Plenary, 29 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 29, 2003

Official Report 467KB pdf

---

Firefighters' Dispute

I call the Deputy First Minister to make his statement. Members who would like to ask questions of the minister should indicate that now.

It is right that I should report to Parliament about the increasingly unsatisfactory situation that has been brought about by the industrial action called by the Fire Brigades Union in its long-running dispute. The country has had to endure a series of strikes by members of the Fire Brigades Union, the latest of which started yesterday morning, with the next set to begin on Saturday. We should be under no illusion—such action puts public safety at risk. We believe that the action is unjustified, because the dispute can, and should, be resolved in negotiation.

The risk to safety requires Scottish ministers, like our colleagues in the United Kingdom Government, to act to protect the public by ensuring that emergency fire cover is provided. We are grateful to the servicemen and women from the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, to the police and to the retained firefighters, who have continued to provide a service to protect the public. For the armed services, as well as for the police, that is a diversion from other priorities. It is also a drain on Scottish taxpayers day after day. Those who provide emergency cover cannot provide the same level of protection as the full-time service can, no matter how professionally they carry out the task.

It is worth remembering why the public are at risk. The Fire Brigades Union tabled a 40 per cent pay claim and then called strikes in support of it. The FBU has used tactics that put public safety at risk and are designed to cause the most inconvenience. Those tactics include strikes of eight days, one day or two days, with no one knowing until the last minute whether a strike is on or off. They include signals about a willingness to negotiate followed by a withdrawal from negotiation. They include the FBU blaming everyone and taking no responsibility itself.

Most recently, the FBU refused to call off strike action this week and to negotiate at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. That was even after the employers had withdrawn what the FBU saw as unnecessary preconditions. Those talks could have resolved the dispute. They could have offered a fair pay deal for firefighters and control-room staff based on modernisation of the service to improve efficiency and public safety.

The issue is about public safety and that is our aim. As the Bain inquiry showed, modernising the fire service can offer a better pay deal to firefighters and enhance the safety of the public. That needs one thing: the willingness of the FBU to negotiate with its employers—not to walk away, not to threaten, but to engage constructively in a dialogue. Instead, we have strike action and, I regret, scaremongering that modernisation threatens public safety. Let us be absolutely clear: we will not threaten public safety and the modernisation proposals that we support will not threaten public safety. The reality is quite the opposite: a modern, flexible and risk-based system can improve the protection of the public and FBU members' terms and conditions.

Let me tell members what we will base our reforms on and what we will not compromise on. The issue is about making the public safer through better prevention of fires and lowering risk; through allocating resources to respond at the time and place of greatest risk to life and property, using professional judgment based on the best-quality information and equipment; and through having a fire service that is open equally to all, that is well managed and led, that works with others to meet its aims and that uses all its resources as efficiently as the best elsewhere in the public sector. We can do that through better management and allocation of resources and still release finance to allow a substantial pay rise for firefighters. However, I make it perfectly clear again that we will not compromise on public safety.

On the position and responsibilities of government, throughout the dispute we have worked closely with our colleagues in the United Kingdom Government in setting up the Bain inquiry, in planning and implementing the emergency fire cover that is in operation today and in seeking to bring about a negotiated settlement to the long-running dispute. As Scottish ministers, our priority throughout has been the safety of the public. In making our decisions on these matters, we will put Scotland and the Scottish fire service first. That remains our position and that of the UK Government.

The dispute must be solved in negotiation. Scottish ministers share the Deputy Prime Minister's view that it can and should be resolved through national negotiations. Pay and conditions in the fire service have been determined satisfactorily on a UK basis for many years. UK negotiations are what employers and unions have wanted and still want. The dispute was started on a national basis. The strikes were called—and emergency cover was provided—on a national basis. The employers' attempts to make progress in constructive negotiations have been made on a national basis. The solution—and there will be a solution—will be on a national basis, too.

The Deputy Prime Minister has said that he will seek powers of direction of a kind that the Government once had over the fire authorities. The First Minister and I have spoken to ministerial colleagues in England about that. We sought and got an agreement that there will be consultation with Scottish ministers on the matter. We will engage actively in those consultations. We ourselves will consult with our fire service employers and more widely.

