I think, leader of the house, that there will be many people up and down Wales who will be delighted to now receive superfast broadband over these next few years. I think in that regard you should be congratulated. It makes a massive difference to people's lives. I think the biggest disappointment to me in your statement today is that figure of 16,000 premises being just so low. In your statement today, you have talked about the 92 per cent of premises in Wales that now have access to superfast broadband service, and in the same sentence you talked about transformation as well. I do bring you back, as many on this side have previously, to 2011, of course. The Welsh Labour manifesto committed to, and I'm quoting here:

'ensure that all residential premises and all businesses in Wales will have access to Next Generation Broadband by 2015'.

So, there are big frustrations here. You might say you weren't in Government then, but you were on 3 March 2015 when you said, and I quote:

'Our aim to reach 96% of Welsh premises by the end of Spring 2016...with at least 40% of all the premises in the intervention area also benefitting from access to services in excess of 100Mbps.'

So, this hasn't happened. So, what I would ask is: what clawback mechanisms have been in place to reimburse the public purse for BT not meeting the coverage obligations, as I understand them? I've not seen the contract, but that is as I understand it. What was set in the original contract? Perhaps you can clarify the position on that. What has been the penalty, if I've understood that correctly?

I am intrigued to learn of the reasons behind the complexities that have delayed the awarding of phase 2 of the Superfast Cymru project. Are you in a position today to tell us? You have cited previously commercial confidentiality, but clearly two of those lots have now been awarded. I do think people will be expecting answers on why they've been left in the lurch in regard to the successor scheme. 

I have said previously many times that there should have been a seamless transition between phase 1 and phase 2 of the scheme, so that people were not left stranded with infrastructure hanging from poles outside their homes. I know we've had a difference of opinion on that. But that does bring me to my next question. What will happen to the stranded assets that Openreach has already invested in, but not completed because they ran out of time? Will these areas be guaranteed to be completed under phase 2?

How many bidders were there for lots 1 and 3? If there was only one bidder, how have you ensured that you have benchmarked the bid to ensure competitive value for money for the public purse? You say £13 million has been allocated to lots 1 and 3 for 16,000 premises, but the original amount that was allocated was £80 million. So, what's happened to the additional £67 million? Is that to be spent on lot 2? Clearly not. So, perhaps you can provide some clarification on that. Why is the evaluation of tenders for lot 2 still ongoing? I think there has been delay after delay after delay on this. We heard back in January and the summer about a delay again and now the people of east Wales will want some answers as to why there was a further delay again. 

My understanding is that the open market review was conducted before the end of phase 1 of the Superfast Cymru scheme. So, can you confirm that all those so-called stranded premises or white premises in lots 1 and 3 will be included in phase 2 of the project, and if not, how many premises in lots 1 and 3 will be left without superfast broadband at the end of phase 2? The original estimate was that there were 98,145 white premises in 15,763 postcodes. Does this mean that there are over 82,000 premises in lot 2, and if not, why has the Welsh Government gone out to tender on a scheme that doesn't include every premises in Wales, as per your original pledge?

Finally, will you also confirm that you have learned lessons from the mistakes of phase 1 and ensure that individual premises will be given guarantees as to whether or not they will be included in the successor scheme, rather than being based on a postcode system that allowed individual premises to be shifted in and out of scope?

Thank you for your statement today, leader of the house, I look forward to receiving further information on lot 2, and perhaps you can tell us when that information is likely to come about.