Statement: Supreme Court Judgment (Response)

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): Earlier, Jackson Carlaw said that our Westminster Parliament will determine what comes next. Is that correct, in light of paragraph 60 of the judgment, which refers to the need to consult the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? Would any decisions that have been made without the agreement of all the jurisdictions in these islands be invalid, as the judgment has shown previous judgments to be invalid?

The First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon): Stewart Stevenson raises a valid and very important point. Obviously, in strict terms, what came next was not simply a matter for the Westminster Government; actually, it was for the Speaker of the House of Commons to decide that Parliament should gather again tomorrow, and I am pleased that he has done so.

I recommend to all members that they read paragraph 60 of the judgment, which talks about the consultations that are required with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I hope that, in any steps that the Westminster Government now takes, the principle of consulting the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly is respected in a way that it has not always been previously. Given the terms and strength of the judgment today, I very much hope that the UK Government will take more care over how it arrives at such decisions in the future than it has done in the past.

(S5O-03468) Climate Emergency

4. Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle the climate emergency. (S5O-03468)

The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (Roseanna Cunningham): Obviously, I gave Neil Findlay an answer on that topic. The 2019-20 programme for government outlines the need to respond to the global climate emergency as well as the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to do so. For example, the development and publication of a climate emergency skills plan will build the right skills in Scotland’s workforce to take advantage of new areas of investment.

Stewart Stevenson: Is the cabinet secretary aware that, in a national poll that was run by Quinnipiac University last week, 67 per cent of US voters supported doing more to address climate change? Is that further confirmation that the climate emergency is now recognised worldwide and requires a substantial response from every country, including our own?

Roseanna Cunningham: It may not surprise Stewart Stevenson to hear that I was unaware of that very specific poll from Quinnipiac University. However, I am not sure that the results surprise me enormously. It is encouraging to see that more US voters want action to address climate change.

The global climate emergency needs a global response. Although we can lead by example—indeed, we will end Scotland’s contribution to climate change by 2045—we need the rest of the world to follow that lead and work collaboratively with us to tackle the global climate emergency. I meet representatives from many of the state legislatures in the United States that have maintained, and want to forge ahead with, their commitments to reduce emissions, and the sum total of their efforts will mean that we still get a contribution from the United States.

Statement: European Union Farming Funding (Convergence Funds)

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): I welcome the comments from the Conservative members that indicate that the money should come to Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that the decision-making power regarding how it may be distributed might be retained at Westminster? I say that in the light of remarks from the new Secretary of State for Scotland about the UK Government taking control of spending money in Scotland. Is that simply a new minister being naive, or is he being mendacious?

The Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy (Fergus Ewing): I do not think that I am going to stray into talking about mendacity today, as you may be pleased to hear, Presiding Officer, but I have some concerns that there have been a number of suggestions—I will not go into them all, as there is not enough time—that there may still be some intention to attach strings to how the money should be deployed, should it be repatriated. That would be entirely wrong. It would be a breach of devolution and a predation of our powers, and we would not be willing to accept such conditions. However, I hope that reason will prevail and that that will not be the case. I hope that I have also clearly indicated that there is reasonable common ground about the main thrust of how the lion’s share of the funding should be deployed.