 Mae'r next item of business is a debate on motion 12264, in the name of Derek Mackay, on stage 3 of the land and buildings transaction tax relief from additional amounts Scotland bill. As members will be aware at this point, the proceedings of presiding officer is required understanding order to decide whether or not in his view any provision of the bill relates to protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system a'r ddechrau i'r Llyfridogol. Felly, rydyn nhw i ddarpari amserau a'r rhaniasus o儿gau parlymu â'i llwyr. Felly, dweud o'r ddull dros y bydd o'r funktion yn ymgyrchol ddechrau ac yn cyfleidio'n ddangos arwythgo. a fileswyr eich ddeacwm yn agoedau'r phorbyn meddwl am dweud? Mynd i sicr yn y sefydliad pan ry index i gael hamdageim threatening mewnidade. Mor iawn i gw девyr ac r single pre closing, sydd hi amben i gael defnyddianneu yn rehearsal o siaradau i ddecyd, o hyd gyda ni wyddio i ni i bawb i chi y cyfiawn. Cymru ar gyfer tiesfydigioio clawt toufboedai acن ni i gweld sylfaenidau sydd wedi gydag i gael siaradau i gael y synry pencil am gadaith. Felly lieρau gw battlefield eich hon? now familiar with the background to the bill and its intent to give retrospective effect to the amendments made by the land and building transaction tax additional amount, second homes main residence relief, Scotland order 2017. The Scottish Government's approach to taxation is founded, among other things, on effective engagement and partnership with stakeholders. It was as a consequence of that engagement and our willingness to listen to concerns of taxpayers and indeed their representatives, that we have come to lay this legislation. This addresses an unintended consequence from regards to the treatment of married couples, spouses and cohabitants under the additional dwelling ADS supplement. The bill will deliver equity of treatment regardless of the date when joint buyers bought a home. Therefore, the bill is deliberately narrow in its focus and scope, in that it serves solely to give retrospective effect to the provisions of the 2017 order. Members will remember that notably consensual debate is stage 1, and Parliament has provided unanimous support for the bill so far. Unusially for a bill, no stage 3 amendments have been tabled in advance of today's debate. Indeed, no amendments were tabled at stage 2 either, reflecting the narrow and very specific scope of the bill. I will focus my remarks on the finance and constitution committee's recommendations as set out in the stage 1 report. The committee's first recommendation invited the Scottish Government to provide annual updates on the numbers of repayment claims that it made and amounts repaid. I understand that Revenue Scotland has confirmed that it intends to publish figures regarding repayments as a result of the implementation of the bill following the first year of operations. That will be dependent on the information provided by taxpayers and agents and will be subject to Revenue Scotland's existing policy regarding tax statistical publications. The committee's second recommendation was principally addressed to Revenue Scotland, inviting it to consider further what steps it may take to seek to identify taxpayers who might be eligible to claim a repayment of tax as a result of the bill. The chief executive of Revenue Scotland has written to the convener of the committee setting out that, although, as noted by the committee, eligible taxpayers cannot be identified directly, Revenue Scotland has been taken and will continue to take steps to raise awareness among taxpayers and agents using a wide range of communications activity. Finally, the committee also invited the Scottish Government to confirm what steps it intends to take in response to the issues raised in the written evidence that were outwith the scope of the bill. With regard to that, a number of suggestions highlighted additional asks around the application of additional dwelling supplement. I do not have any plans to bring forward further changes to the additional dwelling supplement at this time, but I have noted the concerns that have been raised and will give them detailed consideration. On the other asks, I am pleased to say that, following consideration of consultation responses, the Scottish Government introduced to Parliament today legislation to address the concerns raised around the application of group relief in very specific scenarios and to provide for the first time buyer relief from LBTT. As members may also be aware, I have also launched a consultation seeking evidence to support our consideration of stakeholder asks related to property investment reliefs. Other issues will be considered as part of the Scottish Government's overall approach in devolved tax management and planning. Finally, I am, of course, committed to working with the Parliament to consider the points that have been raised, building on the budget process review group report on the case for developing a new approach on technical tax legislation such as the nature of changes that are addressed in this bill. However, the focus of today is on this bill and on ensuring that all of the affected couples can claim repayment of the supplement where they have genuinely replaced their main residence. The number of affected couples may be relatively small, but I am clear that, for each and every one of them, the resolution of this issue is a matter of great importance. I welcome the Parliament's unanimous support and constructive engagement through members' cases. Indeed, the progress of the bill will continue into our afternoon. I move that the Parliament agrees that the land and buildings transaction tax relief