13.
Section 3 derives from the United Kingdom
Trade Disputes Act of 1927 (introduced after the
General Strike of 1926 and now repealed).
It might be argued that its retention is
unnecessary because the power of the communist
unions in the essential services was broken in
1967. That is so, and recent assessments
confirm that the position has changed very
little since. But the communists are working,
and will continue to work, assiduously to
recover their influence: they are already
seeking to re-infiltrate their more fervent
and reliable supporters into the labour forces
of the essential service industries.
these (or some such) provisions could be
effective against the politically inspired
strike, then there will undoubtedly be a need
for them: it is a weapon in the communist
armoury that will be used again when the
communist
stsfeel strong and confident enough.
If
14. There must, however, be considerable
uncertainty about the effectiveness of such
legislation. In the case of a very limited
withdrawal of labour for an obviously political
motive e.g. in one essential service, the
legislation might possibly be used to good
effect; but it does not seem likely that
limited action of this kind would be either
permitted or ordered by the communist
hierarchy. A more likely possibility is that
when the weapon is used again by the
communists, it will be used in furtherance of
a grand design and on a scale so widespread
that no legislation could effectively deal
with it; a situation will then arise in
/ which
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN