 the passenger's tune from the western Iles. Pros meantime, if members will be interested to know that the figures that are released today reveal that that tend much macro over 98,000 16 and 17 year olds have registered go t in the independence referendum. Ar ganweithio ddaf o 80% o ddarparu 16 a 17 yw rôl, ac mae geniad 4 mewn cymdeithasol adrofiad dim yn teimlo iawn. Johann Lamont That information, of course, should all reflect dydig yn awr o'r pwysig, ond wrth cael eu fawr amlaeddysterau i chi hynny, beth yw'r annybodaeth'n cyfnoddau i fynd wedi ei fod yn ôl i'w hynny. Felly, according to Amnisk international, Vladimir Putin has effectively criminalised homosexuality, has cracked down on democratic dissent, carries out arbitrary arrests and has corrupted the judicial process and then there are many journalists who have disappeared after criticising the Kremlin. Ieart, the first minister has expressed his admiration for Putin. Will the First Minister now withdraw his ill-judged comments ac yn ymwneud i'r Llacholodau i'r wrthwyr i'r Llacholodau i'r Llacholodau i'r Lleidwyr. Yr Fffordd Fyllgrifol? Rwy'n credu'n chael i'r cymdeithasid. Yr ystod, rwy'n cymdeithasid, fe ddim yn adrodd diwylliant rhesiag i rhesiag i Lleidwyr, ac rwy'n credu i'r llacholodau i Lleidwyr, ac i'r llacholodau i'r llacholodau, ac yn ymgynghoru i'r rhesiag i'u rhain. I said also that I believed he'd been underestimated by the western press, I think that's pretty obvious now, and I did express my admiration for certain aspects by which I had in mind the restoration of Russian pride because I was speaking in the aftermath of the Sochi Olympics. Indeed, I was speaking during the Para Olympics and why I believe our attitude to this is reasonable and consistent. On 9 January, the external affairs secretary met the Russian consul general to express our opposition to Russian policies and homosexuality. On 13 March, we expressed again to the consul general our concern about Russian attitude to Ukraine. On 26 March, we drew the invitation to the consular court dinner, an action that was widely reported, and we said that we have taken this step following the Russian Federation's illegal and illegitimate referendum in the Crimea and the steps subsequently taken to annex the territory. The Scottish Government and my position on these aspects have been totally consistent throughout. Strangely enough, I was searching today to find what Johann Lamont had said about the situation in Ukraine, and I couldn't find a single comment, not just from Johann Lamont, but from any of the Opposition leaders this year. On the explanation of the serious attitude that we have taken to this serious subject, I think that that is a reasonable perspective that reflects the views of the people of Scotland. I think that no matter how hard the First Minister googles, he will not find me expressing any admiration for Vladimir Putin. On the question of Sochi, I think that the protesters beating with horse whips at Sochi might have a different view of the success of the Sochi Olympics. The First Minister says that his position is reasonable and consistent, but to Amnesty International and others it is something different. Michael Astabco, who leads Scotland's Ukrainian population, has expressed that community's hurt, disgust, betrayal and astonishment at the First Minister's comments. He said in a letter to the First Minister and I quote, "...we cannot see any good in Putin's actions and we fail to see how you can be so effusive in admiration towards this despotic and criminally run nation whose own citizens are cowed into submission, not admiration by arrests, assassination and rabid nationalism." Will the First Minister now withdraw his support of Vladimir Putin and apologise? I expressed the Restoration of Russian Pride awards referring to the Paralympics. We expressed our opposition to the attitude to homosexuality prior to the Olympics, but on a range of indications in organisational terms, the Olympics were widely regarded as a substantial success in terms of their organisation. I have a range of quotes here that indicate that. When I said that I did not approve of a range of Russian actions, I was reflecting a serious view put forward by the Scottish Government on a consistent basis. That is done since I gave that interview. That view has also been put forward to the Ukrainian authorities in several meetings on a consistent basis. If we have done that—I have explained the opposition that I have to a range of Russian actions and said how we have done that consistently—is that not a reasonable position to adopt. Why is it that only now, Johann Lamont has anything whatsoever to say about human rights in Russia or the situation of Ukraine, only now does the Labour Party in Scotland decide that this is something worth raising? The position that we have put forward is consistent and balanced. It shows that we do not approve of Russian actions, but it makes comments that are reasonable in the circumstances, and we back that up by the action that we have taken. I do not think that any of the opposition parties in this Parliament could have any indication that they have expressed any concern in public that I can find. If Johann Lamont can point to a quotation where she was interested in this topic before today, then I will be delighted to acknowledge that she expressed such a quotation. I have pointed to Scottish Government actions over a consistent period of time. I think that it is reasonable to find out if the Labour Party in this Parliament had any similar record of action or concern. I am a proud member of Amnesty International and I support what they have said on this question. All of the human rights abuses that they have identified across the world, because what the First Minister does not seem to understand is that all of the things that his Scottish Government has said on this question are completely undermined by an assertion that the Sochi Olympics and what Putin has done there is worthy of any admiration whatsoever. Putin has annexed Crimea. Putin says that acts like annexed Crimea have restored Russian pride. Alex Salmond has praised Putin for restoring Russian pride. Does the First Minister, even at this stage, not see his comments where at best ill-judged and must be withdrawn? What on earth does he admire so much about Putin? Well, if the First Minister bullies and threatens Scottish newspapers because he does not like their cartoons, maybe we can see what he admires about Putin. Even at this stage, will Alex Salmond now apologise for praising Vladimir Putin? The first thing that I said in the interview that I did not approve of a range of Russian actions and have indicated how we have communicated that to the consul general and publicised it and drawn the contrast on many occasions that I have done between the legitimate democratic process of a referendum in Scotland and the lack of constitutionality and the lack of process in the referendums arranged in the Crimea. I think that that is a reasonable thing to do backed up by action. There are reasons to doubt Johann Lamont and the other parties' bona fideas on this. I have seen the letter. It is not just the absence of any comment, but I have seen the letter to the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain Scotland, signed by the three Better Together leaders. Nowhere in that letter is there any reference to Better Together's leading donor—the £500,000 donation from Ian Taylor, the boss of Vitoll. Is Johann Lamont aware that Vitoll is engaged in a business relationship with Rosneth, including a loan of £10 billion, whose boss, Igor Retsetche, is on the banned list from the American Government? Will Johann Lamont think about apologising to the people of Corkain for that association? Furthermore, will there be any consideration to returning the Better Together donation of £500,000 to Mr Taylor? Johann Lamont? Only in the SNP could that be regarded as an appropriate answer to a serious question. The reputation of the people of Scotland is damaged by the performance of that First Minister. The First Minister wouldn't meet the Dalai Lama, but he praises Rupert Murdo. He praises Nigel Farage and praises an ex-KGB officer accused of abusing his own citizens' human rights all in the one interview and then slags off Barack Obama. Alex Salmond criticised Obama for not doing enough but then said of Vladimir Putin and I quote, he is more effective than most and you can see why he carries support in Russia. He said he admires certain aspects of Putin's character. He said he's restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing, regardless of the price that people in Russia have paid for that restoration. If, as is evident now, the First Minister won't withdraw those remarks and apologise, will he now tell us, and the people of Scotland and people across the world, precisely what aspects of Vladimir Putin does he so admire? I did that in answer to the first two questions, but I just point out for the record that there's a series of misquotations that Johann Lamont engaged in. To take one example, what I said was he was more effective than the press he gets, and that has been confirmed by the magazine. What I have in mind is that the Western press has consistently underestimated President Putin, and I think that that would be pretty obvious from the events of the last few weeks. I've said and let me say again that I don't approve of Russian actions across a range of issues. Consistently, this Government has set out what these issues are, despite the silence from all of the Opposition parties on those issues. The Association of Ukrainian's in Great Britain President, Zenko Lazakski, has written saying and looking at Sir George Robertson's call last month for Russia to be admitted to NATO, we cannot comment on his reasoning but it's extremely bizarre while insulting to the Ukrainian nation. I say to Johann Lamont that in that letter, where I am sure she's going to explain why Better Together's biggest donor has business links with people on the banned list by the American Government, she'll be apologising for the insult caused by her party colleague Lord George Robertson. I think that the serious issues are as follows. We have deprecated Russian actions and attitude towards Ukraine. We have spelt out and said that we don't support Russian's attitude to human rights or, indeed, to homosexuality. We've done these things consistently throughout this year. We didn't want to alight on the issue as part of a combined Better Together political opportunity. We said these things before, during and after the interview with JQ, which is why we have substantially more credibility than the Opposition parties in this chamber and why we'll continue to say them without fear and without favour. Question 2, Ruth Davidson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. No plans near future. Ruth Davidson. Presiding Officer, the First Minister has said that he wants us to put his comments into context, so let's do that. On the same day that the First Minister sat down with Alasdair Campbell, 10,000 Russian troops were massing on the Ukrainian border. Ukraine's Prime Minister said that Russia was demonstrating, and I quote, military aggression that had no reason and no grounds. Two days earlier, President Obama pledged to stand with the Ukraine. 24 hours after that, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel attacked Russian actions, warning that territorial integrity of Ukraine cannot be called into question. Then, on 14 March, the UK's foreign secretary, William Hague, called on the international community to take a united stand together to defend the territorial integrity of another nation. That is the day that Alex Salmond used to praise Vladimir Putin, an act that he is still defending in this chamber today. Arthur, the First Minister says that he wasn't wrong, but can he see why so many other people think that he was? I'll be writing to the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain under Scottish Brands explaining the full range of the Scottish Government's action on the matter, making it clear that I'll through the meetings, both with the Russian consul general, through the meetings with the Ukrainian representatives, and the public statements that I and others have made, which have been substantially reported, how we have made our attitude towards the Russian attitude to Ukraine absolutely clear, as well as expressing our concern with human rights in Russia, as indeed I did in terms of deprecating a range of Russian actions in the interview that she cites. Not only have I been unable to find any comment from Johann Lamont on this issue, I have been unable to find any comment from Ruth Davidson on this issue. Ruth Davidson should also have some understanding that when the Scottish Government has a substantial record of consistent comment on exactly these matters over the last few months, that stands in stark comparison with Opposition parties that had nothing to say on this issue until they sense a political opportunity. Let me repeat for the record, we deprecate Russian actions in Ukraine. We are concerned for human rights, not just in Russia but all over the planet. We have said these things consistently and we shall continue to do so. Ruth Davidson? I think that a substantial number of the people of Scotland would have preferred that there was an absence of comment from the First Minister in admiration of Vladimir Putin. Presiding Officer, this is a question of judgment. The First Minister says that he backs our key British alliances across the world. He has shifted his tack to support NATO. He says that he wants to show our closest allies in Europe and the US that he will stand alongside them. Yet at the same time, we see a leader who continues to make poorly timed, badly judged interventions on foreign affairs. The First Minister was wrong about Kosovo and he is wrong about Putin. We know what Amnesty International thinks. We know what the Ukrainian people in Scotland think. We know what other world leaders think. How can we trust the First Minister to represent Scotland on the global stage when he so consistently gets it wrong? The First Minister? That really was on the nub of the issue facing the people of Ukraine. Let's express again our concern for Russian actions in Ukraine, our concern for the Ukrainian people, our concern for human rights in Russia, the substance of the issue. I am interested, however, in when Vladimir Putin suddenly became persona non grata with the Conservative Administration. Cameron's plea to Putin helped me to stop salmon. It was the interview from earlier this year that was repeated in this Parliament last month at a committee where a Scottish official from the Scotland office confirmed that he had discussed that report in a meeting where he was briefing the Russian Government. Now, of course, perhaps he was just asking for information. He was doing things in a totally balanced way, but Ruth Davidson will understand why, if in January you were appealing for Vladimir Putin's support, it comes ill to come to this chamber until I should condemn them throughout. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of great importance to the people. The First Minister is not a homophobe, nor does he support the Syrian regime, but he must realise that if he praises people who do, he diminishes himself. He mentioned Sochi. The Prime Minister and leaders of the Western world spoke for us all when they boycotted Sochi because of Putin, but the First Minister praises Putin because of Sochi. Considering the international storm, is he still adamant that he did the right thing? There is a range of acceptance from people internationally, including the American ambassador, including the Canadian Olympic president, that the Sochi Olympics were well organised and helped to restore pride in terms of the people of Russia. The IOC praised the excellent Sochi 2014 Games. Over across a range of international opinion, that was accepted. Why does not the Liberal Democrat leader accept that there is concern across this Parliament for the issue of human rights? That the Scottish Government's record on human rights internationally has been described as exemplary, that we have worked with the Scottish Human Rights Commission on a wide range of civil society organisations to produce the first-ever national action plan for human rights in Scotland, as well as recognising our responsibilities internationally. It would be wonderful if, just occasionally, Willie Rennie would accept that other people, apart from the Liberal Democrats, have expressed a consistent concern for human rights in our country and, indeed, across the planet. Willie Rennie said that his remarks were balanced. Moscow did not think so. President Putin lapped up the praise. I do not get why the First Minister spokesman thinks earlier this week that it is okay to praise President Putin back in March. Putin has not just started persecuting gay people, restricting free speech, threatening to cut off Europe's gas supplies, backing the Syrian regime and invading his neighbours. He has been doing it for years, and it is not the first time for the First Minister, either. Cow towing to the Chinese over the Dalai Lama on cost of vote are now on Russia. The First