from additional amounts Scotland Bill be passed. Thank you very much. I now call on Murdo Fraser. The Scottish Conservatives warmly welcomed the bill before us this afternoon. There are no amendments at stage 3. Indeed, there were no amendments at stage 2, which I think is probably the shortest stage 2 that I can ever remember in committee. Indeed, we are at the stage in proceedings where there is very little new to say, and I do not intend to take up too much of the chamber's time this afternoon rehearsing arguments that we have all heard before. I am sure that, given the sunshine, all members will welcome the opportunity to finish a little bit earlier this afternoon. At least the cabinet secretary has given him now an allotment to tend to appear. I sat out in the stage 1 debate that this legislation was necessary to correct what was an oversight in the original LBTT act. That led to a situation where couples were being charged an additional dwelling supplement in the scenario where only one of them had their name on a property that was being sold. I did have a case of constituents who were caught by that, and they ended up with an unexpected bill of around £13,000, which they had not budgeted for. As members might expect, that caused the family a great deal of concern and distress. I am pleased at the speed at which the Scottish Governments moved to correct this error. Today's legislation, which brings it into retrospective effect, a change that has already been made for new transactions, is the final piece in the jigsaw in ensuring that that is done. That will come as a great relief to my constituency where affected and others across the country who have been inadvertently caught by what was an oversight in the original legislation. The one related issue that I would raise in the context of this debate, which the cabinet secretary has already referred to, is the question of group relief. That relates to a situation in which land transactions occur within companies in the same group or where a share pledge or similar arrangement is in place. The cabinet secretary has already spoken on the issue, and indeed the Scottish Government recently consulted on proposed secondary legislation to amend schedule 10 of the Lands and Buildings Transactions Tax Scotland Act 2013 to ensure that group relief would be applied. Transactions of this nature are a normal and common place part of commercial dealings, and share pledges are usual where bank lending occurs. Group relief has been in place in England and Wales, and there have been concerns from the Scottish business community that not having it in Scotland would Scottish business at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to borrowing and commercial operations. If the Scottish Government is making progress on this issue, as the cabinet secretary has indicated, that is very welcome and will correct another anomaly. The remaining issue is whether or not such relief would apply retrospectively to ensure that, just as in the case of the bill before us this afternoon, no one loses out because of an inadvertent oversight in the preparation of the original legislation, and I hope that this is something that the cabinet secretary can reflect upon. I do not think that there is at any point me detaining the chamber any longer on those issues. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill and will be voting for it at decision time in, hopefully, not many minutes from now. I know that I have constituents, as will others here, who will very much welcome this being on the statute board. Presiding Officer, it is always a delight to take part in a consensual debate with the cabinet secretary and Mr Fraser. Scottish Labour supports the introduction and, hopefully, the passing of the bill shortly in relation to the Land and Bill and Transaction Tax additional dwelling supplements, altering the anomalies that have been identified. Obviously, the issue that has come to light is that, where there is an additional dwelling supplement, normally there is a 3 per cent surcharge. If the original property is sold within 18 months, then it is subject to relief. The anomaly that has been highlighted, principally by Mr Fraser, is that, where couples are married cohabiting their living in civil partnerships, they were not liable to claim that relief. Clearly, that is unfair. It is against the principles of taxation, which the cabinet secretary has spoken about at length in the finance committee. It is right that the Parliament takes the issue to address that anomaly. The proceedings so far—I am sure that that will continue—have been consensual through stage 1 and stage 2. The fact that there is no stage 3 amendments emphasises not just the narrow scope of the bill but also the fact that there is broad agreement across the Parliament in addressing those issues. Further to that, I know that there has been engagement with the land and burden transaction tax forum—people who are well engaged in the use of the tax and other stakeholders—and they have been unanimously supportive of the change that has been brought forward. That is very much welcome. Two issues that we need to be aware of going forward are that, as the cabinet secretary said, it is important that we raise awareness of the change so that, if people are liable to claim relief, they are able to do that, and they will not end up in a position where they are unfairly, financially penalised. I welcome the fact that Revenue Scotland has got involved in raising awareness around the issue and using its normal forums and networks. That will be important. The other point to bear in mind is the impact that it will have on the