Let me just complete my point, and then I may take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman shortly.
I just want to respond to a point that the hon. Member Lady raised. I am sure that she did not do it deliberately, but she did not set out accurately for the House what the Welsh Affairs Committee said. I think that she said—I will take an intervention from her if I have misquoted her—that the Committee argued that the toll should be reduced to a level of £1.50, which would effectively just pay for maintenance. The Committee did not say that. It said that, if the toll was reduced to that level, that would allow
“the crossings to remain self-financing.”
It also said that
“the Government should seek to reduce the level of the toll at the earliest opportunity.”
However, it did not say that the Government should reduce the level to £1.50, because—this relates to my point about a future crossing—it said:
“We recognise…that at this level no “sinking fund” would be accumulated towards any future replacement of either bridge.”
The Committee also said, and I agree with the hon. Lady about this point:
“The Government must not be tempted to use the crossings as a “cash cow”.”
I agree with that, which is why if there is any future tolling over and above the level required for maintenance, the Government must be clear about its purpose. My view is that it must be used for infrastructure, which would benefit the hon. Lady’s constituents, my constituents and the economy of the UK. That would be the only scenario where future tolling, other than that required to pay for maintenance, would be acceptable. I agree with the hon. Lady about that, but I do not want the Minister to close any doors at this point.