Our objectives are the same as they have always been. They are, first and foremost, to deliver a fire service that protects the public; to encourage a negotiated settlement to the dispute and more generally a negotiated approach to fire service pay on the basis of a UK set of terms and conditions of service, which the fire service has long enjoyed; and to have a fire service that is accountable locally and takes forward a determined and radical programme of modernisation. We wish to examine all available options to meet our objectives.

It is important to understand that a system of negotiation and local accountability can be wholly consistent with appropriate powers for ministers. On pay and conditions in particular, the Bain report not only offers a solution to the immediate dispute, but makes constructive and interesting proposals for pay-determination machinery, based on negotiations between employers and unions. There would be provision for conciliation if need be and a clear role for central Government in agreeing the outcome. I refer members to paragraph 10.28 of the report. Although there are attractions in the Bain recommendations, in that respect, as in others, the proposals need proper consultation and detailed consideration.

Let me expand on our approach. In the first instance, I will want to have discussions with fire service employers in Scotland. Indeed, I, along with some of my ministerial colleagues, met representatives of the Scottish employers this morning to begin that. There are others whose views are relevant. For example, we have already had approaches from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Those discussions and our clear objectives will inform our approach to the consultations with the UK Government over the coming weeks.

We have to bear in mind two other factors. Members have made it clear that issues of such sensitivity and importance need proper and detailed consideration by this Parliament. Ministers wholly respect that. I also have to bear in mind the fact that, in a period of weeks, the Parliament will be dissolved. No responsible Government can ever rule out the possibility that circumstances might be such that we would find it necessary to seek urgent legislative change. However, having had regard to the considerations that I mentioned, I do not envisage that in the remaining weeks of this session we will be in a position to come forward with firm legislative proposals for Scotland, whether through a Sewel motion or a bill.

The real issue, however, is that the same period of weeks is the opportunity for the FBU to return to the negotiating table from which it walked away this week, to sit down and talk and to agree a fair pay deal for its members, based on much-needed modernisation, so that the public will be safer and better served. On that, Scottish Ministers are agreed; on that, we are determined.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his statement and for the advance copy with which he provided me. The fact that the advance copy arrived about 10 minutes before he got to his feet highlights the chaos in this Government.

In his statement, the Deputy First Minister accuses the Fire Brigades Union of

"blaming everyone and taking no responsibility itself."

The Government stands accused of exactly the same charge. The statement is a fudge. I had hoped that the Deputy First Minister would have spoken with the same clarity as his Liberal colleague Edward Davey spoke with in the House of Commons yesterday, when he described John Prescott's statement as

"a major mistake by the Government."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28 January 2003; Vol 398, c 726.]

In an attempt to get that clarity, I will ask the Deputy First Minister three specific questions. First, will he rule out the introduction of parallel legislation in this Parliament—[Interruption.] Labour members were obviously not listening to the statement. Will the Deputy First Minister rule out the introduction of parallel legislation in this Parliament to legislation proposed by John Prescott at Westminster? Secondly, will he rule out the introduction of a Sewel motion to give Westminster competence over what is a devolved matter? [Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear this.

The Deputy First Minister has ruled out neither. Thirdly, will he seek a categoric guarantee that Westminster will not use section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 to legislate on a devolved matter after this Parliament is dissolved on 31 March?

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, if he cannot give the Parliament specific answers on those three questions, the only conclusion to draw is that the Executive is prepared to cave in to the bully-boy tactics of John Prescott?

Once again, Mr Swinney should not believe what is in his pre-prepared script. I repeat that, in the remaining weeks of this session of the Parliament, I do not envisage that we will be in a position to produce firm legislative proposals for Scotland, either in the form of a bill or a Sewel motion.

Will the minister rule that out?

Our position could not be much clearer than that. [Interruption.] John Swinney wants to muddy the waters because the answer that I have just given does not suit him.

I do not believe that the UK Government would upset the devolution arrangement. The Government has indicated on many occasions that it would not legislate on matters that affect Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Nothing has ever been said—either in public or in conversations with the First Minister, with me or with others—to indicate that the Government would move from that position.