Minister wants us to stand tall in the world, but does he not just look small? Where will I start with Willie Rennie? Willie Rennie has not... Willie Rennie, like his two colleagues in Better Together, who have not mentioned any of them, the £500,000 donation from the man who has business links with people on the banned American list. Apart from that, Willie Rennie has never acknowledged and actually claimed, I think, that he had not raised human rights with the Chinese leadership. Can you please explain, then, this BBC report? That is me, and that is the Chinese leadership, and the headline is, Salmon Raises China's Human Rights. I think I have got a track record of raising human rights with countries across the world without fear or favour. In contrast, Willie Rennie, rather like his two colleagues, also had said nothing about this issue that I can find on record until today. It was, of course, his own party colleague. When the Scotland Office official was about to divulge to this Parliament's committee exactly what the briefing at the Russian Embassy was about earlier this year, it was the Secretary of State for Scotland who interrupted him and said that that information could not be disclosed. No doubt there are limits to the Liberal Democrats' wish for freedom of expression and freedom of information, but when it comes to denying this Parliament's committee's information about what exactly was going to be brief to the Russian Embassy, I think that, at some point, Willie Rennie might accept that he and his party have associations of which they should not be proud. He and his party, calling in aid Vladimir Putin earlier this year, looked a bit ridiculous, condemning him now when they have said nothing up until this moment. To ask the First Minister what recent contact he has had with the UK Government regarding an independent Scotland's membership of the European Union. As is well known, the United Kingdom Government has repeatedly fused to jointly approach European Commission with the precise legal scenario on Scottish independence. I made a point in correspondence with the Foreign Secretary on Sunday. He wrote me a letter and I replied that day. Hopefully, that new intimate communication between ourselves and the UK Government will result in the UK Government changing its mind and jointly going to the European Commission with the precise legal scenario so that we can take those matters forward. I thank the First Minister for that answer and note how well attended his speech at the College of Europe was this week, demonstrating the huge interests across, certainly from what I have seen from the committee of Europe in the debate over Scotland's constitutional future. Can the First Minister outline what considerations has been given to the consequences of Scotland not being in the European Union, particularly for our friends and neighbours elsewhere in the EU? In contrast to the better-together parties in this Parliament, there is a wide appreciation across Europe of Scotland's contribution to the European Union. We may be one per cent of the population of the European Union, but we are 60 per cent of the oil resource, 25 per cent of the renewable energy potential and 20 per cent of the fishing stocks of the European Union. This country may have one per cent of the population but has a substantial role to play in Europe, something that is appreciated by our friends and colleagues across the continent, sadly not in the better-together alliance. The First Minister's trip to Bruges, which Ms McKelvie has just referred to, has borne fruit somewhat earlier than he might have expected, in that he now has advice that his Government is perfectly entitled to implement a living wage through public sector contracts. Will he now instruct his members to back Scottish Labour's amendments to the procurement bill and acknowledge that the way is now clear to allow him to finally do the right thing for Scotland's workers? It is a bit wide of the mark, but, First Minister, let us just remember that it is this Government who introduced the living wage across the public sector in Scotland. The spokesperson, presumably, is the legal opinion that the member is citing. In the Scotsman, they were not preventing it, but it was possible that it could be challenged by companies at a later stage. That, of course, is exactly the issue that the European Commission has suggested that the posting of workers directive in correspondence with the Scottish Government makes it incompatible for us to set a living wage higher than that. I shall cite the correspondence that does that from the European Commission and put it in the record of this Parliament and will contrast it with the quote of the Scotsman, which said that it might be open to challenge by companies at a later stage. That Government has introduced the living wage across the Scottish public sector, something that the Labour Party omitted or forgot to do. We are proud of that. This Government is introducing the procurement legislation to encourage the living wage across Scottish society. This Government is pressing the European Commission to make it unambiguous that the living wage can be part of the contract, so councils such as Glasgow Council do not have to answer FOIs and admit that they share the same opinion as the Scottish Government as regards the European Commission. Can we not join together and say that the Europe, if it is to be meaningful to the workers across the continent, should have a social purpose, and the living wage is a grand example exactly of that programme? To ask the First Minister following the publication of the Martin Hall investigation how the Scottish Government plans to support parents and families affected. I know the thoughts of all of us with the families