I thank the Counsel General for that response and it seems there’s work in progress going on in his department looking at this. But does he give any cognisance to the concerns that have been raised by commentators that suggest that whilst on the surface who could argue with the concept of a shared prosperity fund—it sounds immensely warm and cuddly and fair and just and everybody will have a stake in it—the dilemma here is, of course, that if this is made in Westminster, decided by Westminster, allocated by Westminster, or, alternatively, allocated according to political priorities, it could be very unfair indeed and may indeed, legally, reverse the current situation of funding to the devolved institutions. It could make it very unfair indeed. So, does he share those concerns that this approach could fundamentally change the nature of devolution and actually re-establish Westminster control over devolved funding?