Many members want to ask questions. Those who shout might find that they go to the end of the queue and might not be called.

I thank the minister for his courtesy in giving us 10 minutes' notice of the contents of his statement, which is probably about 10 minutes more than Mr Prescott gave the Scottish Executive.

Is this any way to run a Government? The fact that it is clear that the Scottish Executive was kept in the dark about what was going on brings into serious disrepute the whole concept of partnership between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Will the Deputy First Minister advise us whether the Scottish Executive was consulted before Mr Prescott's announcement or whether it was simply informed of the Government's intentions?

I welcome the fact that the Deputy First Minister said on a number of occasions in his statement that public safety was the primary consideration. He must therefore surely agree with me that the strikes must stop. To that end, will he confirm that section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 gives the Scottish Executive and Her Majesty's Government the power to seek an interdict or—in England—an injunction against the Fire Brigades Union to stop the strikes now? Why will the Scottish Executive and the Government not use all the legal powers that are available to them to stop the strikes and to allow the negotiations to continue without being clouded by industrial action?

I am afraid that today's statement shows that the Scottish Executive is in a state of paralysis. The statement is a classic helping of fudge, which will stand up neither to John Prescott nor to the FBU. The Deputy First Minister is telling us that, instead of making a decision, the Scottish Executive is crossing its fingers and hoping that the problem will go away in the next few weeks. I ask the Deputy First Minister whether that is any way to run a Government.

I regret that Mr McLetchie has not been listening. I indicated that the First Minister and I were involved in discussions with our English counterparts—the Deputy Prime Minister and Nick Raynsford—before the Deputy Prime Minister's statement yesterday. Indeed, I spoke to Nick Raynsford on Monday afternoon.

What we sought and what we got was a commitment to consult Scottish ministers on the shape and detail of any legislative proposals. In my statement, I indicated how we propose to develop such consultation. We will be involved in consultations with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—consultation in Scotland, against the set of clear objectives that I have set out, will inform our input to that consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister.

In suggesting a legal solution, Mr McLetchie was no doubt taking the same tack as David Davis took in the House of Commons yesterday. It is clear that we would have to take advice from the Lord Advocate on such matters, which are for his legal judgment. Ministers would not enter into that lightly.

I make it clear to Mr McLetchie that we wish the strike to stop. I could not have made that any clearer. The strike prejudices public safety. There is a way forward, which I believe is by negotiation. We cannot say often enough that the parties should return to the negotiating table. There is an opportunity for them to do so; they ought to take that opportunity.

A large number of members would like to ask questions. The briefer the questions are, the more members we will be able to get in.

In the context of this evening's welcome statement, will the Deputy First Minister dispel once and for all the suggestion that the Scottish Executive has any plans to close fire stations? Will he also confirm that by far the most preferable outcome to the dispute will be one that is arrived at through proper negotiations?

I will certainly take the opportunity to dispel the notion that the Scottish Executive has any plans to close fire stations. There has been a lot of scaremongering about mass closure of fire stations. Modernisation is about providing a better service by, for example, removing the kind of existing restrictive practices that tie up resources and prevent them from being used to maximum effect. Modernisation is about a better approach to the delivery of service, which we believe can lead to saving more lives. I said in my statement, and I will say it again, that our objective is public safety. We want to improve public safety. Nothing that we support will in any way compromise public safety.

I welcome the Deputy First Minister's statement. In complete contrast to those who argue that the dispute would be resolved on the streets are those who argue that banning the right to strike would resolve the dispute. However, does the Deputy First Minister agree that imposed solutions—whether proposed by John Prescott or John Swinney—would be doomed to failure without the full participation and agreement of the firefighters and their trade union? Will he assure the Parliament that, in the talks that are soon to be held between the Government and the FBU, he will press for an early resumption of negotiations so that we can resolve by agreement this prolonged and damaging dispute?

I entirely share the sentiments that Duncan McNeil has expressed. I already indicated that one of our objectives in engaging in any consultation would be to encourage a negotiated settlement to the dispute and, more generally, a negotiated approach to fire service pay in the longer term. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister's reference to the Fire Services Act 1947 involved negotiations between trade unions and employers. It is important that both the trade union side and the employers are involved in negotiation. That is what we want to encourage. I would say that there is no need for the strike to start on Saturday morning if the FBU indicates a willingness to get back to the negotiating table.

