Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Thomson Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Cat Smith
The Committee discussed the Commission’s work to support the implementation of voter ID at its recent public evidence session in March. A transcript of the session is available on the Committee’s website. The Commission supported voters, campaigners and the electoral administrators ahead of the implementation of voter ID at local elections in England in May. Its research shows that public awareness of the requirement increased from 22% in December 2022 to 87% in April 2023. Voter ID will now be required for police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, UK parliamentary by-elections, recall petitions and general elections from October.
Cat Smith
On the comments to which the hon. Lady refers, the introduction of the voter ID requirement was debated and passed by Parliament. Policy decisions are rightly a matter for Parliament and not the Electoral Commission. It is for the Government to comment on the intentions of their policy.
Richard Thomson
The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), said that the evaluation of anecdotal feedback shows that the roll-out of voter ID has been successful. The Electoral Commission warned that the introduction of voter ID should be delayed until after the English local elections in May—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is meant to be speaking through the Chair. The advantage of doing it this way is that we do not personalise things.
Richard Thomson
My apologies, Mr Speaker.
Does the Electoral Commission now share similar views to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that the roll-out of voter ID has been a success?
Cat Smith
The Electoral Commission will be publishing its responses and findings from the roll-out of voter ID at local elections in England that took place in May. A report on the ID aspect will be published very shortly and a full protocol report will be published in September, which will look at the evidence that has been found in information provided by returning officers across England.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Thomson Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Oliver Dowden
As my hon. Friend will know, we are on a national mission to transform our digital infrastructure, spanning the length and breadth of the UK, and our plans to invest £5 billion in connecting hard-to-reach communities include many rural properties in the RG17 and RG20 postcodes. We will shortly be announcing Project Gigabit, our plan to make the UK giga-fit, and I look forward to updating the House on details.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Oliver Dowden
I think that an excellent choice has been made in the choice of the new chair of the BBC. He is a person with considerable financial and commercial experience who is deeply committed to the BBC, and it would be better if the hon. Gentleman refrained from making such slurs against him.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Richard Thomson Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
Let me join other Members in marking today as International Women’s Day. It is certainly a day for us to reflect on the contribution of women, and on how we ensure that everyone is able to make their fullest possible contribution and how we advance the cause of equality. It is also important for law makers to be considering the impact of the choices that are made all year round. With last week’s Budget, it is particularly important to ensure that the decisions as far as possible enhance equality and opportunity rather than diminish them.
Siren voices have been calling for action to be taken on the deficit that has resulted from the economic responses to covid, by which they inevitably mean the Government taking steps to cut public spending. Unfortunately, the Chancellor shows every sign of wishing to heed that. The only comparable economic event to the covid crisis in its impact on national debt was world war two. Most of us would find it hard to imagine the political voices that prevailed after world war two saying that a national health service was unaffordable, that public services were unaffordable or that it simply was not feasible for the Government to play a leading role in rebuilding housing and industry.
The important figure, of course, is not the debt in itself, but the debt as a share of gross domestic product. Economic demand will return as vaccinations start to take effect and more of life can begin to return to normal. If the Government continue to support that economic demand, the economy will return to trend growth and overall government debt will begin to shrink proportionately, exactly as it did after world war two. However, if the brakes are to be put on spending in the future, demand will assuredly fall and people will have less money to spend and growth in employment will be stifled. Inevitably, the impact will then fall most heavily on all those who have least, such as families that have one or more adult out of work and in receipt of benefits.
There are many actions, both big and small, that the Chancellor could have chosen to take in this Budget which could help or hinder the recovery, but one of the most significant choices would have been to make permanent the £20 uplift in universal credit. It is no exaggeration to say that for many families that £20 has made the difference between bills being paid or not, and food being on the table or not. It is a comparatively modest financial commitment, but one whose impact for the good has far outweighed the resources it has required. Extending it for six months falls well short of doing “whatever it takes” to ensure the financial security of the least well-off. Governments all over the world have increased their support for their economies throughout this crisis, many with interventions that are proportionately far larger than we have seen from the UK Government. Having rightly carried the economy this far, it would make no sense for the Chancellor to drop that commitment now. It is a real disappointment that he is not doing more to do “whatever it takes” and provide the 5% of GDP stimulus that the Scottish National party has called for repeatedly.
