Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

I can go a little further than that, having spoken to the Busines Secretary on this topic only yesterday evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) raises a very important point, especially around where the devolution settlement and reserved responsibilities sit. It is absolutely right to raise that but it is also fair to say that an issue of that significance will require a UK-wide approach and, of course, the views and responsibilities of the Welsh Government will be taken very seriously in those discussions.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

If the devolution settlement is to work, the UK Government have to match their rhetoric on the respect agenda. Given that all devolved Governments in the UK have asked the UK Government to cancel the cut to universal credit, can the Secretary of State say that he made that representation to his Cabinet colleagues, or is the post of Secretary of State entirely redundant? [Interruption.]

[Simon Hart]

I barely caught a single word of that, but on the basis that I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s views on this subject before, I will simply repeat my views and observations. Over the past 18 months during the covid pandemic, there has been a very analytical look at what works and what does not work in the devolution settlement by businesses, employers, wealth creators, investors, universities, churches and members of the public. I have to say that this fixation with the niceties of the devolution settlement is not reflected by businesses in Wales at the moment. [Interruption.] If by any chance I have missed the hon. Gentleman’s question, which, by the shake of his head, I suspect I have, we can have a conversation in the Tea Room later.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I am always sympathetic to that point. There is always a risk when any of us have to bang on too long that we simply get boring, and I can already apologise to the House for having taken 50 minutes of tonight’s Committee in trying to make my way through the material I am obliged to cover. My right hon. Friend makes a wise point, and it is one of the balances that have to be looked at in this discussion. That is one reason why he and others have tabled amendments.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On the wider point about how quickly an election takes place, can I take it as read from the Minister that the Government will always immediately move a writ for a by-election, and not drag it on any longer than usual?

[Chloe Smith]

If only I had the ability to give the hon. Gentleman that promise, I think I would have promoted myself to Chief Whip and other positions in a single move. I do not think I should be drawn on the dark ways of the Chief Whip and the usual channels. Instead, I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker).

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

I do not believe it was my hon. Friend’s speech, Mr Evans, but if it was, it was a perfectly good one and I thank him for it. The points he makes are absolutely valid.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I guess that, like me, my hon. Friend finds it a bit perplexing, when sitting in this debate and looking at Conservative Members, who advocated for Brexit in their constituencies and for Parliament to take back control, that they will walk through the Lobby tonight to neuter Parliament. Do he and his constituents who voted against Brexit see the irony in what the Brexiteers will do tonight?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I am sure I am not the only person in this House who can see the irony of how taking back control supposedly has led us to a position where Parliament is being neutered by the Executive, and the people who were most loudly proclaiming “Take back control” are the people holding the scissors and doing the neutering—if that is not too much of an image, Mr Evans.

If the Bill passes, as well as there being no parliamentary or legal scrutiny, an active debate will still rage about whether the monarch’s prerogative powers would return to exactly as they were in 2011. I notice that, in her letter to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Minister acknowledged that

“there remains a role for the sovereign in exceptional circumstances to refuse a Dissolution request.”

But the monarch’s prerogative powers are now being enshrined in statute, having been removed by statute; they are now being restored by statute. So what exactly are the exceptional circumstances in which the monarch can refuse a Dissolution request? How can the Lascelles principles, which we heard earlier were prerogative powers, now be statutory powers? I cannot see how this returns us to the position we were in in 2011.

Therefore, we have been and will continue to be extremely uneasy about the insertion of the ouster clause making the Government’s action in relation to the dissolution of Parliament non-justiciable. As I said, we share the concerns of many Members across the Chamber that the repeal of the Fixed-terms Parliaments Act would not automatically take us back to the position of 2012 and we need a lot more clarity about exactly what legal position we would be in.

The Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee pointed out in a letter to the Minister:

“The Fixed-terms Parliaments Act was passed and the consequences of this cannot simply be wished away.”

