 2014. What's another golden legacy to add to his collection? Thank you. Before we come to next item, business members will wish to join me and welcome to the gallery the speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, Mrs Maya Gojkovic. We now move to First Minister's question, question number one, Jackie Baillie. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. First Minister, Alex Salmond. I'm told this is my 215th session of First Minister's questions. Later today I'll be proud to meet a group of young carers who have designed the young carers tartan, which I'm proudly wearing today. They are the people who have experienced and cared, have designed it with Black Cherry Studio, a Scottish print design company. The design has been registered with the Scottish Register of Tartans and it's available to anyone who has been in care. It's hoped that this will encourage more people with experience of care to claim their identity positively, and I'm proud to wear it today. Presiding Officer, today is of course Alex Salmond's last appearance at First Minister's questions. His time as Scotland's longest-serving First Minister will be properly acknowledged next Tuesday. So in the meantime, can I invite him just once to astound us all and actually answer a question? But briefly, briefly, can I ask the First Minister if he could describe himself in just one word? What would that be? First Minister. No. One word seems hardly adequate for that task. Although, if I could say to Fergus Ewing that his words might have been better addressed to the coming First Minister rather than the parting one. Jackie Baillie. As ever, the First Minister is in denial. I asked for one word, but actually I got a whole dictionary full. Presiding Officer, there are many words I could have used to describe the First Minister. Humble, sensitive, modest, meek, perhaps even bashful. But it's interesting that he didn't use the word proud, because if I were him, I wouldn't be entirely proud of this Government's record either. Teacher numbers down, college places down, NHS bed numbers down, waiting for us up. This week the First Minister has been giving advice to Nicola Sturgeon about who should be in her cabinet. He knows that I always like to be helpful. Let me offer suggestions as perhaps who to keep out. How about Mike Russell for failing Scotland's young people, Alex Neil for failing Scotland's patients or perhaps even Kenny MacAskill relegated today to the second row for the many failings that appear on his charge sheet? Given their record of failure, which members of his cabinet would he recommend keep their jobs when his deputy takes over? If there's a mood to miss, Jackie Baillie has an airing ability to miss it. I've actually been doing some research in these matters. Over the years, the Labour Party has called for the resignation of each and every one of my cabinet sectors. The only person they haven't called on to resign is me. I'm the one who's resigning. Does this not represent the Labour Party's unairing ability to miss the target to each and every occasion? Jackie Baillie, First Minister, I think I've captured the mood. You're going anyway. Usually he such praise on his ministers. Clearly his ministers are in exceptionally good company. That admiration is usually reserved for Vladimir Putin or Rupert Murdoch. The First Minister says that he's resigning because he lost the referendum campaign and believes that somebody has to take responsibility for that defeat. That was his life's ambition. He spent millions of taxpayers' money on the referendum. He put Scotland on pause and, despite a derided UK coalition, he's still lost by 400,000 votes, so he's going. The person who actually ran the yes campaign, Nicola Sturgeon, gets the keys to Bute House, but her record in government is not too clever either. Child poverty is growing. Fuel poverty is growing. House building at its lowest level since the Second World War. We are told that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are joined at the hip. Isn't it therefore the case that changing the First Minister will actually make very little difference? First Minister? I don't think that talking about changing leaders is the Labour Party's strongest suit. Jackie Baillie is actually the 10th leader or caretaker leader that I've faced over the past few months. All of them have had her grace and charity with which she addresses the chamber, but Nicola Sturgeon should be assured that, on the track record, once she becomes First Minister, the Labour Party will not ask for her resignation. It's only us deputy First Minister and my other cabinet secretaries. The administration has had a substantial record of achievement over the past seven years. In many ways, it doesn't matter what I think about it. Surely it's what the people of Scotland think about it. If I could remind Jackie Baillie that this Government was re-elected with an overall majority in a proportional Parliament, and if we believe the more recent indications that support seems to be growing, not diminishing. All in all, I think that I would rather stand here as First Minister, albeit departing, than the 10th leader or caretaker leader who has faced me over this dispatch box. Jackie Baillie, I noticed the praise that he heaped on the deputy First Minister, but perhaps he meant to do so only in terms of the debate. That might be a useful title for his autobiography, but let me just genuinely say that today does mark the end of an era. No one can deny Alex Salmond's passion for Scotland. Nobody can deny his love of his country. The real tragedy is that he was so blinkered by his passion for independence that powers he already had, powers to tackle poverty, to reduce inequality, to deliver social justice were pushed into