You say in your statement, Minister, at least in the written version, that you've committed us to going even further, in achieving net zero emissions no later than 2050, yet you said in reply to Llyr Gruffydd that that was downgraded to an ambition, and we're legislating just for a 95 per cent cut, not for net zero. In what sense, then, are you committed to net zero instead of the 95 per cent reduction? Could you also—? I know you weren't able to last week, and, if you can't now, could you perhaps give me a timetable when you might be able to do this—what is your policy in terms of international offsetting? Will it be allowed, and, if so, will there be a limit placed on it?

I think your statement today is very timely, after the vote in the Commons—or not a vote in the Commons last night; it went through without even a vote—to change the 80 per cent reduction up to this far higher amount. I wonder about the cost of that. We have at least semi-official estimates of £50 billion or £70 billion a year, and I think it's much more sensible to focus on the annual cost than it is adding it up over an unknown period to get £1 trillion-plus scary numbers. But, if it is this £50 billion or £70 billion a year, then I welcome this process of carbon budget setting, of looking at what are the implications of this,  because I think it's very easy for politicians to make great commitments for a long time in the future to synthesise a legacy for Theresa May or whatever other motivations there may be, but it's only when they come down to looking at what are the implications of this, what are the costs, what are the trade-offs, that, actually, you engage in real policy. And I think, with a 40 per cent or so cut in carbon dioxide emissions across the UK since 1990, we were leading the world in that and making really quite big strides in this area. I'm just concerned that, by lumping that up from 80 per cent to 95 per cent or 100 per cent without explaining how we're going to do that, there may again become a detachment between our ambitions and reality, or what our constituents would be prepared to accept in this area, given the trade-offs involved.

You mentioned that coal is required at Port Talbot to make steel. How, then, do we decarbonise that process while retaining the industry? What is the intention in terms of gas boilers? To come anywhere near this, you're going to have to get rid of everyone's gas boilers. Are you looking to replace them with electric—currently three times the cost—or would you have hydrogen instead, and, if so, how on earth does one get to a situation where one cuts off the gas and puts in hydrogen at a point in time instead? How do you co-ordinate people's boilers for that?

And could I ask you, finally, just to clarify a little further around this electricity production point? What's your assumption about what's going to happen with Aberthaw B that's so huge in terms of its implications in this area, and are you saying that as Welsh Government policy you would like to see a greater emphasis on autarchy and less in the way of exporting to England in electricity? What's wrong with exporting power to England? Is that a bad thing? If so, what do you intend to do about it?