful by reason of the fact that it is listed as being an unfair practice.