I welcome this debate and I welcome, in general terms, the Government’s desire to test this provision. In reference to one of the amendments, I’ve never quite understood this phrase, ‘We’re not in favour of change for change’s sake’. I mean, in the very basic sense, I don’t think anyone would be in favour of that, but, actually, change for social change’s sake, change in the taxation regime for a purpose, I would hope we would all subscribe to as well. There is just a hint of a kind of sense of inertia, sometimes—an innate conservatism in the argument against change for change’s sake. [Interruption.] Look, even in the taxation field, changes are constant. When VAT was first introduced—was it 8 per cent? It’s now risen, of course, to 20 per cent. Corporation tax was 52 per cent some decades ago and, of course, it’s going to fall even further to 17 per cent. So, look, change is constant, even in the taxation field. I’m an experimentalist. In a world that is changing, in every sense, we always have to be searching for new levers, for new policy responses, and taxation has to be part of that. So, I welcome this positive approach to exploring new opportunities.

In terms of the potential candidates for that first test, then we will all have our preferences. I think Gerry Holtham and Tegid Roberts and others have made a very, very good case—even based on the exacting criteria that the Cabinet Secretary set out, actually. We have a huge hole in our public finances, as we realise, because of the demographic change et cetera, and the rise in non-residential care costs that are coming our way. We need to find a way of addressing those, and we’re not going to be able to do it within the strictures of the current Barnett block. So, I think Gerry Holtham has—[Interruption.] I’m certainly happy to give way.