I note that, in her response to the Committee Chair, the Minister accepts that there is an academic debate about the issue, but she seems to believe the opinion of her academics that the courts

“will be required to act as if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act had never been enacted”

and that they will be

“required to pretend that it never happened.”

It is a ridiculous situation and an extremely unsatisfactory position in which we find ourselves. For years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, we have heard this Government talk about taking back control and the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. This is an early test of how this Parliament takes back that control, and the Executive are legislating to prevent it from happening. If the Bill is passed as it stands, Parliament and the judiciary, and arguably the monarch’s traditional role, will no longer be in play, and the decision to dissolve this place and call a general election will be entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, who may call one when it is politically expedient so to do. That is not how a modern liberal democracy should function, and that is why we will not be supporting the Bill.

Back in January, both Lord Sumption and Baroness Hale were unequivocal in their evidence that the minimum safeguard required in the event of an ouster clause being put in place was the inclusion in the Bill of a time limit on the moving of writs for parliamentary elections. However, as it stands, there is no such provision in the Bill; six months on, the Government have not produced anything of the sort, and the original clause remains. In effect, that allows the Government to decide the length of a period of Prorogation, the gap between the Dissolution of Parliament and an election, and indeed the gap between an election and the first sitting of a Parliament. That is deeply worrying. The Government had an opportunity to take the advice of many learned people and improve the Bill. They refused to take that advice, and I fear that it is sinister and troubling that they did not.

Afghanistan

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

We have it on the record that the Prime Minister is happy to do that—that he is happy to have a four-nations summit. I am grateful.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

There has been much focus today on making sure we offer sanctuary for people from Afghanistan, but last night I was speaking to my Carmyle constituent Mohammad Asif, who is originally from Afghanistan. He wants to make sure that we also offer humanitarian protection to those who are already seeking asylum in the City of Glasgow. On the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), yes, the City of Glasgow has done its fair share to welcome refugees and we stand ready to do a lot more, but I have to say to him that 30 refugees per parliamentary constituency is a paltry number that he should be ashamed of.

[Ian Blackford]

At the end of the day, it is important that we all do what we can. I commend Glasgow City Council and Glasgow’s MPs and MSPs, but it is the people of Glasgow who have done so much to welcome asylum seekers to their city.

We believe that the resettlement scheme should emulate and exceed the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. It must also be enacted and deployed much more quickly than the Syrian scheme. Afghan refugees should not—and cannot—wait for up to five years for safety. They need safe passage and they need it now. The scheme should be open to Afghans who supported UK Government-funded programmes and who worked for the UK and other international organisations. It should have a minimum commitment to welcome at least 35,000 to 40,000 Afghan refugees in the UK, in line with the population share of refugees welcomed from Syria.

Three thousand of those Syrian refugees have made Scotland their new home. They have contributed to our economy and our communities. They were Syrians; they are now part of Scotland’s story. They are our friends and neighbours. It is only right that we offer the same warmth and welcome to Afghan refugees facing the same dangerous and desperate situation.

The crisis has thrown into sharp focus the disaster of the overseas development cuts, which were rammed through before the summer recess. When the Prime Minister talks about the increase in spending in Afghanistan, it still does not take us to the level of spending that was previously committed. The cuts to overseas aid were immoral and shameful before this humanitarian emergency. It is now a policy—

Covid-19 Update

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the rates of infection of the B.1.617.2 variant, as we should probably call it. At the moment the cases look as though they are about 860 or so, but there may be more. It may be more transmissible—it may be considerably more transmissible. We are looking at all the potential solutions for the surges we are seeing in Bolton and elsewhere, including the one that he describes, though that is not top of the list at the moment.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister said in his statement that the public inquiry, which I certainly welcome,

“will place the state’s actions under the microscope.”

The Prime Minister is, of course, First Lord of the Treasury, and he has said many times before that this Government have put their arms around people financially. Can he tell us why, therefore, people on legacy benefits did not get the £20 uplift that people on universal credit got?

