The next item is a follow-up to our consideration last week of where we might go outwith Edinburgh for our stage 1 consideration of the budget process. The paper that has been provided by the clerks contains information on Perth and Ayr, as requested last week. Ministers will be available to give evidence to the committee on Friday 8 June, but not on Monday 11 June. Members' preference—especially that of Elaine Thomson and David Davidson, who have to travel back north—was for the Friday rather than the Monday. As we seem to be driven towards that date by the availability of ministers, I would like the committee to agree to take evidence on Friday 8 June. Is that agreed?
Do members have any points to raise on that subject?
Might not that date be affected by other events that may have occurred on the previous day?
That may be the case. However, we cannot plan meetings on that basis. What do members think, given that we cannot get a minister to come to a meeting on 11 June?
I take on board what Adam Ingram has said, but I agree that we should go ahead and plan our schedule whatever happens. The minister is available on Friday 8 June, so I think that we should go ahead on that basis.
Is the proposition that the meeting would be cancelled if Thursday 7 June is polling day, or would it go ahead?
We have to book the hall and we have to book the minister. We will probably get only three weeks' notice of absolute confirmation, if 7 June is to be the date. That would give us difficulties. We have no room to move. I think that I am right in saying that our report must be written by Wednesday 13 June to fit in with the timing of the stage 1 debate.
The committee needs to finalise the report by 20 June. If we work back from that date, the idea would be for the committee to consider an issues paper on 13 June. The possible dates for taking evidence are limited, probably to 8 June and 11 June only.
We must send out a clear signal that this Parliament is open for business at that time, and that we expect that the minister, if he is now available for a meeting on 8 June, will remain so, regardless of what goes on elsewhere. The budget process has a tight schedule and we do not have room for latitude.
My understanding is that the only day on which the Parliament will be closed is polling day itself. However, I have not even had that much confirmed. On the understanding that we will be speaking to the minister on the afternoon of Friday 8 June—
The afternoon?
If the meeting proceeds as the Aberdeen meeting in November did, the idea would again be that we would hear from local organisations in the morning and from the minister in the afternoon.
Indeed, convener, my preference would obviously be for Ayr, which is round about my home patch. I do not think that any of the Parliament's committees has yet been to Ayrshire, so I think that it would be appropriate for us to—
The Parliament has been to neither Perth nor Ayr. The only slight advantage in holding the meeting in Perth—I say this not as a comment on either location—is that Peter Peacock, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Local Government, has an evening engagement on 8 June in Inverness, which he would struggle to reach from Ayr after an afternoon engagement; he could no doubt get there from Perth. If 8 June is indeed the day after the general election, the deputy minister might be more able to attend than the minister.
Surely the minister could fly to Inverness from Prestwick.
Well, I do not know what the arrangements will be.
In this instance, I would support our going to Perth. There are sensitive issues of timing if we have a general election on Thursday 7 June. All of us are likely to be somewhere else on that day—I think that Perth would be that bit more accessible for us all.
I think that that is true.
I appreciate very much Adam Ingram's desire for us to go to Ayr. I would feel exactly the same in his position. We could perhaps consider going to Ayr for the second stage of the budget process.
We have indicated our willingness to go to both locations in the near future. The question is which we go to on 8 June. I seek the agreement of the committee that we go to Perth on this occasion. Is that acceptable to a majority of members?
We now have to consider—we can agree this at a later date—whether we want to make use of the morning on that day. We may want to review whether to have a morning session when we know whether the general election will be on 7 June. We will certainly schedule the afternoon session for taking evidence from the minister.
The contributions will have to be exciting to keep us awake.
That concludes item 3. The committee will now go into private session to consider items 4 and 5.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting continued in public.