second place. For the last seven years, the First Minister has used his age-old excuse that somehow it was Westminster's fault. But we hear he wants to go back there. The First Minister even believes he could be the deputy prime minister. He has gone from urging Scots to vote for Nick Clegg to wanting to be Nick Clegg. Is it not the case that his real legacy is leaving Scotland more divided than ever? Before he answers, I know from his first response that brevity is not his strong point. Let me offer one final word to the First Minister. I say to Jackie Baillie that whoever stands for the SNP in the Westminster Parliament would seem, according to the polls, to have a reasonable chance of success at the present moment. I think that there have been substantial achievements, if I could name but to the reintroduction of free education in Scotland. I am looking forward again in the teeth of Labour opposition, the introduction of free school meals in primary 1 to 3. I think that that is a substantial move forward in terms of Scottish society. If I could say, despite all the leaders that I faced from the Labour Party, the continuing failure of that party to establish or to even redress the decline and collapse in its fortunes, if I could add her piece of advice and the final word, which she can translate to her leader whoever that may be, that people in Scotland no longer know what the Labour Party stands for, but they do know who they stood with in the referendum campaign. Any political party in alliance with the Tory party is destined to destruction in Scotland, and that is exactly what is happening to the branch office before us now. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. First Minister. No current plans, and I would have to be reasonably quick if I was going to do so. I am sure that the First Minister will join with me in welcoming the good news yesterday that showed that unemployment is up, unemployment is down and that earnings are outstripping inflation, and I think that that is a credit to both of Scotland's Governments. It would of course be churlish for politicians not to recognise success, however it is more damaging not to recognise where work needs to be done. In Scotland, our levels of educational attainment are stagnating. There is no improvement in reducing the reconviction rate among offenders. The gap in research and development funding between Scotland and other EU nations is as big as ever, and people's satisfaction with their public services is worsening. The First Minister has once again today recited polls as a measure of success, but don't these facts show up a record that falls well short of his own claims? First Minister. Substantial achievements in both education and in health are key public services. People's respect for the health service is increasing, which is a fantastic testament in these times of austerity that our health service and our doctors and nurses, our staff throughout the health service, have achieved that. Of course, educational attainment in Scotland is rising, not falling, and the successful introduction of curriculum for excellence gives us great hope for the future. I should correct my earlier answer, because I intend to send another letter to the Prime Minister today, asking him exactly to explain the remarks of the head of the navy, Admiral Zambyllus, who seemed to cast doubt on whether the contracts for the global ships are going to be awarded to the Clyde yards. I am sure that Ruth Davidson will join with me in saying that those remarks are deeply troubling. They come not from some functionary in the ministry of defence, but from the head of the navy. The Parliament will demand that the commitments and promises that have been made are honoured to the Clyde workers. Ruth Davidson, First Minister well knows that admirals do not award contracts, but it is interesting that he challenged the facts that I provided to him earlier on all of these areas of policy, because it turns out that I was only reading his own Government's assessment of his own Government's performance, as contained in the Scottish Government report card called Scotland performs that I took off his own Government's website this morning. I have got it here. It says that it provides, at a glance, a snapshot of how Scotland and the Government are doing, and there is more. In a section entitled performance at a glance, there are 11 key targets that the Scottish National Party Government has rightly set itself with which to measure its own progress, only two show any performance improvement whatsoever. On the other hand, raising economic growth to the UK level, performance worsening, matching GDP growth rates of small EU countries, performance worsening, productivity, healthy life expectancy, performance worsening, those are the measures that the First Minister set upon which to judge his devolved administration, and he has failed. For seven years, he has stood there and said only with the powers of independence, but the people of Scotland looked at that plan too, and they said that his performance was not up to much either. So, one last time, can I ask the First Minister, is this really a record-worthy of so much self-satisfaction? First Minister, can I point out how Scotland performs over the period since 2007 that has been substantial rises in the vast majority of the indices, but can I pick up on one point of detail, because I looked very carefully. I was surprised at the comparator between UK and Scottish growth because Scotland had a shallower recession and a faster recovery. I found out that it is not because Scotland has fallen behind the UK. It is because the UK has revised its statistics. George Osborne, in his keenness and anxiety to revise the UK statistics and the Scottish ones have not