My understanding, based on answers to previous questions that I put to you is that the living wage created an issue with the initial allocation of budget, and that the £10 million was to sort of make up for that, at least in some part. So, it’s not actually directly for the uplift in the living wage; it’s for filling the gap that the living wage left, if I can put it that way.

You didn’t actually address my specific question about which services were endangered, though. As this extra money was given to meet a particular need, rather than just being a general uplift to the revenue support grant, and was raised in part by increasing the maximum contribution that people pay towards their care, I think, actually, it’s in order for both of us to follow that money and make sure it’s being spent with the intentions you originally had. So, when the sector experts told you that certain services were at risk, which examples impressed you sufficiently in order for you to consider even raising this additional money?