budget. The financial memorandum said that it would be between £655,000 and £1.55 million, which is obviously a small amount in relation to the large-scale or the Scottish budget. It is important to keep monitoring that in case the amounts vary from that. It has an impact on other budget lines. In summary, we are very much welcome to the changes that have been brought forward and the way that the Parliament and the cabinet secretary have considered and acted on them, and we will be happy to support those changes at decision time, which will no doubt be moving fastly on us. I thank my fellow committee members and those who supported the committee's work in scrutiny of the bill. What a rare treat it is to see the output of something that is considered by the Finance and Constitution Committee that does not give rise to immense, acrimonious and sometimes quite ideological disagreement on points of constitution or, indeed, taxation policy. The bill is, as others have said, a relatively minor, straightforward correction of an aspect of LBTT in the way that it operates, and I am sure that everybody will be voting for the bill tonight. I will just make a few very brief comments. The cabinet secretary knows that the Greens are not the world's greatest fans of LBTT. We consider it a modest improvement on what went before, but it captures only a tiny proportion of the unarmed wealth, the unarmed asset wealth that is stored up in housing after significant increases in property values. We believe that a modern, progressive, reformed, up-to-date property tax needs to play an important part in our overall tax policy. LBTT, applying only to transactions, does not achieve that. It is a small step forward from what went before, but it does not resolve the on-going need to look at the role of property taxation more widely. Secondly, the important recognition that couples should be treated equally regardless of marriage, civil partnership or cohabitation status is an important signal that we respect the equality of all families. That has not been achieved in relation to the married couple's tax allowance, so-called at Westminster, and it is important that families are treated equally in that regard. Finally, I will draw attention, as others will do in future, to the evidence that we have heard from the Chartered Institute of Taxation and others, indicating that it is not unusual or uncommon for taxation measures to give rise to unintended consequences. That is an additional argument for a financed bill in the future to be part of the way that we undertake our work. A financed bill could embody significant matters of policy on taxation, as well as correcting any previous unintended consequences or more minor adjustments that have to be made. I hope that the minister remains open to considering that as a way forward for the future. We now move to the open part of the debate, and I call Ivan McKee to be filled by Neil Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be able to speak to you on this stage 3 debate on the land and building transactions taxially from an additional amount bill, and I would like to take this opportunity to draw members' attention to my register of interests with respect to residential property rental. The change to LBTT in today's debate is a small issue, but an important one enables those who, through no fault of their own, were previously unfairly penalised by having to pay an additional amount to redress that situation. It provides for the situation where a couple with two houses to sell who are purchasing a single property could be treated as a single economic unit for the purposes of the additional dwelling supplement for both the sale and the purchase transactions. It is right that the anomaly is corrected and that steps are now being put in place to ensure that it applies retrospectively, and it is good to see the consensus on that point across the chamber. Some other potential anomalies have been identified in the LBTT legislation, and I know that the law society and others have highlighted additional concerns to be considered if necessary to be addressed. As a narrow focus on the additional amount relief, I know that other aspects of the legislation will be considered in due course, and I look forward to considering those aspects when they come up for debate in committee and in the chamber. It is also worth taking a minute at this stage to review the wider context of the Scottish Government's changes to the LBTT and its impact. The steps taken by the Scottish Government to focus LBTT on those who can most afford to pay and as a consequence to lower the tax relative to the rest of the UK for those at the lower end of the housing scale is to be welcomed. Those measures have resulted in an additional 23,000 home purchases having no LBTT to pay, which means that 93 per cent of house purchases in Scotland either pay no LBTT or pay less than under SDLT. Not only is this good for individuals and families who benefit as a result, but it is also good for the economy, making it easier for people to go on the housing ladder and also helping the housing market at the lower end and enabling a more mobile workforce as a consequence. I know that those measures could have a detrimental effect on the property market at the higher end, and it is worth taking a minute to review the data to determine whether that has indeed been the case. Latest data from Revenue Scotland shows that transactions in the 325,000 to 750,000 band, which represents the top 7 per cent of the market, have grown by 20 per cent, and revenues in that band have grown by 23 per cent over the past year. At the very highest segment, sales above 