been revised as yet, included the black economy. It included a whole range of matters that would not be delicate to go into in this Parliament. He included charitable work, which, given the Tory's treatment at the third sector, I thought was a bit rich. As a result, he managed to inflate the UK growth figures. What happened? He was then surprised when he landed a £1.7 billion bill by the European Union, not because the economy had been improved but because he had instructed his officials and statistician to change the statistics. It is not surprising to any of us that the Tory party depends on the record by including the black economy in the figures. That is what they have been doing for the generation, but in true generosity of spirit to Ruth Davidson. I know that, as yet at least, she has not managed to revive the fortunes of the Scottish Conservative party. I thought that 8 per cent in last week's opinion polls was a particularly unlikely figure, but certainly single figures seem to be the direction in which they are heading. However, she has a single, almost monumental political triumph. She has destroyed the fortunes of the other opposition parties in this Parliament. She destroyed the fortunes of the Liberal Party by going into coalition with them at Westminster, and she destroyed the fortunes of the Labour Party by the Better Together Alliance. In that respect, on the judgment, on the criteria of destroying other opposition political parties, Ruth Davidson is undoubtedly the most brilliant political leader of the history of the Scottish party. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for an opportunity just to say a few short words. Can I join others, then, in other people inside and outside of Parliament, to pay tribute to the personal achievements of the First Minister? We will get a fuller opportunity next week to elaborate on that, but it has been a long journey since the days back in 2004, when he rejected standing for his party's leadership. If nominated, I will decline. If drafted, I will defer. If elected, I will resign. Presiding Officer, can I just check that he definitely is going? First Minister? I was actually quoting the wrong American general. I meant to general McAfhey. I shall return. I just got my generals mixed up. Nicola Sturgeon wants to know what the answer to your question is. This is the first time I've been heckled by the SNP in domestic answers. Can I welcome Willie Rennie back to his place in the Parliament? Can I thank him for his kind remarks? One of the first things that I found in Bute House in a cupboard was a silver tray that was presented to the right hon. John Scott McClay on the occasion of the inauguration of the fourth bridge in 1958. I did some research, because John Scott McClay was not a Conservative. He was the last of the national liberals. He had been appointed by Harold Macmillan to that place. Apparently, I am told by senior civil servants, he used to go about St Andrew's house saying, I have made a decision. I shall now go and consult the Conservative Party. However, there is, as of not, a moral tale in the right hon. John Scott McClay. As a national liberal in alliance with the Conservative Party, he was the last of his kind. Bill Kidd To ask the First Minister what potential impact on jobs at the Scotsen yard in my constituency of Glasgow Annesland, could the MOD's considerations on building the type 26 frigates in France have? I think that Ruth Davidson was over relaxed on this matter. We are not talking about some mid-ranking official. We are talking about the first sea lord. The courts from the first sea lord cast doubt on where the order would be placed or even the country it would be placed in. That is exactly what the first sea lord had to say. Obviously, if that were to happen, there would be an impact of some thousands of jobs. I think more so. I hope the Parliament can unite on that. It would be a total and absolute and complete betrayal, but you cannot shrug those things off and say, well, that does not matter what the first sea lord says. The first sea lord is presumably in a good position to know the state of the contract negotiations, and that is why this Parliament, with a resonant voice, should say that it would be totally unacceptable for those orders not to come to the Clyde Yarnsdon. Liam McArthur Serco's latest profit warning this week in confirmation that it is writing down £1.5 billion in losses on various public contracts comes as the result of what their chief executive suggested were two strategic missteps, diversifying away from core business and focusing too much on winning new business. One example of both is the contract awarded to Serco by Scottish ministers in 2012 to provide ferry services to the Northern Isles. Given this week's revelations, what reassurance can the First Minister offer my constituents that there will be no knock-on impact on Serco's ability to continue delivering lifeline ferry services to the communities that Tavish Scott and I represent? Will the Scottish Government be reviewing the way in which the contract was tendered to ensure that each bid was considered appropriately and that each bidder was offering something that they could deliver? The reassurance is that Serco will be held absolutely to the terms of the contract. I am sure my successor and, indeed, the transport minister will be able to reassure the local member that absolutely will be the case. Serco is under new leadership, of course, but nonetheless the contract will be held to and that will be enforced. Angus MacDonald To ask the First Minister what responses received from the Prime Minister to his recent correspondence regarding European Council fisheries negotiations. First Minister? I have had a totally unsatisfactory response from