There are of course things that can be welcomed. We certainly welcome the excellent progress being made on vaccinations and on reducing infection levels of the virus, which gives us ever more hope that when restrictions start to be lifted they might be able to stay lifted. We can also welcome the extension of the furlough and the self-employment income support scheme. Obviously, the furlough is not without its cost to employers, and together with the SEISS it still fails to reach too many people, but both have been lifelines for those they benefit. To help fill in some of those gaps, the Scottish Government have provided nearly £30 million for newly self-employed people to mitigate the financial challenges for those who have been unable to access the UK Government’s SEISS. It is past time for the Chancellor to recognise the shortcomings of his support mechanisms, understand those they have left behind, recognise the hurt caused and undertake to do “whatever it takes” from this point onwards to support those people who have been left behind.
Although everyone recognises that those schemes cannot continue forever, the threat to end both in September is not at all helpful for those who are trying to plan how to trade out of their present difficulties. The repeated short-term extensions that we have seen over the past 12 months are obviously better than the alternative of not extending. However, it creates an image not so much of a Chancellor carefully planning a route back to recovery, but almost of a Wallace and Gromit Chancellor, desperately laying the rails in front of the train just before it runs out of track.
Ahead of the Budget the British Chambers of Commerce warned that a quarter of British businesses would fire staff immediately if the Chancellor failed to extend the scheme. The Institute for Fiscal Studies urged the Chancellor to recognise and address the multiple inequalities exacerbated by the crisis, saying that emergency support should be extended and that the furlough scheme
“should not be cut completely in one go.”
Placing a full stop date on furlough, rather than having an open-ended promise of continuing it until it is no longer needed, risks pushing businesses to lay off their workers while they are still in recovery. The resulting loss of skills and experience can only hinder the recovery of individual businesses and the economy, so we urge the Chancellor to reconsider the date. No business is or will be furloughing staff unnecessarily, and a Chancellor truly committed to doing “whatever it takes” would surely agree to maintain both schemes for so long as is required while restrictions remain in place.
Turning to the tourism and hospital sector, the best way to help it right now would be to allow it to trade out of its difficulties by getting money across the counter just as soon as it is safe once again to do so. The VAT reduction will be crucial. My party welcomed the VAT reduction to 5% for the sector, but to stop that on 30 September will not be helpful. It should continue for the full year.
Business rates relief will also be crucial and has been a lifeline for leisure, retail and hospitality businesses, helping them to strip out fixed costs and stay alive. It is a matter of regret that the Chancellor has not committed the same level of resource as the Scottish Government, who have announced a £1 billion package that not only cuts the poundage rate, but offers 100% relief not just until June, but for the next 12 months for retail, tourism, hospitality, newspapers and the vital aviation sector.
As a Member of Parliament representing the north-east of Scotland, I am only too aware of the importance of the energy economy and the criticality of ensuring a just transition to net zero. While I acknowledge the £27 million that has been announced for the energy transition zone in Aberdeen, it still falls well short of the wider £62 million transition fund committed last year by the Scottish Government.
Listening to the Scottish Tories would lead someone to think that the levelling-up fund will leave not a single pothole unfilled, not a bridge unrepaired and not a project unfunded in north-east Scotland. Instead, now that the detail has been revealed, we see that Aberdeenshire has been placed in the lowest category and Aberdeen city in the second tier. We are essentially being left empty handed, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the UK Government are so far falling far short of the necessary response to help secure the economic future of north-east Scotland. We can only hope that there is better news to come in the sector deal that we have been promised in the first quarter.
As I have said, there is also essentially nothing for the 3 million who have been excluded. If she has spent years of practice and study in pursuit of her dream to perform, Fatima’s next job should not have to be in cyber. She should have a fighting chance to get her next job in the area that she has worked so hard to be in. Our arts and cultural sector would be vital to our sense of who we are even without its economic contribution, but this is not just about the performer we see and admire, because there are so many other parts of the pyramid that helps to put that performer on the stage. Those people have been left behind without the ability to earn. If we impoverish them, we impoverish us all.
