Patients who are seeking to access those services, who are unable to do so at a time that actually works for them, I think, may give a very, very different response to the one the First Minister has just given. But just to tease a little bit further his answer out: is he saying that part of the decision as to why you dropped this pledge was because it wasn't effective, not just in terms of its impact, but cost-effective, so the opportunity cost, the cost-effectiveness, of meeting the pledge was also a factor? Because what you said at the time, and I'm quoting your predecessor as First Minister here—. The previous First Minister said:

'There is no cost to extending GP opening hours. All that we are asking them to do is to re-jig their hours'. 

Now, my party has consistently argued one of the most effective ways to widen access to GP services is to have more GPs, and since you made this pledge about accessible hours, the number of GPs in Wales has gone down. No wonder you couldn't meet the pledge and then had to drop it.

Wouldn't you accept the need to adopt a policy of increasing GP training places to 200 a year, as the Royal College of General Practitioners has recommended, as part of a wider process of increasing our doctor numbers? In England, I noticed that—keen follower as I am of the Labour Party conference—you've committed to a 40 per cent increase in GP trainees. Isn't this another sign of Labour promising for England what it could already be doing here in Wales?