Let me press on, because I did say that I would be brief, and I am in danger of not keeping that promise.
I insist on the Government doing what has to be done to ensure that there is no disruption to the UK home market. I want to be clear that when I say the UK, I mean Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not want a Brexit that weakens the United Kingdom politically or economically. I am a Unionist. I do not want to see the creation of needless barriers that hinder the frictionless function of Scotland’s most important marketplace, namely the rest of the United Kingdom. The process should avoid any unwarranted points of difference that make it more difficult to trade throughout the UK, because that would inevitably affect business, which would inevitably affect jobs.
Common standards will be needed for the common market within the UK, and those standards will need to be set democratically and transparently. Businesses are looking for leadership on these matters as much as they are looking for harmony throughout the UK single market. It is time to step up to the plate in that respect. Frameworks for the operation of the UK single market must be set at a UK level on the basis of agreement across the United Kingdom, including with the devolved Administrations, and it is up to us as politicians to rise to that challenge.
I am not calling for a whole raft of complex arrangements, because I do not think that would help anything, but we do need some jointly agreed common frameworks. I acknowledge and welcome the Scottish Government’s positive approach towards that end. I believe that the two Select Committee reports that were published in the last couple of weeks have been hugely helpful to the end of bringing about the co-operation and partnering needed between Scotland’s two Governments.
This situation highlights something that was mentioned earlier. The conclusions of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report described the UK’s intergovernmental machinery as not really being on a proper footing. It says there is a need for
“established mechanisms for both proper consultation and shared decision making between governments.”
If that existed now, I think we would be having a different sort of debate. Similarly, our frameworks and our standards must reflect the prospect of trade deals. The Government will have to ensure that our standards are protected and enhanced by international trade deals. Some arrangements will require primary legislation. Thoughtful consideration of that legislation, through parliamentary scrutiny and public debate, will be vital. Consensus is everything on these matters.
I will come to the conclusion of my brief remarks—[Interruption.] I have given way a number of times and this is supposed to be a debate. Some arrangements will require no more than memorandums of understanding between Governments within the UK to agree mutually agreed conventions. Some if not many of the powers will rightly and properly be devolved from day one, with a consequent diversity that I would not only welcome but celebrate, because that is what makes up this United Kingdom. I believe that if we achieve a consideration of those factors, we will get the consensus we require.
I know that a future Scottish Conservative Government would decentralise power, because that is our Conservative instinct. We will continue to call for decentralisation of power against an agenda from the SNP Government in Edinburgh that seeks only to centralise power in the hands of the few, not the many. I fully expect the Bill to be amended in such a way that it will gain consent from not only the Scottish Parliament, but the other place. In due time and with enough positivity from all sides, we can have the calm consideration of a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that we can have confirmation that that will be the case. On that basis, I support the Bill as it stands in Committee, and expect Government amendments to come forward before the Bill goes to the other place.