affected who have not only suffered the loss of a child but the additional trauma that the Martin Hall report highlights. That experience for families has been going on for decades. No one should ever have to experience this pain and were determined that no one shall ever will again. That is why the outcome of Lord Barnaby's infinite cremation commission, whose findings along with those of Dame Angelini will lead to a new burials in cremation legislation. It is order to stop these terrible events happening again in the future as a priority of this Parliament. However, we must care for those who are affected in the here and now. We provided additional funding last year to assist the two counselling organisations who have done such sterling work and are being closely involved with the parents affected by the issue. Today, I acknowledge that we are making available an additional £100,000 for counselling services for the families affected. As Scottish Government officials are ready by gun discussions with the two counselling organisations to take this forward. Can I assure Kezia Dugdale that the Scottish Government will implement the recommendations of Ailish Angelini's report as regards the Government? Edinburgh Council has also made a similar commitment and we will take forward Lord Barnaby's infinite cremation commission and its recommendations into legislation at the earliest possible moment so that those events never fall any family in Scotland again. Can I thank the First Minister for that answer and welcome the additional funds? I know that the services that Sands and Simba offer parents are very important and make a real difference. When you or I lose someone close to us, we have countless memories to call on, photographs and possessions. Parents who lose a baby have only those brief moments and that is why the ashes matter so much. Parents at Mortonhall wanted the truth. Thanks to Ailish Angelini's report, many now know with certainty that they will never know where their baby's ashes are. Will the First Minister promise parents beyond Mortonhall, those in Aberdeen, Falkirk and Glasgow and beyond, that his Government will do everything in its power to access the same truth, no matter how hard it is to accept? Yes, I can give that commitment and I think that Kezia Dugdale is absolutely right that in this issue there are a number of key priorities. One is to find out exactly why, over a period of many decades, the processes at Mortonhall and perhaps elsewhere were allowed to exist and continue in the way that they did. Secondly, and I should say to the chamber that the Lord Advocate has referred Ailish Angelini's report to the Police for Further Investigation. First, we have to allow that investigation of any possible criminality to properly take its course. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly of all when she refers to it, having met a number of the parents and I know ministers and other Opposition members have as well. One of the key priorities is to try and satisfy as far as it is possible, and Ailish Angelini's report does indicate in some cases that it will never be possible, that every possible investigation has been made into every individual case. I assure the member that that is absolutely predominant in the Scottish Government's consideration of how we proceed from here. I am aware that a number of other members wish to ask questions on that very important issue, but there is a statement this afternoon, and you will have ample opportunity to ask whatever questions you wish to, and I will ensure that sufficient time is there that all of the issues in the report get a fair hearing. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government is having with the Scottish Qualifications Agency regarding the future funding of the curriculum for elections. I am sure, as we have heard already in this session, that the whole chamber wishes luck to all of the young people taking the exams this year, not least those who are sitting in the higher English exams, as I speak, and the advanced higher English this very afternoon. In recent years we have seen some excellent exam results. I am sure that pupils' dedication and hard work and that of their teachers will once again pay off. The Scottish Government is in regular discussion with all partners, including the SQA, on the implementation of the curriculum for excellence. I add my good wishes to the pupils. The Herald newspaper reported earlier this week that a recent board meeting of SQA there were warnings issued that the current position of financial deficit is likely to continue for the foreseeable future because of the increasing costs of implementing the curriculum for excellence and the related support for teachers. Teachers whose representatives told this Parliament recently that, when it comes to the new higher and the new advanced higher, some of the preparations have barely begun. Could I ask the First Minister what is the revised estimate for the full cost of implementing curriculum for excellence, including for the new higher and the new advanced higher? I have a range of calculations following that report that show the income and expenditure balance of the Scottish Qualification Authority, which I am prepared to make available to the member. Can I point out that each year, the Scottish Government works closely with the SQA to ensure that it reaches a balanced budget position? Obviously, the obligations of implementation of the curriculum for excellence are part of that budget consideration. I am sure that that is being done and will be done, and I will provide the range of figures that give the detailed answer to our question. That ends First Minister's question. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly. Y Llywodraeth Cymru