There has also been no additional funding to support musicians and touring artists who have suffered the double whammy of coronavirus and an end to visa-free touring in Europe and no provision for live events insurance, without which the industry will be reliant on support for much longer than necessary. The Scottish Government have stepped in with funds for the performing arts venue relief, for cultural organisations and the venues recovery fund, which has supported theatres and other performing arts venues across Scotland. That provision is supporting grassroots music venues and providing a stabilisation fund, furlough top-up payments and one-off grants for nightclubs and soft play centres. The UK Government can and should follow suit. Interventions have also been made in tourism and hospitality with no UK equivalent: in the wedding industry fund, the bed-and-breakfast hardship fund, the tour operators’ fund, and the events industry support fund. These tourism and hospitality businesses have lengthy supply chains, reaching all parts of the economy. It is not just the accommodation provider, but the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker as well. The recovery from the pandemic will not begin when covid recedes, as businesses will simply move on to dealing with the Brexit crisis. We need to offer wide-ranging support for businesses in this regard. Instead of offering loans, it would be better to convert loans to grants.
In conclusion, let me just make this observation: through the Barnett formula, Scotland is still dependent on problems being felt and choices being made in Whitehall in order to release the resources that we would wish to have in order to act in all the ways that we need. Scotland desperately needs borrowing powers, but as the UK Government take back control from the Scottish Parliament, they are also taking away resource and with it any reason for many to support the current constitutional and fiscal settlement. I am certain that that will not go unnoticed as we approach May’s election in Scotland.
Digital Infrastructure, Connectivity and Accessibility
Richard Thomson Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to begin by offering my own congratulations to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate. She makes an important point when she says that we should be treating broadband and connectivity as being every bit as important as any other utility that we take for granted in our home.
As many hon. Members have said, the importance of connectivity has never been brought home to us more than over the past few months. Whether for shopping, access to public or medical services or even, dare I say it, fulfilling our role as parliamentarians, without connectivity it would have been an exceptionally more difficult time than it already was.
What that has done is expose the yawning chasm of the digital divide between the haves and the have-nots—those who can access reliable high-speed connections and those who cannot, because they lack the personal financial means, the technical skills, proximity to a suitable wired or wireless connection or some combination of all three. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) captured it well when he spoke about some of the data on the exclusion that people face, which is stark in terms of people’s socioeconomic status and who gets left behind in this. Speaking as a Member of Parliament covering parts of the city of Aberdeen as well as parts of rural Aberdeenshire, the contrast between areas of the city where there is a gigabit-fast enabled connection and parts of my constituency that struggle to get enough bandwidth to reliably download emails or even to make a mobile phone call is really quite stark.
Telecommunications is a power that is reserved to Westminster. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government, recognising the gulf between what the market will deliver by itself and what even the interventions of the UK Government can deliver, have made tremendous efforts to close that gap by making broadband investment themselves. The Digital Scotland superfast broadband programme has provided fibre broadband access to nearly 1 million premises the length and breadth of Scotland, taking fibre to the cabinet and in some cases to the premises that would not otherwise have been reached by infrastructure of that quality.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) spoke of the R100 programme. I share his frustration about the north package, which was mired in a legal dispute over the awarding of the contract. Now that that has been overcome, I look forward to seeing the details of how the £384 million that has been earmarked for the north will start to benefit the communities that we both represent. Even that will take us only so far, however. Vouchers will go only so far, and the UK Government’s universal service obligation is in many cases reliant on 4G broadband connections that simply do not exist. So, in terms of the roll-out and the additional resource that the UK Government have committed—which, sadly, has been cut back—yes, we need to build from the outside in, but we also need to ensure that all parts of the UK, even those with devolved Governments who are doing their bit to enhance the existing provision, receive their fair share.
In the remaining time available, let me speak up for the alternative providers known as altnets. For those who are unfamiliar with them, they are alternative internet service providers who rely on radio connections or even their own fibre to provide internet broadband services, but they rely on existing infrastructure from companies such as Openreach for the backhaul. Openreach recently made an announcement, aimed at those particular providers, that it would be levying a supplementary charge, and it is no exaggeration to describe that charge as punitive. I would almost go so far as to say that the charges it proposes to place on the leasing of those lines could in some cases be anti-competitive, and I hope to have a conversation with the Minister about that so that we can look into it further.
It is also important to say that, once the infrastructure is there, it must be accessible and safe. That means having the means to access it with the devices that are available, especially for those who cannot afford to purchase them themselves. It also means people having the skills to access these services. Too many people lack the necessary digital skills for work, even though they might have them for their daily lives. The drop-off in the socioeconomic standing of people at that skills level is absolutely stark, and we must ensure that we do not embed that generational inequality going forward.