[The Prime Minister]

This country has done everything it can to support people throughout the pandemic, with the increasing of universal credit, with a furlough scheme, and with loans, credits and grants, which I think most people around the world would consider among the most generous, if not the single most generous regime that any country put in place. I think that was the right thing to do, and we will continue to support people for as long as the pandemic endures.

Debate on the Address

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young). There are a couple of points in his speech that I want to pick up on. I note what he said about the first-past-the-post system. I actually happen to be a big fan of proportional representation, which is rather ironic, given that my party won 85% of first-past-the-post seats in last week’s election. I would gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he has an issue with the first-past-the-post system, in order to be consistent he would need to recognise that, in Scotland, 85% of seats were won first past the post by the SNP on a mandate of giving Scotland the right to choose its own future. However, I do not want to quibble with him. I do actually want to agree with what he said specifically in relation to banning gay conversion therapy. I think he is right to put that on the record, and certainly on that he and I are very much on the same page.

As legislative programmes go, today’s was pretty bland and uninspiring. Indeed, this Queen’s Speech had all the hallmarks of a British Government who are good at spin, but utterly woeful on delivery. This is the second Queen’s Speech in which we anticipated an employment Bill, but as is so often the case, Westminster fails on the test of improving workers’ rights. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation was right to say today:

“The Government has repeatedly committed to levelling up our country, but with one in eight workers trapped in poverty and many of them hardest hit by the pandemic, many will be in disbelief there was no bill to protect them announced today.”

I very much agree with the JRF in that respect.

Another legislative Session without an employment Bill means yet another year without neonatal leave and pay provisions on the statute books—something that this Government have promised and something on which there is, indeed, clear cross-party support right across the House. We all know that a Queen’s Speech is a statement of intent about Government priorities, and it is clear that strengthening employment rights is not a priority for this British Conservative Government. In fact, it appears that the Tories care more about introducing draconian voter ID laws to suppress election turnouts in poorer areas than about introducing paid leave for parents, just like myself, whose babies at times have been fighting for their lives on neonatal units every single day.

No employment Bill means no making good on promises about neonatal leave and pay, but no employment Bill means so much more. It means a failure to outlaw fire and rehire, a campaign that has been spearheaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). It means a failure to legislate for flexible working, and it means a failure to reform the inadequate statutory sick pay system, which was found utterly wanting during the height of the pandemic.

At this critical moment in time, as we emerge from the pandemic, immediate action is needed on all these matters, yet the lack of urgency from this British Government could not be in starker contrast to the actions of the SNP in Scotland. My party recently published a comprehensive plan for the vital first 100 days of a new Government, with key social and economic actions to provide serious governance when it is most needed. We have an immediate plan to support youth employment and invest in better, greener jobs. We will make flexible and family-friendly practices and opposition to fire-and-rehire processes criteria in the Fair Work First programme, and we will give the hardest-hit businesses the help they need to support local economies as they tentatively reopen.

The lack of urgency or action in this Queen’s Speech on the stuff that really matters to people is precisely why the Tories were once again roundly rejected at the ballot box in Scotland, and, indeed, have been at every election since the 1950s. However, this unequal Union consistently limits Scotland’s ambition and our people have now expressed their desire to be able to choose a different future and a different path, away from a failing and tired Westminster Government who they did not vote for.

Last Thursday, the people of Scotland went to the polls and re-elected for a fourth term an SNP Government led by Nicola Sturgeon. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), chunters from a sedentary position; I am glad to see that his local Scottish Parliament constituency is again represented by an SNP MSP.

The Scottish people voted for a Government who they wanted to lead them out of the pandemic, and, yes, they voted clearly and unambiguously for Scotland to have the right to choose its future in a post-pandemic referendum. Faced with millions of leaflets from the Scottish Conservatives exclaiming that the only way to stop a referendum was to defeat the SNP, still our party —the SNP—achieved the highest number of votes of any political party, the highest number of constituency seats ever and the highest ever vote share in any Scottish election. If British Ministers have any shred of credibility in claiming to be democrats, they must respect the result of that election and allow Scotland the right to choose its own future.

