I thank the Government for bringing this motion and for the various amendments that have been made to it. It's the intention of my group to support both the motion and all the amendments to it. However, coming to this as a non-specialist in the area, I do find it a little difficult to engage with the debate and make any assessment of the relative merits of the motion versus the amendments that are made to it. It speaks of what would appear to be good work by Welsh Government in this area and, from the Conservative amendments, to what appear to be good work, at least, in some cases promises of future work, from the UK Government.

There is some use of what, to a non-specialist, I might describe as jargon. I don't wish to be pejorative about that, but I don't understand what 'outside-in' means in this context. Although we will support the motion and the amendments, I would welcome some exposition of what is required there. Similarly with 'stranded assets', we did have from Russell the example of fibre cables hanging from poles near homes, so I infer from that there's been investment that then isn't properly exploited and is left there just hanging and stranded. Does that perhaps relate to the failure to link up Superfast Cymru phase 1 and phase 2?

I wonder from the Government, they say they've connected another 733,000 premises that wouldn't have been connected were it not for Welsh Government's intervention, and I know no reason to doubt what the Government states on it, but I just wonder what the cost of that has been. There was some reference to EU funds, but also from the Government's own funds, and actually transferring money that would have been spent on schools and hospitals into this area. How much money has that been? Do we consider that it has provided value for money and has been worthwhile in all the circumstances?

Clearly, some particularly rural areas are going to be harder and more expensive to link up than others. But we don't have any numbers or financial sense in this motion or the amendments about what those are, and before judging the extent to which Government, whether UK or Welsh Government, should properly intervene and invest money in this area, it would be useful to know something about what the costs of those are, and how it's proposed that they are going to be borne.

With reference to amendment 2, I particularly support the recent £1 billion announcement by UK Government about using and having a shared rural network. I've long argued that the approach in this area should be, particularly in the rural areas that can't otherwise be economically provided for, given the level of public investment, that there should be a shared utility approach. So if we are taking that forward, that strikes me as a positive thing, although I note currently it's only for the 4G technology, and wonder how in due course that might be rolled out to 5G. We also support the Plaid Cymru amendment about a one-stop shop to assist people with the many, many different technical measures and different funding streams available to help them access that. That strikes me as very sensible.

My final plea, and I think it's probably unrealistic over the next month or so, but would be for UK Government and Welsh Government to work together in this area to a greater degree than appears to have been the case before, and, clearly, there will be difficult conversations about who's funding what. But given the particular challenges and level of rurality we face in Wales, but this being a non-devolved issue, but Welsh Government having been willing to invest money in it, surely UK Government and Welsh Government should sit down, work together, think best how to incentivise providers, how to pay for this, and make sure that the different levels of investment are working in tandem and supporting each other rather than at cross purposes. So, I hope, at least after 12 December, some thought may be given to that by both Welsh and UK Government.