The Minister for Justice seems to misunderstand what negotiation is all about. He says that he believes in a negotiated settlement but that he also agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he wanted to impose a settlement on the Fire Brigades Union. Mr Wallace cannot agree with a negotiated settlement while also agreeing with the Deputy Prime Minister.

Does Mr Wallace have the courage to agree that the Deputy Prime Minister's comments yesterday on the dispute were unhelpful, deliberately provocative and profoundly undemocratic? Will his Executive have the courage to stand up and tell Mr Prescott loud and clear that his Mussolini-type tactics are not welcome here in Scotland? Does he agree that we should continue to discuss and negotiate with free trade unionists instead of talking about imposing deals over the heads of those trade unionists, which is the talk of fascism? The former Deputy Minister for Justice should be ashamed of his comments. Is the Minister for Justice willing to condemn those comments? [Interruption.]

Order. I must remind members of the public that they have signed a piece of paper agreeing that they will not interrupt proceedings. There should be no interruption for or against anything that is said in the chamber.

I totally and utterly reject allegations of fascism against a democratically elected member of the House of Commons. John Prescott and I have disagreed on a number of occasions in the House of Commons. I think it deplorable that the adjective "fascist" should be applied to a man who is undoubtedly a democrat.

I do not believe that it is inconsistent for ministers to have appropriate power and for there to be a system of negotiation and local accountability. For example, the police negotiating board has provision for police representatives and local employers to negotiate, with the involvement of ministers. As I indicated to the chamber, paragraph 10.28 of the Bain report proposes negotiating machinery that could involve central Government and, at the core, negotiations between trade union representatives and employers.

Again, I make it clear that we want a negotiated settlement. In all fairness to the Deputy Prime Minister, I should add that he also said yesterday:

"I would like a negotiated settlement—let us be clear about that. I want the employers and the employees to work to find a settlement themselves."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28 January 2003; Vol 398, c 724.]

I endorse that remark.

I look forward to hearing the Deputy First Minister condemn the use of the term "fascists" to describe firefighters.

Yesterday in the House of Commons, John Prescott said that he would discuss with the devolved Administrations the best way of introducing the legislation. He anticipates that the legislation will apply to Scotland—it is only the mechanism that is to be discussed. The Deputy First Minister has come to the chamber today to tell us that all that the Scottish Executive sought and got was consultation on how the legislation will be introduced. Did the Scottish Executive even try to convince the UK Government that the measure was draconian and a mistake? Will he tell the chamber whether he still wants a distinct fire service for Scotland or whether he wants to hand the whole lot over to John Prescott and the UK Government?

I have indicated before that I deprecate any remarks that suggest that FBU members are fascists and I take this opportunity to deprecate any such suggestion again.

The issue is not about how any legislation will be imposed on Scotland. We want to consult the Deputy Prime Minister on the shape of any proposed legislation. Members should read the statement that he made yesterday.

We have read the statement. It is at column 719 of Hansard.

There is no indication as to the shape that the proposed legislation would take. We want to influence the shape of that legislation. I have set out our objectives clearly and said how we would consult the Scottish fire authorities. [Interruption.] John Swinney is muttering away. He knows that the final shape of any legislation has not been determined. We want to influence the shape of that legislation along the lines of the objectives that I set before Parliament.

Will the minister confirm that there will be no knee-jerk reaction and that any consultation will involve stakeholders, including firefighters, the FBU, the STUC, local authorities and communities? Will he also confirm that any legislation will come to the Parliament for full discussion?

We want to pursue the matter in a spirit of consultation. The Parliament made its view clear earlier this month and we wish to honour the spirit of that. I indicated that we would want to talk to the fire service employers and others, including the STUC. Channels of communication are open to the FBU. My colleague the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, met representatives of the FBU last week. However, I do not think that we would find it acceptable to engage in that sort of dialogue while we were under pressure or any kind of threat. I therefore think it important that the FBU should get back to the negotiating table. The lines of communication are kept open.

