John Mason
Independent · Scotland
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals.”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.”
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues.”
The complete record
Every one of 652 lines we hold for John Mason, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 14.
“Many committee witnesses testified to that principle, and I also meet people outside—friends, teachers, parents and former pupils—who are very supportive of the idea. However, for me, problems arose around the finances as those were originally planned for when the bill was introduced. There was a question as to whether the financial memorandum accurately estimated the likely costs, which Liz Smith put at up to £36 million and the Government put at up to £40 million. The question then was whether that would include upgrading outdoor centres, whether teachers would need to be paid for carrying out a new statutory responsibility and whether better-off families, who currently can—and do—pay for their children’s courses should suddenly make a big saving because the state would fund everyone.”
“I hate to be the wet blanket at the party; however, I will start by thanking Liz Smith very much for introducing the bill. I agree with virtually everything that has been said this afternoon and at committee about the value of residential outdoor education. I was keen to speak in this afternoon’s debate as I have been involved in the bill throughout, as a member of both the Education, Children and Young People Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and I have met virtually no one who disagrees with the principle of the bill, that all young people should have the opportunity of a week’s residential outdoor education during their school career. I, too, am in full agreement with that.”
“I thank them for their constructive engagement in getting us to where we are today, and I am grateful to them for respecting the will of the Parliament. Finally, I thank the Education, Children and Young People Committee and its convener, Douglas Ross, for their excellent scrutiny of my bill at stages 1 and 2, as well as Kenny Gibson and colleagues on the Finance and Public Administration Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their scrutiny. It is an honour for me to move the motion to pass the bill. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill be passed. 16:59”
“That change will allow the Government, education authorities, managers of grant-aided schools, the outdoor education sector and other key partners, such as trade unions and school leaders, more space to get ready. I thank the outdoor education sector for its tireless support for the bill; it is good to see that many representatives of the sector are in the public gallery this afternoon. I also thank my colleagues across the chamber, my staff, the non- Government bills unit—which is one of the Parliament’s biggest assets—and the many young people who have clearly believed that the bill could provide them with life-changing opportunities. I am pleased that the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills see the benefits of the bill.”
“The bill now includes an explicit requirement for the Scottish Government to consult trade unions when it is preparing guidance. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her work in strengthening the bill in that way at stage 2. Earlier this afternoon, amendments were passed at stage 3 to provide that the Scottish Government must consult teachers who are not in trade unions, as well as representatives of young people themselves, before preparing its guidance. Those are all very positive steps. Similarly, earlier today, changes were accepted that establish what the statutory guidance must include, and those have also strengthened the bill. As I mentioned, the commencement date has also changed. Instead of the bill automatically coming into force on 7 July next year, the Scottish Government will now make commencement regulations.”
“The Government will not have to pay the full amount, but I have read the supplementary financial memorandum and it does not give a figure for what the Government will have to pay. Can the member give any estimate of what the new legislation will cost the Government? Liz Smith: The costs have not changed since the original discussion of that issue. However, as John Mason knows, at stage 2 we added to the bill a period for its staged introduction and we also changed the commencement date. The Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise has also put it on record that there will be additional funding for pupils who have additional support needs, so that nobody will have to pay extra for that reason, and for families who cannot afford to pay for the provision. I am grateful to the minister for doing that.”
“I encourage members to support all the amendments in the group, and I press amendment 2. Amendment 2 agreed to. Amendment 10 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to. Amendment 3 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Amendment 4 moved—[John Mason]—and agreed to. Amendment 5 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Amendment 6 moved—[Liz Smith]—and agreed to. Amendment 7 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to group 3 on reporting duty. Amendment 8, in the name of Jackie Dunbar, is the only amendment in the group.”
