Cabinet (Meetings)
First Minister's Question Time
Scottish Parliament debates, 29 October 2009, 12:01 pm

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1955)

Rt Hon Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat)
The challenge is to understand how the Tories can attack the First Minister on business and then vote for the Scottish National Party's motion on the economy this afternoon.
There is another Royal Mail strike today. People worry that there will not be much of the Royal Mail left to deliver letters to every part of Scotland, for the same price, for much longer. Why did the Scottish Government give an £8 million postal contract to TNT and not to the Royal Mail?

Rt Hon Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party)
As Tavish Scott should know, the process was administered under competitive tender arrangements. We have an obligation to take account of value for money. Under the same proposal, I was delighted that a contract worth twice as much was awarded to the Royal Mail. That was a sensible decision that was fully in line with public expenditure guidelines.
On the current dispute, I hope that we can agree that it would be beneficial to the company and the entire community if a resolution were found. I also hope that Tavish Scott believes, as I do, that the shadow of privatisation is one of the underlying causes of the dispute. If that shadow were to be removed, a resolution might be easier to find.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat)
I certainly agree with the last point.
In March, when the United Kingdom HM Revenue and Customs gave a contract to TNT, and not to the Royal Mail, the SNP's spokesman spoke of concerns and said:
"A private partner will only be concerned with profit, and Royal Mail must not lose its social focus".
When the UK Department for Work and Pensions gave a contract to TNT, the SNP said that there was "outrage" at the decision, that
"effectively the government"
was
"abandoning the Post Office to its fate",
and that
"The government must display a commitment to our postal service by using its services."
I could not agree more, so what is the difference between the Scottish Government and the Labour Government in London?

Rt Hon Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party)
It is probably that we awarded a £17 million contract to the Royal Mail.
I am glad that Tavish Scott agrees with me that the shadow of privatisation should be removed from the Royal Mail. That is an important aspect in finding a resolution to the dispute. I hope that he also agrees that if he is going to claim that we should not follow the procurement directive, he had better start explaining where the £2 million that would otherwise have been lost to our public services in Scotland would come from.—[Interruption.]

Rt Hon Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party)
Incidentally, given the growing consensus on capital acceleration, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will now join the Labour Party in talking about the importance of building that important initiative into next year's spending plans. If not, will Tavish Scott be left to explain how week in, week out he can call for extra expenditure but never—not on a single occasion—say where on earth the revenue will come from?

Sarah Boyack (Labour)
In light of the £600,000 loss that was made on the gathering, I raise the concerns of the chair of the Edinburgh Destination Marketing Alliance, on which a debt of £300,000 has been dumped. The DEMA simply does not have the wherewithal to meet private sector debts. Given the raft of unanswered questions and the need to learn lessons from the loss, does the First Minister agree that the Auditor General for Scotland should be asked to examine the issue?

Rt Hon Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party)
I agree with the decision of the City of Edinburgh Council to secure the future of the gathering. I am perfectly happy to put this in members' library: the gathering—the organisation and the event that it staged—generated more than £10 million of revenue for the Scottish economy and several hundred full-time equivalent jobs.
It is extremely wise of the City of Edinburgh Council to want to repeat the gathering event. That will guarantee for the capital city and indeed for all of Scotland many millions of pounds of revenue from an important tourist event.
I would have hoped that Sarah Boyack, as a local member, would have supported jobs and investment in the city of Edinburgh, as Scottish National Party members do.