750,000 pounds, which represents the top 0.5 per cent of the market, have been growing even more strongly, with a 31 per cent increase in annual transactions being recorded. That would suggest that the strength of the market in those bands has not been impacted by the restructuring by the Government of LBTT. I am very glad to see the specific point about the additional supplement in this bill being addressed and being passed by this Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like my Labour colleague James Kelly and the minister and other members across the chamber, I too want to make clear my support for the bill that we will vote on today. I welcome that the minister and the Government have listened and acted on the concerns raised by Murdo Fraser and others by bringing forward those changes. As I have said before, it is unusual to introduce and pass for its respective legislation, but in this case it is absolutely the right thing to do. The bill corrects an unintended unfairness. As other members have said, the additional dwelling supplement was introduced to raise taxation revenue from people buying additional properties, who are doing so as an investment opportunity or to purchase a holiday home. Taxing those who were just replacing their main home was not intended and goes against the principle of fair taxation, as James Kelly has said. At the time, the Scottish Government's intention was clear that it wanted to levy an additional tax on those who purchased the property in Scotland and who already owned another property. Rightly, the Scottish Government recognised that a situation can often arise in the purchase of a property whereby an individual or couple will become, for a short period, the owners of two properties. That is why, as has been said, a period of grace up to 18 months was introduced. However, as other members have said, it has become clear in trying to ensure that married couples, civil partners and cohabitants do not move property between individuals for tax avoidance purposes. The unintended consequence to which I have previously referred has been created. I would like to echo what other members have said today and before that, if the Parliament decides that retrospective legislation is needed to address this unfairness, it would be pointless if the intended beneficiaries of that legislation change were unaware of their entitlement to claim a refund, so I would reiterate that measures need to be taken to ensure that people are aware of the monies that they would be entitled to. Everyone accepts that the easiest way to address such anomalies is by the use of secondary legislation. Unfortunately, as we know, retrospective legislation cannot be affected by secondary legislation unless there is a specific expressed power, which in this case does not exist hence the bill. Although the bill is unusual, it is straightforward, has unanimous support and will address a small but significant unfairness. Are there for joining other members in supporting the legislation at this time? Having been on the previous finance committee when we spent many happy hours considering and then legislating on the land and buildings transaction tax, I have to say that I continue to have a fair degree of affection for LBTT, so I appreciate the opportunity to take part today and renew its acquaintance. LBTT was the first devolved tax that we legislated on in this Parliament, so, just like the eldest child in a family has a special place in its parents' affections, I think that some of us have a special place for LBTT in our affections. It may not be the best-known tax that we have or it may not produce the most money, and it tends to be outshone by its bigger sibling income tax. However, it is a fully devolved tax that we were able to fashion more in a Scottish way of doing things, so I think that John Swinney deserves a lot of congratulations for his role in leading on it. No piece of legislation is perfect, as has been said, and any way circumstances change, so I am fully supportive of the principle that we should revisit and review legislation and seek to improve on it when that is required. Therefore, I am more than happy to support this amending legislation that seeks to correct what is widely agreed to have been an issue of unfairness that was not spotted at the earlier stages of the tax. I do not think that we, as a Parliament, need to be worried about that. We debate and legislate based on what we know at the time, and then we build on that as we move forward. However, all of this raises the question of how we amend tax legislation on a regular and on-going basis as we move forward. I am attracted to the suggestion of the Law Society and others that we should consider a regular finance bill for, as they describe, necessary changes at the administrative end of policy. That might not need to be annual, but it could perhaps be every two or three years. Something like this appears to happen with the Treasury and HMRC in the UK, and maybe that is something that we could adapt for our purposes. I understand that the Government and the Finance Committee will look at this, and it certainly sounds like a possibility to me. I take the point that this change to legislation needs to be publicised so that those who could benefit from it are aware of it. However, we clearly need to be aware that we are probably looking at only between 76 and 189 cases, so I do not think that a widespread advertising campaign on TV is probably needed. However, we look at it that LBT has been an improvement on SDLT. It has been more progressive and fairer from the beginning, and I have to say that the first-time buyer's relief of £175,000 