“Natalie Don-Innes: The amendments in the group concern provisions relating to the statutory guidance that are important in seeking to ensure that legislative standards are of the highest and that those whom the bill will impact most directly will have a meaningful voice in its implementation. I do not have too much to add, but I want to speak to Jeremy Balfour’s comments. Mr Balfour has again put on record his concerns about young carers. We have discussed that topic at length. We have worked with the aim of ensuring that the bill is equitable, so I want again to put on record, and emphasise, that the provisions in the bill will ensure the full consideration of those matters and the needs of those pupils, to ensure that they will be able to access their residential trip.”
“As the minister said, amendment 3, in her name, is a minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency with the Education (Scotland) Act 1980—and amendment 5, too, is a technical amendment to reflect the fact that the inspection regime will be governed by the Education (Scotland) Act 2025 when that comes into force. Members may recall that section 45 of that act requires an inspection plan to set out information about the extent to which, and how, inspections will evaluate outdoor education. I therefore welcome amendments 3 and 5. I encourage everyone to support the amendments in this group.”
“In lodging my stage 2 amendments, I sought commitments from the minister that parents of pupils with additional support needs would not be charged more to cover the cost of providing for those needs to be met, and that pupils whose parents could not afford to contribute would still be able to benefit from residential outdoor education courses. Helpfully, the minister gave those commitments at stage 2. I am very grateful to her for that. Amendments 10 and 4 further solidify those commitments by requiring the statutory guidance to include provision about pupils with additional support needs and about equality of access. I therefore very much welcome both amendments 10 and 4.”
“Amendment 10, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and amendment 4, in the name of John Mason, will require the statutory guidance to include provision about the steps that should be taken to support participation by pupils including, in particular, those with additional support needs, and provision about the requiring of a financial contribution from parents, including, in particular, the matters that are to be taken into account to ensure equality of access. Both those amendments follow on from discussions at stage 2 and immediately thereafter. At stage 2, the bill was amended both to remove its duty on ministers to fund the full provision of residential outdoor education and to enable education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to ask parents for a contribution.”
“Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, changes “must” to “should” in new section 6B(4)(b) of the 1980 act—which, if the amendment is agreed to, will mean that the statutory guidance that is issued under the bill must include provision about the standard to which residential education should be provided. That reflects the fact that statutory obligations cannot be made through guidance, and is consistent with the wording of a provision elsewhere in section 6B(4). I am therefore very content to support amendment 2.”
“Therefore, through amendment 4, I aim to ensure that statutory guidance includes matters to be considered by education authorities and grant- aided schools when requiring financial contributions, to further support equality of access to residential outdoor education. I trust that members will support amendment 4. Liz Smith: I will comment briefly on the amendments in the group, all of which relate to the statutory guidance under the bill and follow on from very constructive discussions that I had prior to stage 3 with the minister, Jeremy Balfour and John Mason. I support all the amendments in the group.”
“That is already the case in many schools and local authorities, and we do not wish to undercut effective existing good practice. However, a key aim of the bill is that residential outdoor education should be available to all young people, no matter how well off their families are and no matter whether a child has a disability, and I completely agree that there will be circumstances in which a parental contribution is not appropriate. For example, I would expect that members would agree that no pupil should be unable to participate in residential outdoor education due to their family’s financial circumstances or because of any additional costs that arise from having an additional support need.”
“As members probably know, my reservations about the bill have been to do with its financial aspects and, in particular, whether the public purse should be paying for the children of better-off families who could well afford to pay for such courses and are currently doing so. If there was plenty of money available, perhaps no family would pay, but money is tight and we need to target public expenditure. I continue to have concerns that the updated financial information provides no real idea of what the bill, if passed, will cost. I was happy to support Liz Smith’s amendment at stage 2 to enable education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to require a parental contribution towards their child’s course of residential outdoor education.”
“Yes. Anas Sarwar: Can you? John Mason: Yes. Anas Sarwar: Wow. Shame on you for shouting that out, Mr Mason. For every single—”
“As the minister probably knows, Dalmarnock primary school is in my constituency. Will she confirm that parents going into school to visit teachers or attend ESOL classes do not need to be part of the protecting vulnerable groups scheme, and that parents should be able to access all schools? Siobhian Brown: My understanding is that that is correct. Transgender Prisoners Policy (Court Proceedings) (Scottish Government Question Responses) 4.”