the Prime Minister. On Monday, the Adculpture and Fisheries Committee meeting, the main area of fisheries policy under discussion were the deep-sea stock regulations. Scotland has a dominant interest in this activity, with landings of the species by vessels in membership of the Scottish producer organisations and the region of 95 per cent of all UK landings this year. In my view, supported by the Labour Party on this occasion, I think that it is absurd that the Prime Minister put the interests of this vital Scottish industry in the hands of an unelected peer, Lord Rupert Ponserby, the seven baron de molly. The key thing about the baron de molly is that he has had no interest or experience whatsoever in fisheries matters. The fact that this breaks a clear commitment given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in 2010 is totally unacceptable, but perhaps in the light of the Conservative Party's attitude to wider issues in Scotland, not totally surprising. Does he agree with me that if we are a family of nations, as David Cameron has described in the UK, it is only right that the UK Government should respect the devolution settlement as it affects foreign policy, particularly with regard to issues of such importance to Scotland as fisheries, in the same way as states such as Belgium have done for some time? That was exactly the point that was raised back at the joint ministerial committee back in 2010. Fiona Hislop, as the European Minister, was in attendance at that meeting and can verify everything that I have got to say. When that position was explained of how few times Scottish ministers were able to represent key Scottish interests, he argued for a UK position in terms of the fishing negotiations. The incoming Prime Minister then said that this was something that he would put right. He said that he could see the strongest argument for that happening on key issues. It has happened once over the past four years, despite the fact that Richard Lochhead has attended each and every fisheries council meeting is by far the most experienced fisheries minister in the European continent—never mind in those islands. It is totally unacceptable that something so blifely given as a commitment in 2010 should not be adhered to in a vital negotiation in 2014. There may be a lesson for Scotland in wider matters that unless the Prime Minister's feet are held to the fire, then commitments will not be redeemed. To ask the First Minister where the Scottish Government considers that the devolution of health and safety legislation would lead to more prosecutions where serious injury or death has occurred. I think that this Parliament be wise to pay close attention to the words of Graham Smith, the general secretary of the SDUC, who said, that we believe that it is due to lack of proactive inspection that a policy forced on the HSE by a Government to refuse to acknowledge the need of the HSE to be autonomous. Those are significant comments, as indeed is the SDUC submission to the Smith commission. As he will be aware, Scotland is a higher proportion of workplace fatalities in the rest of the UK due to the numbers that we have employed in high-risk sectors such as construction, fishing and agriculture. Does he agree that the 35 per cent cuts in the health and safety budget by the UK coalition Government has directly impacted not only in the number of prosecutions but 98 per cent of which are successful, but also in the delivery of justice for the victims of workplace accidents and their families? It cannot be a coincidence that those cuts to the health and safety executive budget have coincided with a dramatic fall in prosecutions. It was one of the key arguments that the SDUC put forward when arguing that devolution of health and safety would allow us to ensure that we have a system that protects workers wherever they work, but does not constrain businesses through undue regulation. It is a highly serious matter, and Kenneth Gibson is quite right to raise it in this chamber. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Law Society of Scotland's discussion paper, Legal Assistance in Scotland, which says that the current system is not fit for purpose. The Scottish Legal Aid Board makes hundreds of thousands of grants of legal assistance each year to help people to deal with welfare benefit problems or to help those accused of criminal offences to defend themselves. The expenditure of legal assistance last year was £150.5 million. The Scottish Legal Aid Board's annual report shows that, since 2011, changes to the legal system have saved the public purse £52 million, but there is still more to do. The Law Society's paper is intended to open up discussion. We do have some points of shared perspective, such as the need for simplification. We will, of course, be taking a detailed look at the Law Society's proposals over the coming weeks, with a view to assessing their potential impact, both in public funds and, of course, those who rely on legal aid. Presiding Officer, I am grateful to the First Minister for that reply. The First Minister may remember our raised concerns last year regarding proposed changes to legal aid. The President of the Law Society of Scotland indicated this week that legal aid cuts are likely to curb the rights to justice for people on low and modest incomes who rely on legal aid. Does the First Minister agree with me that the prospect of citizens of modest means being denied access, as the Law Society suggests, while career criminals repeatedly access legal aid unfettered, is indefensible and a foreseeable consequence arising from Mr McCaskill's changes? Will he use whatever influence he has to ensure that this situation is addressed by his successor as a matter of urgency? I point out to Graham Pearson