We have been forced to go online to do more, and the longer the UK Government delay their online harms legislation, the more likely it is that people will come to harm. We are talking about risks to children, as well as the risk of criminal activity including fraud and crimes of acquisition and exploitation. We are also talking about misinformation and disinformation, particularly as we go into a process of vaccinating millions of people across the country against this dreadful virus. The bots, trolls and disinformation merchants will be out there working tirelessly to sow mistrust and distrust. We need to give people the means to access these services and the digital skills to use them, but we also need give them the life skills to differentiate between quality information and misinformation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I can see that my own personal broadband in this debate is about to be choked fairly soon, but I would just say this. I cannot remember—perhaps someone will tell me afterwards—who said that markets are a bit like donkeys, in that they are useful for getting things done, but they occasionally need a prod in the right direction. Nowhere is that more true at the moment than in telecommunications and broadband. The UK Government have the regulatory and constitutional powers to act in this regard, and we are very keen to work with them at UK level to see how they can use those powers for good, to go further and faster.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
Richard Thomson ExcerptsMonday 30th November 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this Second Reading debate and to follow the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who has given us some very important historical context to how we have arrived at the point we have arrived at today. He posed some pointed and pertinent questions, which we look forward to seeing addressed as the Bill progresses.
The Bill provides a very much stronger security framework for telecommunications infrastructure and gives the Government the ability to manage the risk posed by high-risk vendors. I speak on behalf of my group when I say that we support it in all that it is trying to achieve. 5G technology offers great opportunities for connectivity and for commerce, through the internet of things, including the greater use of telemedicine, automated threat detection and even autonomous vehicles, but anything that compromises the access to or proper use of telecommunications networks or the security and integrity of the information that flows through them is a cause for concern. Whether in terms of intercepting information, interfering with information or stopping it from being transmitted or received, it represents a commercial and security threat to be very much guarded against.
Clearly, the infrastructure that the suppliers use to provide us with that communications bandwidth is of crucial importance in maintaining the security and integrity of that information. Therefore, it is something of a surprise that the UK Government appear to have come to the realisation only comparatively recently that having too much of the critical national infrastructure in too few hands might be a problem.
The Scottish National party is clear: the UK Government need to learn the lessons of how we have got to where we have got to on security in awarding the 5G contracts and to provide assurances going forward that the replacement strategy will be a safe and secure one. My party very much wishes us to be among the forward-looking nations at the forefront of the 5G age. However, given that these new opportunities carry new risks, security and resilience need to be built into it from the outset. We also wish to be assured that this legislation and the impacts that it may go on to have will not adversely impact network roll-out or consumer costs in the longer term, and we also want to make sure that the opportunities for building our domestic capabilities in manufacturing, in open RAN and in the broader supply chain will be fully seized.
Inevitably, in this debate so far there has been a focus on Huawei and China, and for all that Huawei has previously been regarded as a reliable partner, that focus is entirely understandable. The point needs to be made that Huawei did not suddenly become a potentially high-risk vendor overnight. This has not just crept up on us; it has been allowed to creep up on us. The Chinese Government’s involvement in recent state-sponsored cyber-attacks ought to have been enough to set the alarm bells ringing, if they were not already ringing, and to give proper cause for refection over the possible security concerns in that well before now. It is right that we use this opportunity to pause for reflection on the relationship we have with China.
Clearly, it is important to have a strong relationship, one on which we would seek to exert a positive influence, especially when it comes to human rights. However, international relationships need to be founded on self-respect as well as on mutual respect, and if this Government wish to be able to deal with other Governments on as close to equal or favourable terms as is possible, it is important to ensure that they do not leave us in a position where we are too reliant on any other single state for technology or investment.
Make no mistake: a rapid de-engagement of this kind with Huawei technology is not helpful to maintaining constructive relationships. In our relationship with China, there will now inevitably be a price to pay in terms of loss of influence, as well as an economic price to pay at home if this holds up our roll-out of the technology. To be absolutely clear, we are glad that the decision was taken, but although that U-turn was necessary, there needs to be a clearer commitment to domestic manufacturing than in previous years—decades, even—and better visibility on emerging threats from Governments. This situation was avoidable.
