Just following on from that, I think that the precautionary approach that has been taken by both Lee and Russell George is the one that we need to adopt. Of course, it is absolutely right, as Dai Lloyd says, that it’s unfair that we are having these tolls on these bridges into Wales when the Humber bridge— which, incidentally, was built as a result of a by-election in 1966 when the Labour Government had a majority of one—was not the subject of the tolls that we still face here in Wales. So, obviously, there is a great case for saying that this is completely unfair, but we have to bear in mind that we are where we are and that there are very serious environmental implications that we need to explore before we rush into any abolition of tolls.

Two weeks ago today, the UK Government lost a very significant case in the High Court in London. Some of you may have missed it, because it was the day before the Supreme Court ruling that gave pre-eminence to Parliament in the decision over triggering the Brexit result. But this result has very long-term implications for both the UK Government and, indeed, in my view, the Welsh Government too, because Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the UK Government’s 2015 air quality plan failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or, indeed, relevant EU directives, and said that the Government had erred in law by fixing compliance dates for tackling these illegal levels of pollution based on overoptimistic modelling of pollution levels. So, the debate about the amount of traffic that might be generated by removing the tolls on the bridges across the Severn are particularly pertinent to this point.

The Government’s failure to tackle illegal levels of air pollution across the UK is causing 50,000 early deaths and over £27 billion in costs every year, and that’s just according to the UK Government’s own estimates. This is a public health emergency, and anything that we do or our Welsh Government does that fails to address this could lead to them or us ending up in the courts.

One of the reasons that the legal NGO ClientEarth won their case was because the UK Government’s plans ignored many measures that could achieve cuts in levels of nitrogen dioxide. These include charging diesel cars, a major source of air pollution, for entering cities blighted by air pollution as part of the proposed clean-air zones. The Treasury argued that it would be politically very difficult, especially given the impacts on motorists—the holy grail of the motorist. The High Court said that the rule of law outweighs such political considerations, and I agree with that. The Welsh Government needs to take heed of the High Court ruling when considering removing tolls on the Severn bridge because of the impact it could have on the proposed clean air zones, which include Cardiff. The Cardiff plan was one of the ones that was thrown out as being over-optimistic and unrealistic about their plans to eliminate these illegal levels.

So, I agree that this is an unfair tax on the people of Wales if it cannot and is not being spent on improving our public transport infrastructure and therefore tackling the levels of air pollution. But to date, I agree, the UK Government’s plans have been found wanting by the courts, and they do not appear to be wishing to pass this toll over to us. But we need to know with some clarity from the Welsh Government on what would be done, if we were to abolish these tolls, for the consequences of increasing air pollution. I note that Bristol has already implemented a strictly enforced priority lane for cars commuting into Bristol that contain more than one passenger. Could we be confident in expecting that such a regime would be put in force around Cardiff as well?