One of the flagship pieces of legislation in the Queen’s Speech is an electoral integrity Bill. However, if this British Government refuse to acknowledge the results of the Scottish election, it will be Westminster that is found wanting on electoral integrity, and that will be an irony that is not lost on any of us.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely true. It is Conservative Governments who invest in Eastleigh; it is Conservative Governments putting £640 billion into an infrastructure revolution. I congratulate Jerry Hall on what he is doing to resurface the road and to make it quieter, and I hope that he will be duly elected in May.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

In extending the £20 uplift to universal credit, which we welcomed at the beginning of the pandemic, the Prime Minister was clearly conceding that social security support in the UK is inadequate, so while I welcome the fact that it has been extended for six months, I would like to see it being made permanent. But can he tell the House why, if it was so inadequate, it was not extended to those on legacy benefits, such as disabled people?

[The Prime Minister]

Throughout the pandemic we have done whatever we can to look after people throughout the country, whether those on benefits or those who have lost their jobs, sadly, because of the pandemic. I am very proud of what universal credit has been able to achieve, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should perhaps take it up with his friends in the Labour party who actually want to abolish universal credit.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party has spent months calling for the Chancellor to make permanent the £20 uplift in universal credit and indeed extend it to claimants on legacy benefits. By announcing a six-month extension while ignoring those on legacy benefits the Chancellor is essentially just kicking the can down the road, and we all know that that is only to get the Conservatives through the May local and national elections. Let us be clear: the Chancellor is proposing to swipe away the £20 uplift just when the furlough scheme will end, when unemployment will peak and energy levels will start to go up again. For those who most need the safety net of social security, this Budget will see them teetering on the brink of an autumn knife-edge.

Removing the uplift in the autumn will cut over £1,000 a year from household budgets, and this announcement will not protect those who need our help the most. That is why the Trussell Trust has said that today’s Budget

“fails to give families on the lowest incomes the ongoing protection they need. The six-month extension to the UC uplift only delays the hardship people will face in the year ahead.”

The Women’s Budget Group says:

“Extension to the #UCUplift is welcome but it confirms what we all know. UC is not enough to live on. We need a #SocialSecurity system that is a true safety net and reflects the needs of those who rely on it.”

Meanwhile, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said:

“It is also totally indefensible that people who are sick, disabled or carers claiming legacy benefits continue to be excluded from this vital support.”

The Poverty Alliance echoes this call, stating:

“The decision should not have been between ‘hardship now or hardship later’. It should have been a simple decision to say ‘hardship never’ and to make the increase permanent.”

Out of work support will be at its lowest ever level since 1990 when universal credit is cut in six months’ time. The universal credit uplift should have been seen not as an emergency measure in response to the pandemic, but as a reversal of the long-standing cuts that bring it back in line with its original intended value. In essence, the uplift reverses cuts to universal credit over the past eight years and brings it back in line with rises in the cost of living. Indeed, if the uplift is removed, 2021 and 2022 universal credit rates will be 11.5% less in real terms than in 2013.

A thread of inequality runs through this Budget like a stick of Blackpool rock. There are 4.2 million children living in poverty across the UK, and hundreds of thousands of people rely on food banks and struggle to pay essential bills. The Chancellor’s Budget falls short on every measure to protect household budgets and family incomes, but once again we see the tale of two Governments: the Tories look to cut welfare support, while the SNP Government invest in game-changing policies such as the Scottish child payment and receive praise for their budget from anti-poverty campaigners.

It is clear that Scotland faces a choice of two futures: the long-term damage of Brexit and Tory austerity cuts at Westminster, or the opportunity to protect our place in Europe and build a strong, fair and green recovery as an independent country. With two votes for the SNP in May, we can put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands, not Boris Johnson’s.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I must say that I reject entirely what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I do not believe that any Government could have done more to help the people of this country throughout this pandemic, and we will continue to do so. Yes, of course we bitterly lament and reject the poverty that some families unquestionably suffer. It is tragic that too many families have had a very tough time during the pandemic, but we will continue to support them in all the ways that we have set out. I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a profound philosophical difference between him and me; the Scottish nationalist party is morphing into an ever more left-wing party that believes—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Hear, hear!

