Chamber and committees

I am looking for a yes or no answer. Would it be fair to say that this is a shift away from quantitative data to look more at qualitative data that comes from the teachers, the pupils and their experiences, to get a better balance?

The conversation around free school meals is very interesting, and it demonstrates really well that it is all about prioritisation. If children are sitting in school and they are hungry, they will not learn at their best or perform at their best level. It is all about choices, and there is evidence that having universal free school meals increases the uptake of school meals among those children who need it most, as it reduces the stigma. We are talking about further investment and the finance behind it, and I appreciate that there are capital costs as well, but surely it is a priority for all local authority areas.

Is part of that talking about it being foreseen that there might be a decrease in the number of national 5s or higher subjects because young people are going in a direction that is much more suitable for them? Does that play a part in it?

It is more about ensuring that that part happens.

Yes, it does. First, however, I will make a point about recommendation 6, which states that all three elements—programmes of learning, project learning and the personal pathway—need to be covered and that the diploma will not be awarded if they are not. I am a bit concerned about any risks that there might be around that, particularly with, for example, a pupil who does not have a parent who is particularly supportive or has not had great support from teachers and is missing out on that element.

That is great. Thank you.

I will move on to the practicalities of delivering the change. Culturally, we hear people in this country talk about the three Rs. It is such a huge thing. We very much pride ourselves on it. It is in the fabric of us all. We all talk about education and have a real pride in it. However, a lot of people really do not like change. Peter Bain mentioned that all the teachers you have spoken to have really come on board with the proposals, as well as young people, parents, educators and employers. How do we ensure that the remainder come on board? How do we deliver that practically on the ground and create space to develop the structures that need to change and be used in classrooms? Also, the media and press were mentioned. How do we offer a bit of protection against an attack on the approach and the fact that the qualification is not definitive in the sense that they would be marked A, B or C? How can we ensure that they open their minds and see the wider picture?

Presiding Officer, thank you for doing your absolute best to make sure that we all get to make a contribution today. I also thank Gillian Mackay for bringing the debate to the chamber and I certainly back up what my colleague Brian Whittle was saying earlier.

The fact that we are so pushed for time today is a testament to how seriously we all take the environmental health impact of vaping. First, I welcome the consultation. There really is no place for single-use vapes in a zero waste Scotland, and the array of discarded shiny, coloured, used vapes that are scattered everywhere is a hot topic at the moment when I am out and about dog walking.

The meteoric rise in vaping among young people has rocked all of us, and the Scottish Youth Parliament report “Single Use, Many Voices”, which was released earlier this month, highlights that 84 per cent of young respondents have seen no information on where and how to dispose of single-use vapes. We must take that seriously. It is our responsibility to provide good information on disposal by using the same platforms that the tobacco industry uses to glamorise vaping, which young people use every day.

We have heard plenty about the health and wellbeing impacts of vaping and none of us wants to imagine how that could affect families across Scotland in the future. Let us make no mistake—the tobacco industry will continue to promote misinformation and sell vaping as a positive lifestyle choice to young people, so we need to help them fight back, and that will be the focus of my speech today.

I recently spoke to a young constituent, in her early 20s, who talked of the shock that she felt when she realised the high levels of nicotine and the range of chemicals that are in e-liquids. She told me that pubs and clubs are full of young people openly vaping, and that they believe that social vaping on weekends is pretty much harmless, that vapes merely contain water vapour and that using them has no real consequences. Since finding out the facts, she has stopped vaping completely. She is now aware that high nicotine intake impacts brain development and that her age group has an increased vulnerability to nicotine addiction. She rightly sees herself and her friends as victims of a targeted marketing campaign. Trust me, she is really angry and is setting all her friends straight on what she sees as the dangers.

As my young constituent demonstrates, arming our young people with the facts is the biggest weapon that we have in the fight against tobacco industry propaganda. Unfortunately, the large sums that big tobacco spends on influencing social perceptions often work. The report that I mentioned tells us that young people’s vaping consumption makes them feel anxious and trapped, which is incredibly sad. Frankly, it is devastating to think that what we once used as a smoking cessation tool has been used to peddle a lifestyle con.

I could say much more about the amazing work that is being done across my constituency by Public Health Lanarkshire and organisations such as Landed, which has worked tirelessly to educate and inform people over the past six years. However, I am aware that we are very short of time today, so I finish with this. We already know enough to take action on vaping. We must not delay. We must use the legislation that we have. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the 1950s, when emerging dangers around smoking first arose. Let us act now.

It would be interesting to look at that in more detail if any further work on this were to be carried out.

The attainment gap seemed to be narrower, generally speaking. Over the past five years, the higher the level of qualification, the smaller the gap seemed to be in attainment. What is the thinking behind that? Is there any reason or explanation for it?

On my second question, are you able to explain why the higher the level of qualifications is, the smaller the attainment gap is? For example, at advanced higher level, the gap is smaller than it is at national 5 and higher levels.

Up until this point, why has there not been some curiosity to look into that aspect? Has it not stood out as something that perhaps needs to be looked at—in, of course, a positive way?