I am proud that our national health service in Scotland and this Government have led the way in bowel screening since 2017. I am personally grateful for that. However, it is clear that, with the increasing number of young people getting bowel cancer, we need to do more work. One of the most cost-effective ways to do that is not necessarily to increase screening. Rather, it is to ensure that GPs are aware of the problem and refer people for further tests at the first sign that they may have bowel cancer. I probably agree with the First Minister on that.

Where I disagree, and where Bowel Cancer disagrees, relates to greater sensitivity in our screening programme. I have been pushing for that, but I have been told that there is a lack of capacity in colonoscopies to allow it to happen. The result is that that ignores the real costs of bowel cancer treatment, which could include radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery, all of which have a huge cost. Will the Government commit to carrying out a cost benefit analysis of increasing the sensitivity of bowel screening, in line with the National Screening Committee’s recommendation, to ensure that Scotland continues to lead the way in bowel cancer screening, as we should?

Everyone has reminded us why we are here this afternoon. It is for the simple reason that we are discussing a target that was promised a long time ago—the dualling of the A9 by 2025—and because of the petition that was lodged by Laura Hansler to get the issue considered in Parliament. As others have done, I thank Laura for the time and effort that she has put into that. I also thank the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for allowing me to attend its meetings and for giving me a fair chance to question all the witnesses. I am extremely grateful for that—especially considering the number of questions that the convener allowed me to ask.

Like many people, I am a habitual user of the A9—I am up and down it every week. Unlike Emma Roddick, I cannot always manage not to travel in darkness. Sometimes, when we have sat late on a Thursday evening, I travel up the road after dark, but with a certain amount of trepidation. When I put in my claims for my mileage, the parliamentary staff have given up questioning why the mileage goes up and down each week. The reason why that happens is that, quite often, I end up going via Dundee, having gone halfway up the A9 only to find it closed. That is a problem that many people have to face.

The promise to dual the A9 was made in 2011—a long time ago—by Alex Salmond. When he gave evidence to the committee on 8 May 2024, during the inquiry, I thought to myself that he seriously got it. I think that he understood the need to link Scotland together by linking all the cities to ensure free flow of trade between them. On the day that he appeared before the committee, two foolscap documents of information were provided to us on his behalf. I sat down and waded through those documents and found a particular event that I thought was relevant, which was a meeting between him and Alex Neil about progress on dualling the A9 and how it was to be carried out. I started to refer to the meeting, but before I got halfway through my question, he had already told me the date that on which the meeting took place and what it was about. He was in fine fettle when it came to the information and the facts and figures, and his detailed knowledge of the issue was truly impressive. I was genuinely impressed, and I came away at the end of that meeting thinking that, if he had been there to see the project through, it might have actually happened, because he understood the need for it.

Lots of people who came after Alex Salmond did not understand the need. Let us go through the whole list: Stewart Stevenson, Keith Brown, Derek Mackay, Humza Yousaf, Paul Wheelhouse, Graeme Dey, Jenny Gilruth, Kevin Stewart and Fiona Hyslop—although I note that Fiona Hyslop has now moved on from being a minister and has become a cabinet secretary. There have also been a couple of First Ministers—Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon—who also did not seem to understand the need. From today’s debate, I have gathered the impression that the Greens are also among the people who do not understand the need for dualling the A9 between Perth and Inverness.

I seek confirmation from Mark Ruskell and his party that they are signed up to the dualling of the A9, not just to safety improvements and roundabouts, which seems to be what his speech is about. Are you up for dualling the A9? Are you signed up to it?

I absolutely accept that there was continuity—there was continuity in changing ministers for transport when it became too difficult to justify the jobs that they were doing.

I have read the cabinet secretary’s response to the committee, which I am, I guess, as disappointed by as many other people are. It talks about “certainty” and “transparency” but all that I can say is that, since the promise was made to dual the A9, I have never come across a more clever way of obscuring information, a more deceptive way of talking about when a project will be delivered or a bigger list of broken promises.

I am afraid that I am disappointed by the cabinet secretary’s response, which almost says, “Nothing to see here. It’s all changed. Move right along.” I do not accept that. I do not accept it for highlanders or for any of the constituents whom I represent. I will also say that I am concerned about the role that Transport Scotland has had during the process. It seems to think itself above scrutiny and above the Government.

My time is short, but I would like to say that one or two people have suggested that there should be a separate committee for transport. I have convened the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which dealt with transport, and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Neither of those committees has had time to deal with transport properly. My plea for the next Parliament is that it set up a committee whose sole job is to deal with transport and infrastructure.

I have probably used all my time, but the delays continue to cost lives. I do not need to remind people that, during the period from 2020 to 2024, 168 lives were lost. I appeal to the Government: speed it up. Frankly, the response from Transport Scotland to the cross-party plea to speed the work up was a bit of a joke.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. The first question is from me. Have you taken into account the situation in which a plant ceases operations and those operations are transferred to another plant, which might slightly increase its carbon output?

I am trying to identify whether there is an issue with a plant closing and another plant within the same group picking up its activity, which may increase the latter’s emissions. Has that been taken into account?

You have been very quiet so far, so I am sure that you will get a fair crack.

That was less than previously. If extra money is needed to meet the targets that you have set yourself, who will cough up? Which budget will it be?

SEPA monitors, but it does not influence the outcomes with the money that it spends.

I am sure that Mr Doris will be thankful for that correction to the record. He may now have a follow-up question.