The Deputy First Minister said that he was involved in influencing the "shape of any legislation". John Prescott said that he would discuss through the usual channels, including the devolved Administrations, the best way to introduce the legislation. The Deputy First Minister has refused to rule out the use of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, so there can be only one conclusion, which is that legislation is planned. Will the Deputy First Minister come clean with the Parliament and tell us what legislation and when?

It might also be useful for a Liberal minister to remember that he is a Liberal minister and that the task of a Liberal minister is to make things better rather than, as we and the firefighters have seen today, to take a stand that can only make things worse.

Order. We are getting a speech now.

The only way the Deputy First Minister will make things better is by changing his statement.

We have had the question.

The Deputy Prime Minister said in response to my colleague Edward Davey, who suggested that he was rushing into legislation:

"that is not so. I have to consult with everybody, including the Liberals—I have started that process, and perhaps they will rethink their position".

Mr Prescott is entitled to say that. My colleague Edward Davey has written to Mr Prescott suggesting binding arbitration, which would also involve legislation.

Mr Prescott responded:

"I must then make a proposal to the House, which will debate the primary legislation."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28 January 2003; Vol 398, c 727.]

The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that there would have to be consultation and that he would thereafter make a proposal to the House of Commons. We do not have any firm legislation proposal. The SNP is trying to get the scaremongering tactic going, but what it says is not the case.

With regard to advice from the Lord Advocate, is the Deputy First Minister aware that an interdict of the court—either at the instance of an individual or at the instance of the Administration, under section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—would inevitably make strike action that knowingly endangers human life an offence, and that such an interdict would effectively bring the strike to an end? Why will not he, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate take a lead on the issue?

For a Queen's counsel, Lord James has a rather simplistic view of how the law might operate. I do not think that any of the inevitability or certainty that was implicit in his question exists.

Will the Deputy First Minister expand on his remarks that a system of negotiation and local accountability can be wholly consistent with appropriate powers for ministers to act? Does that mean that the revival of a repealed section of the Fire Services Act 1947 would empower ministers only to enforce negotiation, but not to impose a settlement? Does he envisage circumstances in which ministers might ask Parliament to grant such powers in Scotland?

As I said, it is consistent to have a legislative regime that involves negotiation, but which also has powers for ministers. The Police Negotiating Board is one example of such a regime. My understanding of the pre-1959 situation, which was based on the 1947 act, is that it was somewhat akin to what we currently have for the police pay and conditions negotiations. I repeat that our objective is to encourage a negotiated settlement to the dispute and, more generally, to develop a negotiated approach to fire service pay. By its very definition, that means the involvement of trade union representatives and employers.

I welcome the Deputy First Minister's statement. I echo the remarks of my colleague Iain Smith and ask whether the minister is aware that much local media coverage of the dispute has centred on fears about alleged closures of fire stations? As well as welcoming the minister's reassurances on that point, I ask him to confirm that any such proposals did not emanate from the Executive or from the Government at Westminster, that fire services will not be cut, and that interest in people's safety will be paramount.

I assure Ken Macintosh that it is absolute nonsense to say that there are plans for mass closures of fire stations throughout Scotland. Suggestions of that nature certainly do not come from the Executive, nor do they come from the United Kingdom Government. I repeat—it bears repetition, because there is a lot of disinformation going around—that we believe that modernisation can and ought to lead to improvement in public safety. As an Executive, we will not be party to anything that does not lead to improvement in public safety.

If and when the negotiations begin, will the Deputy First Minister bring to the table the pathfinder report and base the negotiations on it, rather than the cobbled-together Bain report?

It is grossly unfair to describe the Bain report as "cobbled-together". As I said, it contains many proposals that are worth further examination. I also said that detailed consultation will be required—the Parliament will want to engage in that.

We should not forget that, last April, the Executive published "The Scottish Fire Service of the Future", which is a white paper that has many worth-while proposals that we want to develop. Bar on two or three small points, the Fire Brigades Union and many others found common ground with us in that white paper.