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Hear, hear!

Elections: May 2021

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

It is the case that a new election date would require a change in legislation. For that reason, we can all understand that the bar for change would have to be quite high. I pray in aid the point that elections have already been held in this country and other countries, so we have seen that elections can be held. As I say, the bar for change ought to be set fairly high, in addition to the point about primary legislation.

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his kind words and for all his and his Committee’s work. I also thank him for his important underlining of the maxim that democracy is very important indeed and should not be delayed disproportionately.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

We look forward to seeing the Minister back at the Dispatch Box; much as I like the Leader of the House, he was a poor substitute throughout the final stages of the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill.

Last month in Holyrood, legislation was endorsed by all parties to establish contingency measures in respect of May’s elections. The legislation was developed with the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the Electoral Commission and makes provision for an earlier deadline in respect of postal voting applications, given the increased demand that would be expected. Dissolution will not take place in March but instead on the eve of the poll, to allow Parliament still to function and pass emergency legislation in what is clearly a very volatile situation. There is scope to allow polling to take place over more than one day, if needed, to support physical distance in polling stations.

At the moment, it is our expectation that elections can go ahead as planned, but I think we would all agree in this House that it is prudent and responsible to ensure that we have planned for every eventuality, so that the poll can be conducted safely and indeed fairly during the pandemic. Although we in the SNP have no skin in the game in terms of what happens at elections in England, it is clear that this Government are less well prepared for an election that cannot be treated as business as usual. Has the Minister looked at the measures adopted in Scotland, and will the Government be following suit with similar primary legislation to ensure that voter safety and confidence can be maintained during this year’s election?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words; it is good to see him, and I look forward to being back. I also thank him for making sure that our House is kept informed of what is going on in Holyrood. It is important that we have that mutual awareness, but may I gently pick him up on the idea that this Parliament and this Government are in some way less prepared? That is simply not the case.

There is a very full record of preparation that has gone on to ensure that the elections for which we are responsible will be a success. I laid that out in my statement and, as I undertook, I will be keeping the House further updated with more as it comes forward, for example in terms of guidance. However, I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of those parallel plans and, as I said in an earlier response, I also intend to continue working collaboratively with my opposite numbers in the two other Administrations to ensure that, wherever sensible, we have the right kind of co-operation.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely right, and the voice of Brixham should be heard up and down the country because that point is entirely correct and might be registered with advantage by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).

I have always recognised that this was going to be a difficult period for our European friends and partners, because they have been fishing in these waters for decades, if not centuries. At first, as the House will know, they sought an adjustment period of 14 years, but our negotiators whittled that down to five and a half years, during which the UK’s share—[Interruption.] In that five and a half years, the UK’s share of our fish in our waters will rise from over half today, to around two-thirds. Of course we would like to have done that more quickly, but it is also true that once the adjustment period comes to an end there will be no limit, other than limits that are placed by the needs of science and conservation, on our ability to make use of our marine wealth.

Fifteen per cent. of the EU’s historic catch from our waters will be returned to this country next year alone. To prepare our fishing communities for that moment, we will invest £100 million in a programme to modernise their fleets and the fish processing industry—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) should listen to this, because we will be restoring a great British industry to the eminence that it deserves, levelling up communities across the UK, particularly and including Scotland where, in my view, those interests have been neglected for too long.