“Should Mr Mason want to draw any such issues to the Scottish Government’s attention, I would be grateful for that. Energy Efficiency Support (Cultural Institutions) 5.”
“If we want to be consistent and are going to have boycotts against Israel, should we not have boycotts against other countries? I am thinking particularly of China, which has an appalling human rights record against Christians, Muslims and Tibetans—the list goes on and on. If we do not, are we just picking on Israel because it is small and it is Jewish? Angus Robertson: No, I do not agree with that comparison. I think that all members of the Scottish Parliament have condemned Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The United Kingdom Government’s position, which is supported by the Scottish Government, is that there should be a boycott of Russian firms. It is therefore clear that this is not aimed at just one country. It is a statement of fact that there are other parts of the world where such issues should be considered.”
“We acknowledge that, like all legislation, this bill may be open to legal challenge, but the risk of challenge is substantially outweighed by the immediate and pressing risk of a £350 million refund. Although we support the bill, we cannot accept the circumstances that necessitated its introduction. The Government must reflect on how many more critical errors the Parliament will be required to fix before it accepts that it has reached the end of the road. I would ask the Government not to place the Parliament in this position again, but experience suggests that that might be in vain. If the Government cannot competently manage its own financial and legislative responsibilities, it should step aside for those who can, before lasting damage is done. The Presiding Officer: I call Lorna Slater. 18:12”
“In due course, there will be time for the Government to account for what went wrong, how it went wrong and why such an error was allowed to persist unnoticed. It may well be appropriate—or, I would say, necessary—for the Government to offer an apology to the Parliament and to the country for its failure to identify the issue sooner. In the months ahead, there will be ample opportunity to scrutinise the wider catalogue of errors and mismanagement that has accumulated over 18 years of SNP administration: missed amendments, wasted millions and repeated failures in governance. However, today, our responsibility is clear. It is to prevent an unnecessary and harmful cut to Scotland’s public finances or a corresponding increase in tax.”
“Is the £820 million Barnett consequentials or is it on top of Barnett consequentials? Mark Griffin: That is £820 million secured by Anas Sarwar for Scotland, which we hope to see spent properly and not wasted on things such as, potentially, a £350 million bill if we do not fix this mistake. I disagree fundamentally with the Scottish Conservatives’ contention that it is not the role of Opposition parties to correct Government mistakes. We take our responsibilities as elected members seriously; we are here to serve the people of Scotland. It is the people of Scotland who stand to lose hundreds of millions of pounds because the Government has failed to check its own work, so it is absolutely our duty to intervene. We have listened carefully to the Government’s explanation of the procedural circumstances that led to this situation.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time. Portfolio Question Time Social Justice and Housing 17:01”
“Is there some kind of back-up that we could use at that point? Maggie Chapman: We are aware of the need to try to make our systems as secure and resilient as they can possibly be. The systems that we use are designed to be resilient against predictable failures but, as the member alluded to, failures due to bad actors might not be predictable. There are resilience measures to enable us to have votes without technology. Those measures were not used for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill due to the large number of amendments that were being considered, and the decision was made to reschedule business in that instance. However, should something similar happen on our last day, it is likely that non-digital, non-technological systems would be used. That would extend business considerably, but it is likely that that is what we would put in place.”
