Yes, that is a matter of negotiation between ourselves and British Telecom—Openreach being their contractor, of course, so it's important not to confuse the two as the split occurs. The way that the first scheme worked, to explain to Members—. I actually met with Rhun ap Iorwerth in his constituency, as well, quite a while ago now, actually, wasn't it—it was a few years ago—to talk about some of the issues there. Because of the way that the premises target in the contract worked, and because of how vigorous it was, Openreach built out to a large number more premises than they needed to be sure to hit that figure, because it was a very stringent target in the contract.

That has meant that they have got a lot of infrastructure into the ground. No public money has been paid for any infrastructure that didn't get to completion. So, we have had a long conversation with them around the commercials for that—about who should pay for that. They've invested that money already. Should the public purse pay for the last bit? Why don't they just do it themselves? There's a conversation to be had, and that conversation is running in parallel with the procurement. We'll see what the outcome of those procurements will be.

So, should BT be one of the people who are bidding for the procurement, no doubt they will make some proposals in that. As I said to Janet Finch-Saunders recently, we're asking for specific promises—specific plans for specific premises. So, I'd be very surprised if those weren't included, but we are live in the procurement at the moment, so I haven't got any information about what they're currently proposing.