It would be of interest to the committee to see whether there are other issues that we could look at in future.

I will widen the point slightly. Minister, before you arrived, we had a discussion in private about some of the issues that are thrown up by the legislation, particularly the risk to a purchaser, whether it be a consumer or a business, in relation to moveable property. They might not be aware that the law has changed in this area and that whatever they are purchasing might be attached and have a charge against it, because that simply might not have crossed their radar. How much has the Government done to raise awareness or create publicity for those who might be impacted by that?

Good morning. I want to broaden the discussion out a little bit. The city deals were intended to deliver economic growth and provide a broader economic opportunity, but there is also an issue with the extent to which the businesses that you represent were able to benefit directly from the on-going work. Can you give me some reflections on that?

You have all suggested that, whether it be in relation to small businesses or women, no direct opportunities have been coming through from the city deals. How do you see the broader advantages of what is being delivered? For example, infrastructure projects are part of a lot of the city deals, and clearly they will have a broader economic impact that will benefit business.

I have a follow-up question—perhaps you can answer in reverse order, starting with Duncan Thorp. On the selection of projects in each city deal and how those were chosen, if we were doing this again, how would you set up the deals differently to try to address some of the concerns that you have raised?

Did that not happen? I remember lots of conversations taking place around city deals and people making bids for their projects.

Not if there was an underspend in the budget.

Okay, thanks. I have a broader question about city deal funding. Since the change of Government, has there been any change in the approach to the drawdown of funding or the checks and balances that are put in at a Government level, or is it just the same model that was followed by the previous Administration?

Good morning, secretary of state. I was very taken with the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday when he set out the Government’s ambitions for AI, which is a great opportunity. Of course, as we have heard, the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland deal includes the very successful data-driven innovation programme.

On the question of the supercomputer, I heard what you had to say about the funding issue. Is it not the case that at the time of the general election, the budget of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology was substantially underspent?

Okay. As you probably know, at the time that the announcement about that project was made in August, it was hammered by people in the industry. Chris van der Kuyl, the businessman and games entrepreneur, said that it was an idiotic decision to cancel that project. What confidence can people have that it will come back and that we will see that development, which is so important to the University of Edinburgh and the wider economy?

Thanks. I have one more question. Secretary of state, you mentioned the towns fund. In the area that I represent, the city of Perth was due to get some funding for three quite important cultural heritage projects. Has that money gone now, or is there still some prospect of it coming back?

We have had quite enough data already this morning, convener.

Good morning to you, cabinet secretary, and your colleagues. You said at the outset that the economy was a top priority for the Government and that this was a budget to help grow the economy. In fact, I heard the First Minister on the radio this morning making the same point, so I will test that claim against some of the choices that were made in the budget.

The committee took evidence a few weeks ago from the enterprise agencies, which told us about the success that they have, the multiplier effect of money that is invested in the enterprise agencies and the impact that that has on economic growth, which was compelling evidence. Of course, all the enterprise agencies have experienced substantial budget cuts over the past decade. Scottish Enterprise, for example, had a budget of £350.9 million in the past financial year. For the budget that you have set, the figure is £236.10 million, which is a 33 per cent cut. Highlands and Islands Enterprise had a budget of £69.4 million last year. In the budget that you have set, it is £56.3 million, which is a 19 per cent cut. South of Scotland Enterprise had a budget of £31.2 million in the past year and, in the budget that you have set, it is £29.1 million.

Those are very substantial cuts on the past financial year in the budget. How does that budget support growing the economy if you are continuing baked-in cuts to the enterprise networks?