“The global outage was the first time in the five years in which we have been operating our hybrid voting application when we have experienced an unplanned disruption to the cloud platform that resulted in a decision being taken to reschedule business. As part of our normal processes, any major incident that impacts services is reviewed to learn lessons and ensure that our information technology systems remain resilient and continue to operate with the high levels of availability and reliability that the corporate body expects. John Mason: I accept that it was an unusual occurrence, but we know that there are bad actors out there who are trying to replicate that kind of thing and disrupt Parliament and other bodies. What would be the fallback position if the system failed on the final day of the current session—25 March?”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what assessment it has made of the operational resilience of the Parliament’s information technology systems, in light of the disruption to the stage 3 proceedings for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. (S6O-05122) Maggie Chapman (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The disruption to the stage 3 proceedings for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was deeply regrettable. It was the result of a global outage of the Microsoft Azure cloud platform, which affected many organisations that, like the Scottish Parliament, utilise the platform to host business applications and websites.”
“Without the structures of the constitutional arrangement, with the Parliament functioning as a means to hold the Government to account and keep it honest, accountability collapses. When accountability collapses, public trust collapses with it. That is what the SNP Government is suffering from—a collapse of public trust. Amendment 8 would restore the basic discipline that the Government has abandoned. It would give the Parliament the information that it needed to ensure that such a failure could never occur again, and it would make it clear that ministers could not simply legislate their way out of embarrassment, particularly on an emergency basis, without answering for the choices that brought us here. I urge members to support amendment 8. 14:45”
“I think that we are all aware that there are still questions about the bill and this Parliament’s competence on the matter. There has been virtually no scrutiny and, not for the first time, utter disregard for the authority of this Parliament. It is a straightforward principle that, when ministers make a mistake of this magnitude, they must face the consequences. They must account for it. Despite what SNP members will, no doubt, be saying as they chunter away in the background during our speeches, this is not about partisan advantage. It is about our fulfilling our duty and responsibility as parliamentarians. It is about the relationship between this Parliament and the Executive. The problem with the SNP is that too many of its back benchers think that they are there simply to support the Executive without question.”
“Some phrases come easily to SNP ministers, but the idea of outcomes being derived from the things that they do as a Government is a foreign concept to them, because I am afraid that they often legislate for theatre, not for the real world. Amendment 8 would call time on that culture. It would require ministers to account for themselves on the record in a way that could not be evaded or spun by the hundreds of spin doctors that they regularly employ to create the confusion and uncertainty of mixed messaging. Amendment 8 would force them to set out the full timeline of what they knew, when they knew it and what they did with that knowledge. It would compel clarity about the delays, the silence and the decisions that led to the so-called emergency legislation.”
“The consequences of that decision are measured not in inconvenience or administrative delay but in hundreds of millions of pounds of potential public exposure. To carry public risk of that scale and deliberately fail to inform the Parliament is a breach of the most basic principles of responsible government. This is not a “molehill” or a minor defect at the margins of legislation; it is a failure at the core of good government. It reveals carelessness and incompetence in drafting and scrutiny, which should be alarming to the Administration and to us, as members of Parliament. This is a direct consequence of ministers who have a track record in legislating for headlines, not outcomes.”
“Let us be clear about the context behind amendment 8. For more than two years, ministers did not realise the consequences of their own drafting. When the error was finally identified, did they deal with the issue “at pace”? That is another of the SNP’s favourite phrases. No one of any kind of reasonable disposition would say that they rushed to bring the bill to the Parliament, because they did not immediately disclose the error. They did not divulge it. They did not notify the Parliament. They did not alert those who were affected. As I said, they chose their favourite device—silence. That concealment was a conscious decision, not an accident. That is why the Conservatives have brought up these issues time and again and will continue to do so, particularly in this group of amendments.”
“That is a basic expectation for any Executive. I remind John Mason and SNP back benchers who sit and chunter through our speeches that our first duty as parliamentarians is to hold the Government to account. Our job is to make the Government honest by shining a clear light of accountability on it. I do not know why some members, particularly members of the SNP, think we are here if it is not to do something as basic as that. I have been pulled up about amendment 8, but it is quite generous because it says that, “within 3 months of Royal Assent”, ministers must “publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament a report on the circumstances” that led to the bill. Other colleagues have higher standards when it comes to what they expect from the Government, and I bow to their experience in such matters.”