is very generous in my opinion. I do accept that house prices vary a lot around Scotland, but you can certainly buy a reasonable flat in my constituency for less than half that amount. I hope that we can all support the bill at stage 3. It appears to be one of the less contentious bills that we have to deal with in this place, and I look forward to voting for it at decision time. I call Patrick Harvie. It has been a short time, has it not, Presiding Officer? I do not think that I have given an opening and a closing speech in a debate within such a short time, but I have learned something in that brief debate. I have learned something that I never expected to hear, that someone has a sense of affection for LBT, a curious choice of instrument on which to place a feeling of affection. As I said before, I regard it as a small step in a more progressive direction, but it fails adequately to address how a genuinely progressive tax policy would deal with the unarmed wealth that is locked up in our housing market, and I will make the case for a more progressive approach to property taxation in the future. I want to draw out a little more of the arguments in the stage 1 report that the committee published on the bill in relation to a finance bill. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland said in evidence that the existing limited annual tax procedure to vote on income tax rates and bans is not enough. It said that to maintain and improve the Scottish devolved taxes, a regular formal tax process is needed. As John Mason reminds us, that was a relatively recent introduction to the tax measure. We have seen the gradual increase in the range and scope of tax powers that are within devolved competence. In that regard, we are clearly not serving the interests of scrutiny properly and perhaps not giving the Government the ability to implement policy as coherently as it would wish to by simply having the limited range of instruments that we have available to us. I am pleased that the committee will be looking further at the idea of a finance bill that would offer the chance of a more coherent approach both to the large tax policy decisions and to getting the small details right. I, like everybody else, will be voting for the bill tonight. Thank you very much. I call on James Kelly to wind up for the later party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'll make a brief summer-up speech. It's been a very short debate. When I echo what Patrick Harvie said in the sense that of all the debates that we've had recently coming out of the Finance and Constitution Committee around the budget, the EU withdrawal bill has been an awful lot of disagreement and hotly contested debates. It's a good to participate in one where there's broad agreement or unanimous agreement across the chamber. I welcome what the cabinet secretary said in relation to the annual updates that are going to be produced. I think that that's important when any legislation is introduced to monitor the effectiveness of that. As Neil Bibby said, people who become liable for claiming relief as a result of that change going through, it's important that they're able to do so. We don't want to see people falling through the net. I think that the annual updates will allow us to see the effect of that and to make sure that the awareness raise in Revenue Scotland is going to carry out is going to be effective. I know that there's been some discussion from the Chartered Institute of Taxation about group relief in relation to a position where companies are involved in land transaction deals between them. There's clearly some anxiety about the group relief proposals that the Government is bringing forward, not being applied retrospectively. I think that that's something that the Finance Committee and Scottish Labour will look at in detail once we see those proposals and we'll obviously engage with the Chartered Institute of Taxation and others. I want to agree with the comments that have been made by Patrick Harvie and others on an annual tax bill. As the Parliament moves to a regime where we've got more tax-raising powers, we are going to get into a situation where there will be a requirement to amend some of the technical detail around taxation. It makes sense that that's dealt with in a kind of sweep-up taxation bill, a finance bill at the end of the year to deal with appropriate changes. Summing up, I welcome the consensual debate that's taking place. I think that that's an example of—normally, it's been identified in Parliament and the Government in this case have also acted quickly to address that. We'll be supporting the bill at the decision time, which will come up shortly. Thank you, Mr Kelly. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to conclude the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like every other member in the course of this afternoon's debate, I will be relatively brief in the summing up. Mr Fraser gave us the revelation that I think surprised even Mr Harvie. John Mason's comment that he has affection for this particular kind of tax is not surprising, because he is both a lawmaker and a former accountant, so I'm not surprised by that. I'm more surprised when I look at LBTT that Murdo Fraser thinks that I've got an allotment hidden away somewhere in Scotland. I was just helping someone out at the weekend, but it wasn't mine. It would be my offering at Mr Fraser. I did think that that would ingratiate myself with the Greens, of course, if I did have an allotment. I was tending to it in such wonderful weather, a previous piece of legislation. I think that I've broken the harmony that there was in the chamber in relation to LBTT, but I was happy to take forward previous legislation in that regard. Importantly here, though, is the sense that when the Government has identified through stakeholder engagement and fair member representation an unintended consequence in tax law that we are willing to address in such a consensual and constructive fashion. Of course, all of Parliament is responsible for the laws that we generate, but here we have identified an issue and we have been able to resolve it in a constructive fashion. I have the same fairness and James Kelly has reflected on that as quickly as we could if we engage, consult, go through due legislative process and then remedy the issue. As all members have picked up on, there is most certainly an issue around how we can accommodate matters going forward and the prospect of an annual finance bill is one that I think is worthy of further exploration. Patrick Harvie touched on some of our wider issues, wider than this bill, but, like all members, I welcome the fundamentals of the bill itself. All members spoke helpfully on the nature of LBTT, the additional dwelling supplement and the remedy herein. I want to come back to the group relief issue. A number of members have raised it, both James Kelly and Murdo Fraser. The legislation that has been laid today is helpful going forward. That will take effect very quickly and I know that there is the issue around a retrospective element of that as well. However, just as I said, I would remedy that. I believe that I can remedy that too, given the time to ensure that I can get it right. That will take away the concerns that I believe currently exist in regard to group relief. With all that, that addresses the anomaly. It might not have substantial budget significance, but, for those affected, that was a very significant matter. I appreciate the way that all members have engaged in the legislative issue here, but how they have also conducted themselves in raising the specific cases. We all have a duty following the successful passing of the legislation, as well as stakeholders and Revenue Scotland to raise awareness with appropriate cases so that people can be recompensed where that is appropriate and where they have been eligible. In that sense, I am happy to conclude remarks. I again re-emphasise the consensual nature of the legislation and the retrospective action that will flow from it to ensure that we address the issue in the fashion that was requested of us. That concludes the stage 3 debate on land and buildings transaction tax, relief from additional amount to Scotland Bill. Given that it is half past three at the moment, decision time is five, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to bring forward decision time to now. The question is that decision time is brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is—and we will put this—that we will hold a vote because this is a piece of legislation that we will actually move to a division. We will have a point of order before we move to the vote. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I seek your clarification with regard to the standing orders. You will have no doubt seen the news reports relating to the actions of civil servants working for the Scottish Government regarding evidence-taking by the Education and Skills Committee on the named person policy. As a member of that committee, I was deeply disappointed to read that civil servants working on behalf of Mr Swinney have allegedly made inappropriate requests to clerks. That included asking clerks to hand over the identity of future committee witnesses and asking to have Government officials sit in on focus groups being conducted by the committee. I have written in full to you, Presiding Officer, with the specifics of my request, but I would ask for clarification whether you think that standing orders have been breached with regard to section 7.3, 7.8 and 9.6a, because I am sure that you will agree with me that the independence and impartiality of Parliament is paramount. Thank you, Ms Johnson. I would also thank you for notifying me in advance that you intended to raise a point of order, although with not enough time to be able to investigate the matter in the depth that I would like to. It is an issue that I am aware of through reading reports on the paper and from talking to clerks on the Education and Skills Committee, but I would like time to deliberate further on the issues that you raise, so I will bring it back to one of next week's meetings, and I will inform the chamber of my decision at that point. If we can move to decision time itself, the question— The point of order, Mr Jordan. Can I ask you, Presiding Officer, why this is not a matter for the committee convener to deal with, as opposed to the chamber as a whole? It seems like this is just grandstanding politics by somebody who is no longer even on the committee. It has been dealt with by the committee, and this is just grandstanding by opposition. We would rather play politics than deal with the education system. If Mr Jordan would allow me, I will deliberate on the matter, and it may be very much for the committee to decide, but I will let everybody know in the chamber next week. The question is, if we move to division, is that motion 12264, in the name of Derek Mackay, on stage 3 of the land and buildings transaction tax, be agreed? Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 12264, in the name of Derek Mackay, is, yes, 109, no 1. There are no abstentions. The motion is there for agreed, and the land and buildings transaction tax relief from additional amount to Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.