I find it extraordinary that on the eve of this great opportunity, the declared position of the Scottish National national/nationalist party—with a small “n”—is to hand control of the very waters we have just reclaimed straight back to the EU. That is its policy. It plans to ensnare Scotland’s fishing fleet in the dragnets of the common fisheries policy all over again. In the meantime, guess what SNP Members will do today, Mr Speaker. They are going to vote today for a no-deal Brexit! [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow East will tell me that he is going to vote for the deal.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am immensely grateful to the Prime Minister for briefly pausing that monologue that was designed for the European Research Group. On fish, he is waxing lyrical about how amazing this deal is, but I would like to read him a quote from Andrew Locker, chair of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, who says:

“I am angry, disappointed and betrayed. Boris Johnson promised us the rights to all the fish that swim in our exclusive economic zone and we have got a fraction of that.”

Is he wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that yes, he is. We will take back control not only by becoming an independent coastal state from 1 January, but in five and a half years’ time, we will be able to fish every single fish in our waters, if we so choose. That is the reality. In the meantime, as I say, and the hon. Gentleman did not deny it—I don’t think I heard him deny it—the Scottish National party is going to vote against the deal. It is effectively going to vote for no deal, which it campaigned against and denounced, proving once and for all, that the interests of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are best served by a one-nation party serving one United Kingdom.

This deal was negotiated—the hon. Gentleman should know this—by a big team from every part of our United Kingdom, and it serves the whole of the UK, not least by protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom single internal market, and Northern Ireland’s place within it. Our points-based immigration system will end free movement and give us full control over who enters the country. By the way, on that point I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for all he did to protect the interests of Northern Ireland.

At the same time, the deal provides certainty for airlines and hauliers who have suffered grievously during this pandemic. It guarantees the freedom of British citizens to travel to and from the EU and retain access to healthcare. It provides certainty for our police, our border forces, and our security agencies to work alongside our European friends to keep our people safe, and the SNP are going to vote against that, Mr Speaker. The deal provides certainty for our partnerships on scientific research, because we want our country to be a science superpower, but also a collaborative science superpower. It provides certainty for business, from financial services to our world-leading manufacturers, including our car industry, safeguarding highly skilled jobs and investment across our country. As for the Leader of the Opposition, I am delighted that he has found yet another position on Brexit, and, having plunged down every blind alley and exhausted every possible alternative, he has come to the right conclusion—namely, to vote for this agreement, which this Government have secured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

A better one than this, for the reasons that I am about to lay out. [Interruption.] I will go into some of the detail—not too much—but if anyone believes what the Prime Minister has just said about financial services, they have not read the deal. With no further time for negotiation, when the default is no deal, it is not a mark of how pro-European you are to reject implementing this treaty. It is not in the national interest to duck a question or to hide in the knowledge that others will save you from the consequences of your own vote. This is a simple vote, with a simple choice—do we leave the transition period with a treaty that has been negotiated with the EU, or do we leave with no deal? So Labour will vote to implement this treaty today to avoid no deal and to put in place a floor from which we can build a strong future relationship with the EU.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for outlining how clear this is for him. His party has two parliamentarians in Edinburgh South—one in the Scottish Parliament and one in Westminster. At 4 o’clock this afternoon, the Member of the Scottish Parliament will vote against the deal and the Member of the Westminster Parliament here will vote for the deal. How does he square that circle?

[Keir Starmer]

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is a different vote. [Interruption.] It is a completely different vote, on a different issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman with my question. When he votes no, against this treaty, this afternoon, does he want the Bill to fail and thus we leave tomorrow night without a deal? Is that the intention? Does he want the result to go the way he is voting?

[David Linden]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there will be members of his own party in the Lobby with me this afternoon. If he can point out to me in the Order Paper where I am voting for no deal, I will be very happy. Will he tell me what page that is on?

[Keir Starmer]

That absolutely identifies the point. He is going to vote in the hope that others will vote the other way and save him from the consequences of his own vote. That is the truth of the situation of the SNP. He is hoping that others will do the right thing and vote in favour of implementing the treaty. We fought against no deal together for months and years, and now those voting no are going to vote for no deal. Nothing is going to happen in the next 24 hours to save this country from no deal. So he wants to vote for something, but he does not want that vote to succeed; he wants others to have the burden of voting for it to save us from no deal.