A simple answer to Neil McEvoy: nuclear fission, no, nuclear fusion, yes. And I think that I still support us making further progress on turning hydrogen via nuclear fusion into energy.

But I really fully support the fracking ban in Wales. We can take climate change seriously and attempt to stop the world’s temperature increase, or we can support fracking. We can't do both. Fracking: you drill down into the earth, a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside; you send water, sand and chemicals into the rock at high pressure, and you can either do it vertically or horizontally. 

In a world short of clean water, is fracking a good idea? In the US, the United States Environmental Protection Agency found a median of 14 chemicals for each sample it took. The most common were methanol, hydrochloric acid and hydro-treated light petroleum distillates. Water contamination has been one of the biggest environmental concerns, and where some of the most best known incidents have occurred. An investigation by the US Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2016 that, in some cases, fracking had harmed drinking water supplies. Is that a risk we are prepared to take? 

Earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing have been another big concern. While the two earthquakes in 2011 that led to the UK’s fracking moratorium were both ranked minor on the Richter scale, the US has experienced much stronger ones. Oklahoma experts have reported a thousand years’ worth of quakes in two years because of fracking there. Is this a risk we want to take with the people of Wales and with our country? They've got a situation in Rebecca Evans's constituency where people have been considering fracking in that area. My constituents, as well as hers, are very much opposed to fracking taking place there. And if I don't want it to take place in my constituency or near my constituency, I don't want it to take place at or near anybody else's.    

On the M4 black route, I am a convincible sceptic. Is it serendipity that where on the M4 there are lots of junction close together and two lanes, we have traffic jams? Why is there a traffic problem on the M4 around Newport? I was once told by a Welsh Government Minister—not the Minister who will be replying—that it was because a lot of vehicles were using the road. Whilst that simplistic statement is obviously correct, what we really need to know is where they are moving between, why they are using the M4, and whether there are other alternatives in both mode of travel and route that can be used. Why do people, like myself, travelling west of Neath, coming from the west midlands and from the north of England, go all the way down to the M4 and turn right, rather than going across the Heads of the Valleys road? Is it because our sat navs send us that way? That in itself is a problem. You could reduce the number of people using the M4 if you had alternative routes, and people aren't using alternative routes. These are questions that need answering.

On the blue route, it will not work. Traffic does not generally leave a motorway for a distributor road. What can be done to reduce traffic at key times on the M4 around Newport? Can improved signage of other routes help? Will creating a new road create more traffic? This is without looking at the environmental damage and the cost of building it. We've seen the M25, which was a brilliant idea and which was going to take all the traffic problems around the south-east of England and put a stop to them. Well, I'm not quite sure that's actually worked. I think the M25 is often described as a very large car park.  

The value of a road is calculated by the time saved that is considered to be productive. For many people, including myself, if I leave 10 minutes later in the morning and go home 10 minutes earlier at night, all it achieves is 10 minutes extra in bed and 10 minutes longer reading the newspaper or watching television. Both are very good for me as an individual, but I'm not sure that either are productive for our economy.  

My view on retrofitting housing I went through in great detail. I think, really, strengthening building regulations to achieve the objective of near-zero-energy buildings. As I said in great detail earlier, most houses that people will be living in in 2050 are built now. In some areas, there will be more people in nineteenth century housing than twenty-first century houses, so we've got to retrofit. A report published by the Technology Strategy Board looked at the results of the Retrofit for the Future competition, which was co-ordinated by the board and facilitated the retrofit of more than 100 houses across the UK. The aim was to achieve an 80 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for each property involved in the programme, and to promote collaboration between housing providers, designers, contractors and researchers, while at the same time helping to stimulate new business opportunities to retrofit the market.

I think we really do need to have a co-ordinated approach, and one of the most important things is whether we can cut down on carbon emissions, and that means we have to travel less by car, and we also have to have housing that gives out zero carbon or very close to zero carbon.