that he will know that expenditure on legal assistance has been held in Scotland since 2007 at £150 million. Of course, that is not what has happened south of the border, where there has been substantial cuts. Labour members should understand that, under the Barnett formula, the consequentials that come to Scotland are directed by expenditure in England. Unless they put forward a position where the great resources of Scotland can be available for the Scottish people to direct their own spending, then those matters, I am afraid, are relevant. Graham Pearson should also understand that, while there were some aspects of the Law Society's submission that we were extremely interested in—the need for simplification, for example—he will know that it itself has proved deeply controversial, as he will see from the debate that is opening up. People are pointing out that many areas of civil law are vitally important in terms of the legal aid assistance, and criminal lawyers are pointing out that the fundamental right to defend yourself against the criminal charge is the essence of a free society. There are no easy answers to those questions at the present moment, but he can rest assured that what this Government does and what an immediately future Government will do will be to protect the right of the people of Scotland to legal assistance so that they can pursue their claims for justice. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on underground coal gasification and whether any licences have been granted for exploration. The coal authority, which is a UK non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, has issued six licences for underground coal gasification in Scotland. All of those licences are offshore Scotland or in Esturys. However, no underground coal gasification project can proceed in Scotland without a range of other permissions, including local planning and environmental consent, which, of course, are devolved issues. Thank you. The First Minister will be aware of the scientific consensus that says that we already have far too many fossil fuels to burn safely. Will the First Minister agree that his legacy should be a Scotland that meets its climate change targets, that leads the world in climate justice and that delivers thousands of more new jobs and renewables, and does he agree that the Scottish Government must use the powers that it has to stop the damaging and destructive distraction of unconventional gas extraction in Scotland? The Scottish Government recognises the concerns that Alison Johnstone has, but also recognises that we have to see the potential for new energy technologies. We also recognise the potential synergies between technologies such as underground coal gasification and carbon capture and storage, where CO2 emissions could be captured at source and transported for storage offshore, making it an extremely effective environmental process. Scotland, as she will know, has world-leading expertise in carbon capture and storage. We have firm excellent comparative advantage such as access to vast offshore storage of CO2. Have we been very clear that, when it comes to new technologies, we need to proceed cautiously and take an evidence-based approach to ensure that the environment is protected and, above all, that local communities' concerns are properly taken into account? I know that Alison Johnstone will accept that whatever other range of criticisms might be levelled at the administration over the past seven and a half years, lack of enthusiasm for renewable energy could not be one of them. I am sure that she, like me, looks forward to celebrating a milestone that we are sure will be achieved in the very near future, and that will be 50 per cent of Scotland's effective demand for electricity that is likely to be secured from renewable sources. That is a transformative initiative over the past seven years, and I am sure that Alison Johnstone and I have common cause in that enthusiasm and that record. Murdo Fraser Yesterday, the world-renowned energy expert, Professor Dieter Helm, of Oxford University, described Alex Salmond's energy policy as nonsense. Will he be advising his successor, First Minister, to rethink this nonsense policy? Of course, the Conservative Party and the UK coalition described the Liberal Democrat energy policy as nonsense, and the Liberal Democrats in the coalition at Westminster described the Conservative Party's energy policy as nonsense. I think that an energy policy that we have been able to pursue in Scotland to see that surge forward in renewable energy is an extremely effective one indeed. Of course, it would be fantastic if there were other areas of energy policy that had been under the control of this Parliament. I would like, for example, not to have seen the total chaos that has resulted in the electricity markets, threatening the people of England with blackouts or brownouts in the very near future as a result of coalition policies at Westminster. I would have liked to have seen things like oil and gas under the control of this Scottish Parliament, so the great natural resources of Scotland could be invested in the future of the Scottish economy. How disappointing it is that, once upon a time, Murdo Fraser was in the vanguard of Scottish Conservative thinking if that is not a contradiction in terms. Now, meekly, in this probable last question to me comes to this chamber, diminishing the ability of this Parliament and the future administration to control energy policy light years ahead of what has happened to us and what has remained to Westminster. The last First Minister's Questions by First Minister Alex Salmond. We now move on to Members' Business. I will allow a short pause for those who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly.