I think it’s a different question altogether. The point at issue in relation to the autism Bill was, and the points that’ve been raised today by Andrew R.T. Davies, for example, were just about why have a trade union Bill rather than an autism Bill. That is a choice that has been made. In relation to what Lee Waters said—[Interruption.] I’m not going into the merits of that decision, I’m merely making a question about process. In relation to an intervention from Lee Waters in an earlier debate about the autism Bill, I think this is rather a different proposal, because this is an obligation to consult the people, not just a decision that is made by us as Members of this Assembly. This is a major constitutional change, the devolution of income-tax-raising powers. The people were promised, and it was enshrined in legislation, the right to decide for themselves, not us deciding on their behalf, whether this should be proceeded with. I think removing that provision is a constitutional deficiency so great that we are going to make a protest by voting against this motion today. Of course, we know that the motion will be passed, so our decision is not going to have any great effect in constitutional terms. But, nevertheless, I think it is an important principle that politicians should keep their promises and should be held to their word, and no reason that I’ve seen has been advanced for this decision. Nobody has made a positive case for not allowing the people to decide this issue—if so, I’d be happy to give way now. [Interruption.] Yes.