The Deputy First Minister made a welcome commitment not to compromise on public safety. I agree with that view, because I believe that firefighters do, too. I heard what the minister said in response to Ken Macintosh and Iain Smith about the Scottish Executive's position on closures; however, persistent and particular rumours relate to closures of fire stations in Strathclyde fire brigade's area. It is clear that we need to get accurate information out to people in communities to alleviate their concerns about their fire services. Therefore, I seek the minister's assurance that, in the interests of public safety, no closures are planned or in the pipeline.

As section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 is still in force, any planned closure would have to be considered by ministers. I am unaware of any proposed closures' being on my desk at present. We should bear in mind the Executive's commitment to the fire service. In 2000-01, grant-aided expenditure for the fire service was £186.9 million. We have provided consistent and considerable year-on-year increases in our financial support for the fire service through GAE and the capital figure, which increased by 47 per cent between 2000-01 and 2002-03. That increased funding for our fire service shows that the Executive wants to support our fire service and that it recognises the service's important contribution to fire safety.

Will the minister clarify two points that will show how far down the Thatcherite road this Administration and the Administration in London are prepared to go? In his statement yesterday, John Prescott said that he would consult on the way in which the proposed legislation would be processed, but he did not give a commitment to consult on the proposed legislation. Will the Deputy First Minister therefore give the Parliament an undertaking that no legislation that covers Scotland will be passed without the Scottish Parliament's explicit approval?

If a settlement on pay and conditions is imposed, but the firemen still strike, will the Deputy First Minister contemplate a ban on firefighters strikes? Is that part of his consultation with Deputy Prime Minister Prescott?

I give Alex Neil the assurance that he seeks that no legislation on devolved matters will be imposed on Scotland without the Scottish Parliament's consent. I have said that such legislation is highly unlikely and that I do not envisage such a situation during this parliamentary session.

I think that no-strike agreements are an employment matter and are therefore for the UK Parliament. However, we have not proposed such agreements.

Will the minister make it clear whether the Executive accepts that free trade unions are fundamental to any democratic society? Will he also make it clear that it would always be wrong—this side or the other side of a Scottish general election—for ministers to seek powers to revive obsolete laws that would deny trade unions their democratic right to negotiate pay and conditions for their members? Whatever else the proposal might be called, it ain't democratic and it ain't something that a Labour-led Executive should contemplate.

I assure John McAllion that I believe in, respect and support the right of free trade unions to operate and negotiate in a free country, but I would hesitate before criticising an act that was introduced by the Attlee Government.

In order to clear up any confusion about whether discussions on negotiations took place when the Deputy First Minister met the Deputy Prime Minister and Nick Raynsford, will the minister tell the Parliament what alternatives to John Prescott's "shape of policy", as I think it was described, were proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleague?

As I made clear earlier, the reference was made not to a meeting but to telephone conversations that I had with Nick Raynsford, and which the First Minister had with the Deputy Prime Minister. In the course of those conversations, it was made clear that the final shape of legislation has not been settled. We said that we want to be consulted—we sought that undertaking and we got that undertaking.

The Deputy First Minister outlined earlier that, under the terms of current legislation, the Lord Advocate could seek a civil interdict to bring the strikes to an end. We are not talking about a criminal matter that requires the independent view of a law officer. The Deputy First Minister and the Lord Advocate are members of the Scottish Government. In what circumstances would they consider seeking such an interdict?

I accept that there is a distinction with regard to the criminal prosecution role of the Lord Advocate. On a matter of such import, however, it would be very unwise for any Government to act without the advice of its senior law officer.

I hope that I reflect the view of the Labour benches when I say that I hope that no Labour Administration in Scotland would ever seek an interdict against a trade union that is on a democratically decided strike. The union has gone through every process that is required of it by law and it is within its rights to strike.

I repeat that I recognise the importance of trade unions in industrial matters, which is why I hope that the way forward is by negotiations involving the Fire Brigades Union's trade union representatives. I do not know how many times I have made that clear.

The minister has tried to adopt a more conciliatory approach than is the case at Westminster. Unlike his Labour colleagues, however, he does not owe allegiance to ministers at Westminster. Will the minister take the opportunity of condemning absolutely the inflammatory statement that was made in the House of Commons, which makes it clear that John Prescott is hell-bent on ignoring the FBU? It is also clear that, by dictating a UK-wide settlement on firefighters' pay and conditions, he is ignoring the Scottish Parliament. Does the minister agree that the Scottish Parliament was set up to fight for higher standards of social justice, including for workers and trade unionists, and not to try to smash the trade union movement or to allow Blair and Prescott to do so?

