I’m sorry to hear that, but I understand the reasons that the Cabinet Secretary has given. And I know she can’t be drawn on the substance of matters that are subject to this consultation, but there is a question of general principle that I think it would be useful to explore here. One of my constituents has written to me to say, in effect, that what we’re trying to do here is to reconcile conflicting interests, both of which are legitimate very often. And he asked the question: how does one resolve local situations where one important outdoor activity unavoidably interferes with either the environment or with another important activity, even when both are being conducted in a responsible way. This has arisen, in this particular instance, in the context of access to open water and rivers and the conflict that might exist between canoeists and anglers. What he points out is, I think, a very valid point that, instead of having one overarching right that applies everywhere without any exceptions, we need to have some kind of local decision making that respects the specific circumstances of individual instances. He says, quite reasonably, that there are places where 100 canoeists splashing and screaming at each other all day wouldn’t affect angling, but there are other places where the passage of a single canoe, which is discreet, disrupts angling for some time. Therefore, we need to have local decision making so that these individual circumstances can be taken into account.