This has certainly been a curate’s egg of a debate, and I do think that the Welsh Conservatives have managed to snaffle all the good parts, because I do think that most of the other contributions were pretty thin, particularly the Welsh Government, who only managed to find one backbencher to defend their programme. Leader of the house, I understand that the May election result must have thrown you and your colleagues into a real tailspin. I also understand that you must have delayed over whether or not you had the collective courage to try and form a minority Government with the intellectual bravery to hammer out a consensus, Bill by Bill, policy by policy. And failing having that intellectual bravery, I also understand that you needed to see if you had the time and the space to absorb the Liberal Democrat one, and to reach some kind of woolly agreement with the nationalists.

I might even be persuaded that, after 17 lacklustre years, you needed the time to re-energise, and to come up with a positive plan for the next five years. What I don’t understand is how this can be this result—how your programme for government for the next four and a half or five years is reduced to a lightweight fly-poster, with zero ambition, a paucity of objectives, and above all, no metrics for outcome-based monitoring. Julie Morgan said it was a headline document. But the truth is that we—civic society, the public—we were all expecting a rather more detailed vision of your objectives. Instead we are treated to woolly phrases, such as, and I quote,

‘improve access to GPs surgeries, making it easier to get an appointment’.

I think it’s fair to say that most of us would have expected easier appointments to be an outcome for improved access. The real detail that is missing is how you will do it, and how you will be measured.

I’ve met with a great number of organisations in the last few weeks, and most express hopes that are dashed, and frustrations as a result of this document supposedly taking Wales forward. Andrew R.T. Davies and Russell George listed the many areas where this document is light, ranging from bovine TB, to cross-border issues, to waiting times, to the steel industry. Your programme of government is lightweight, and is conflicted, leader of the house. One simple example is that you wish to improve children’s health and activity, but you cut the funding for sports and physical activity by 7 per cent in the 2016-17 budget, and have reduced the amount of time that children can participate in PE.

Let me look at another area in your programme for government.