We want a UK settlement and we want it to be a negotiated settlement. On many occasions yesterday, John Prescott said that he, too, wants a negotiated settlement. In case anyone wants to try to drive wedges between the partnership parties, I assure Dennis Canavan—indeed, I assure the Parliament—that the Cabinet was united in its discussion of the matter this morning.

Will the Deputy First Minister state whether the possibility of strike action's being made illegal has entered the discussions? If war with Iraq goes ahead and large numbers of service personnel from this country go to the middle east, there might not be sufficient reserve forces in the event of a firefighters strike. Given that situation, has discussion taken place about making strikes strictly illegal?

It would be unwise to consider umpteen hypothetical situations. I want to make it very clear that we monitor constantly the level of cover that is available through the contingency arrangements that have been made. I believe that the cover that we have in place, which has been augmented by the addition of the so-called red goddesses and more recently by aerial towers, serves us well. I will make no bones about the fact that those arrangements are not the same as the level of cover that is available when the full firefighter service is available, which is why it is imperative that we seek a negotiated settlement to the dispute sooner rather than later.

Can the minister confirm that the dispute began prior to the publication of the Bain report? In yesterday's statement, John Prescott said that:

"for the avoidance of doubt, the Government's position will not change. We will continue to implement the Government's part of the Bain agenda".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28 January 2003; Vol 398, c 721.]

Will he comment on that, and will he therefore tell the Parliament how on earth he thinks that a negotiated settlement can be reached between the employers and the Fire Brigades Union under those pre-imposed conditions? Can he further comment on the contradiction—

Order. You have asked your question.

I can of course confirm that the origins of the dispute lie back in March or April last year when the 40 per cent pay claim was first flagged up. It is also fair to say that the setting up of the Bain inquiry was an effort, through the use of an independent inquiry, to avoid strike action, which I regret was not avoided. It is also important to point out that the employers removed some of the preconditions that the FBU found to be obstructions to their attendance at negotiations last week. The employers responded to the FBU, which is why it is so regrettable that the FBU would not put off the current strike and proceed with negotiations.

What specific legislation has been discussed during discussion on the shaping of legislation? Will the Deputy First Minister also give a guarantee that ministers will not use any powers available to them during the dissolution of Parliament?

The point that I was making is that we want to try and shape and influence any moves that might be made. That is why we want initially to consult in Scotland, and then take the opportunity that has been given to us to consult the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am not sure which powers Bruce Crawford thinks might be made available to us that would be of any relevance during dissolution.

That concludes the questions to the Deputy First Minister. We will return to the debate—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During the course of his statement, the Deputy First Minister raised the issue of the dissolution of Parliament. John Swinney subsequently referred to that matter, and mentioned the powers that are available to Westminster under section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998. I know that you cannot rule on this matter at the moment, but it is important that members are aware of the exact situation after Parliament's dissolution. Because the Sewel procedure is a convention only when there is an Executive, could legislation be passed by Westminster without reference to the Scottish Parliament, which will not, after all, exist during dissolution? I wonder whether, in such circumstances, what we have discussed today, and what will no doubt be discussed in the future, will be affected. [Interruption.] I am sorry that members are not interested in the importance—

Just address me, Mr Russell.

I know that you are interested, Presiding Officer. What is going on is a discourtesy to you.

We need a ruling on exactly what is possible; perhaps everything is possible in the circumstances. Westminster legislation might overrule anything that we do in that period, which might last not just five weeks, but six weeks or possibly more if we include the formation of a Government. We should have some detailed information on that question.

I am certainly not going to make an off-the-cuff ruling on that. I think that the member will appreciate that response.

We will return to the debate on the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. Mr John Scott was about to take the floor. I remind members—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Are you saying that you will give a subsequent ruling?

No, I am not promising anything. I just said that I would not rule off the cuff.

But will you consider the matter?

I will meditate on what you have said.

Good.