Hybrid threats are growing, as are the capabilities of states and non-state bad actors to enact them, and the UK very much likes to see itself as a country that punches above its weight in the world. In our military and intelligence services, that is almost certainly the case, but I believe there needs to be a realisation and an embracing of the concept of total defence and resilience. At this point in time, our Scandinavian and, particularly, Baltic neighbours seem to have a much better grasp of the significance of that concept than the UK Government do. It is to be very much hoped that with this legislation and recent announcements on defence spending, the UK might now be beginning to come to terms with the many ways in which our economic activities, our public space, and even our political space can be undermined in asymmetric and unconventional ways and finally taking steps to properly address that.
To get into some of the detail of the Bill, the Government have made it clear that vendors who they consider to be high risk should not have access to the core 5G infrastructure. Obviously, we agree, but this needs to be a formal part of any requirements for infrastructure of this kind, and there should be assurances from the Government that any replacement vendors for Huawei or, indeed, others meet the very highest standards that we would expect with that objective in mind.
The Government also need to ensure that there is a proper dialogue with our international allies, to ensure conformity—as far as possible—with high standards of protection. Like many western countries, we are an importer of technology, and as such we need to be seeking unity, as far as possible, in the standards we are willing to allow for this infrastructure that we will ultimately be sharing with our allies and neighbours.
For all that technology is a matter that is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998, there are clear implications in how the Bill may operate for devolved nations. We would very much like to see in it a duty on the part of Ministers to consult with devolved nations before taking any ministerial actions under the Bill, as well as a duty on the Minister to consult with devolved nations when it comes to the five-yearly review of the effectiveness of clauses 1 to 13. Given the reserved nature of telecommunications, if there are any additional costs that accrue to businesses or Governments—by businesses, I do not necessarily mean the telecoms companies themselves—the UK Government may be willing to at least contemplate assuming some of the costs that might otherwise fall on tiers of government or the non-telecoms businesses.
I wish to spend some time dwelling on the impact of the roll-out. As a Member of Parliament for rural Scotland, I know that this problem is not unique to rural Scotland—other parts of the UK are affected as well—but there is a recurring theme. From the original Vodafone and Cellnet networks through 3G and to 4G, the coverage maps for mobile phones inevitably roll out in exactly the same way and cover pretty much exactly the same pattern, with the same notspots being missed out.
It is my earnest hope that the same thing does not happen with 5G. It is also important to point out that the roll-out of 4G, and even 3G, across Scotland has not been as complete as we would like, and it would be naive in the extreme to think that 5G roll-out will be any different unless there are some significant changes. It would also be naive not to recognise some of the potential problems that the Bill might present in that light, in terms of the rate of build-out that would otherwise have occurred.
To put the issue into perspective, just 42% of Scotland’s land mass has 4G coverage from all four main UK operators, and 80% from at least one mobile operator. Almost 1 million people living in rural areas currently have no reliable mobile service at that speed of connectivity. That is unacceptable, and has to be an early part of any levelling up agenda.
Owing to the lack of hardware interoperability that the mobile network has been built with, mobile network operators will have to rip out and replace a large amount of high-risk vendor equipment from existing 4G mobile masts before they can even be upgraded to 5G using equipment from an alternative supplier, as well as writing off and replacing that equipment from high-risk vendors already deployed. It is inevitable that the resulting reduced competition will drive prices higher.
From discussions with and briefings from the industry, it is clear to me that while operators can absorb the costs of the decision to remove Huawei equipment, BT estimates that the cost will be as much as half a billion pounds for it alone. It will not be possible to move any faster than the 2027 deadline that the Minister mentioned without creating a significant risk of network blackouts, as well the loss of economic benefits that would otherwise accrue to all parts of the UK. It is a huge challenge for the network operators, and we should not underestimate it. I would like to hear the Minister give a clear assurance that the Government will stick to the 2027 deadline and will not make what is already a difficult job for the mobile network operators even harder.
I would also like the Government to look at ways of trying to counteract the negative effect on the speed of the roll-out. Governments of all political stripes have been rewarded handsomely from selling off electromagnetic spectrum portions for mobile roll-out. Looking again at some of the licence fees might allow some of the telecommunications companies to save that money to invest in new infrastructure from non-high-risk vendors, which would compensate for that level of roll-out and give consumers and business the coverage that we all hope they can get from 5G.
On diversification of the marketplace, we very much welcome the Government’s 5G supply chain diversification strategy, which has been announced alongside the Bill. Reducing the reliance on a comparatively small number of big-player vendors will be hugely important in increasing competition, driving innovation and improving resilience. It will take time to move at scale towards new approaches such as open RAN, and to be successful, network operators need to be confident in the maturity of the performance and the integration and the security credentials of new vendors and technologies before they are deployed on the main networks. The Government can help to accelerate that process and create real opportunities for leadership and job creation with an ambitious commitment to research and development and trials. The funding of £250 million for that activity in the spending review and the Government’s national infrastructure strategy are very much to be welcomed.
This is an important and necessary Bill. It is one that we very much look forward to getting into the detail of and scrutinising further as it makes progress.
Covid-19: Support for UK Industries
Richard Thomson Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
This is a timely debate that has not just highlighted the concerns of those who have put their names to these petitions but will have widespread resonance far beyond them. We have heard many excellent contributions this afternoon, with concerns raised covering a wide spectrum of sectors, including arts, tourism, childcare, events, aviation and steel—a full sweep of the economy—and enterprises of all sizes.
The UK Government package, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said, was put together at speed, and as we have heard, many significant gaps have been identified. On the furlough scheme, for example, I need not dwell on the pivotal date of 19 March, which has left far too many people reliant on the good will of former employers if they are to benefit from it. The self-employed support scheme, which was unveiled after this House had broken up for the Easter recess, missed out those who were newly self-employed. Directors also missed out if they were remunerated through dividends. This makes the case, I think, for a universal basic income in that we know who everyone is, and if we give them the money to get through, then nobody, by definition, will have fallen through the cracks.
Much of the support has been based on the rateable values of business enterprises, and I can understand exactly why that is. It is clear and it is simple for local authorities to administer, but it has still left too many businesses missing out, because they were outside the relevant rateable value bands or they were not in the relevant sector, or because they were small businesses operating out of people’s homes and were therefore not on the business valuation roll.
The Scottish Government have certainly done all they can to try to plug those gaps in support with a £2.3 billion package of support. That has meant relief to the fish processing sector and to airports, support for the creative sector, plugging that gap in support for the newly self-employed, £78 million for construction and £51 million to support early-stage, high-potential companies. In all, the response amounts to over £4 billion for tackling this, when we have had £3.8 billion coming through the normal Treasury route.
However, it is important to note that the Scottish Government cannot do everything, and in trying to do more, they are finding themselves seriously constrained not only by the resource available, but by the constitutional limits placed on devolution, which have been particularly exposed in this crisis, and no more so than over borrowing powers. The borrowing powers that the Scottish Parliament has are designed to deal with cash-flow mismatches from year to year; they are not there to deal with serious amounts of investment for the future. I understand that the Finance Secretary in Scotland, Kate Forbes, has written today to the Chancellor to ask for greater flexibility around that. I hope she gets a reply that is not only swift but favourable.
This has also shown the limitations of the so-called Barnett consequentials. Too often, colleagues in Edinburgh have been left waiting to find out exactly how much is going to come through from spending decisions that have been taken in this place, occasionally finding that the money they thought was coming through was then not. It would be much better if the devolved Governments were able to decide what response they wanted to make and muster the resources at their disposal in the shortest possible time by simply having the powers to do so without reference to anywhere else.
I appreciate that we are short of time this afternoon, but I will say that borrowing powers were one of the key items identified in the report created by the Scottish Government’s advisory group on economic recovery, led by Benny Higgins. Borrowing powers were part of that, as was a series of 25 recommendations including a full review of the fiscal framework, jobs guarantees for the under-25s, prioritising a green recovery and a revised partnership between business and Government. These are all important structural changes in the economy that we absolutely need to have if we are going to make sure that the new normal is better than the old normal.
In the time remaining, let me just make a plea for the energy sector. Oil, gas and energy are absolutely crucial not just for jobs in the north-east of Scotland, but right across the UK. They are crucial if we are to maintain our energy security and effect the transition to net zero, but it is an industry on the brink of thousands upon thousands of job losses. The Scottish Government have invested £62 million to do what they can to assist in that. We desperately need a sector deal. Together with my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), I have made a plea to the Chancellor for just such a sector deal. Again, we hope for a swift and favourable response.
In conclusion, the support to date from the UK Government has been very welcome where it has landed, but desperately missed where it has not. All too often, it has failed to land. The economic challenges we face as the crisis evolves give us a new landscape. The challenges change, but are no less urgent and much remains to be done. I say to the Minister that if the UK Government are not willing to use the powers they have to address those shortcomings and to tackle the additional issues that need to be tackled, they should devolve those powers to Governments elsewhere in these islands who will use them.