Thank you for the questions. There are, I think, two broad points I’d make. The first is that I think it’s too early to talk about the roll-out, but we expect to provide information through this year on the roll-out of the new simpler and easier-to-administer test. It’s been part of the challenge in the past about bowel cancer rates, because, broadly, it was a difficult and unpleasant test to administer by the individual. So, lots of people were just put off and didn’t comply, and the fact that, actually, detecting earlier a potentially fatal condition didn’t matter to people enough. So, we knew that there was something about improving testing rates, and the new test should help us to do that. My colleague, the Minister, will take a lead on providing that information with her responsibility for the screening programme.

The second point that I’d make is that, when we talk about earlier testing, there is always a challenge and a demand to have more testing and more screening and surveillance programmes, and this is really difficult, because, as with other parts of the UK, we follow the expert advice that we have about where is the appropriate point and the appropriate group of people to test to actually save the greatest number of lives. Because, potential harm is done in the testing programmes as well, and we’re making choices about our use of resources. Now, that is always difficult, because, as people in this Chamber will know, with the recent passing away of Sam Gould at a young age, that’s someone who was younger than our standard bowel cancer testing programme. That’s because we’re acting on the advice we’re given about how to get the best return for the public and the health service and how we save the greatest number of lives.

So, whilst I understand that Members will often want to come and say, ‘Expand the screening programme; test more people’, it often isn’t as simple as that, and I’d ask people to think and to try and engage with us on the level of where the evidence takes us and why it’s there, and whether we actually want to run this sort of campaigning, the sort of work that the campaign around the testing programme led by evidence, or led by who’s going to have the loudest voice about what they’re trying to change. This isn’t an easy choice for anyone to make, and I think that anyone in my position now or in Rebecca Evans’s position would still have to be led by the evidence about what is the right thing to do for the service and the public.