“Stephen Kerr: It is a Government whose instincts are, sadly—in the minds of many members and people outside the Parliament—to reach for a cover-up and perpetuate a secret Scotland that the public are to know nothing about. Amendment 8 asks for something that should never have required an amendment—it asks ministers to provide the Parliament with a clear, factual and comprehensive account of how such a serious error occurred. The error is not minor, by the way. John Mason referred to a “molehill”. It is not a molehill; it is a major flaw in a critical piece of legislation. Businesses depend on clarity on such matters, and local authorities require clarity when carrying out their legal requirements, but they do not have it, so it is not a molehill. Amendment 8 asks ministers to account to the Parliament for what happened.”
“[Laughter.] SNP members think that it is funny that they passed flawed legislation. I do not think that it is funny at all. John Mason: Does Stephen Kerr accept that every Government makes mistakes and that we should not be making a mountain out of a molehill? Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility leaked the budget before it was given, so Westminster makes mistakes, too. Stephen Kerr: It is news to me that the OBR is part of the executive at Westminster. Sure, Governments make mistakes, but Governments that are grown up and mature fess up. This is not a Government that fesses up. [Interruption.] The Convener: Let us hear one another.”
“We will also support Douglas Ross’s amendment 21, which would rightly prevent ministers from commencing the rest of the bill’s provisions until they had made a full and transparent statement about how the error arose. That would ensure that accountability came before implementation, not after it. I move amendment 7. Stephen Kerr: My colleague Craig Hoy is absolutely right about the need for lessons to be learned. One of my abiding memories of my time in the Scottish Parliament will be hearing a former First Minister constantly repeating the refrain, “I will take no lessons from”. Unfortunately, that could almost be the strapline of the SNP Government, because, as I said in my previous remarks, it is not prepared to exercise some plain humility and accept that there are lessons to be learned.”
“Only an external authoritative review can provide the clarity and accountability that people deserve in the circumstances. If ministers want to rebuild trust, they should welcome independent scrutiny. Therefore, I hope that they will support my amendment 13 and allow the Auditor General to shine a light on what went wrong, so that lessons can be learned and the mistake is not repeated. We will support Douglas Ross’s amendment 20, because it is vital that the statement on the bill’s introduction takes effect before the provisions in the rest of the bill are commenced. That is a sensible step that would guarantee the Parliament the full facts up front rather than after the legislation is in force.”
“It is vital that the Parliament understands not only how the error was identified but why ministers initially gave one date and later revised it. That was either sloppy or dishonest, and full transparency with the Presiding Officer and with Opposition parties is essential. Amendment 12 will ensure that that clarity is finally delivered. Given the scale of the legislative failure and the real-world consequences for businesses across Scotland, it is essential that we fully understand how the situation happened. Amendment 13 would ask the Auditor General for Scotland—the head of an independent and respected body in Scotland—to conduct an independent review. We now know that officials identified the defect long before ministers acted. That, in turn, raises serious questions about internal controls and communication within the Government.”
“Mr Kerr is correct that it is essential that a clear account of when ministers learned of the error, and how they responded, is published in full, if the Parliament and the country are to understand what went wrong and to ensure that it never happens again. Equally, we will support amendment 11, in the name of Douglas Ross. Given the seriousness of the failure, the Parliament deserves full transparency about who knew what and when— not the usual smoke and mirrors that we get from the Government. The proposal in amendment 11 for a formal statement and publication of all the relevant correspondence is an essential step towards restoring trust, not just remedying the problem that the bill rightly identifies. We will also support amendment 12, in the name of Douglas Ross.”
“Does Mr Hoy accept that flagging up an error before a solution had been found would invite people to take money away from the public purse? Craig Hoy: It is about doing what is right. The Government learned of the issue back in June, but the Parliament found out only in November. If the Government is sufficiently confident that the bill’s provisions can be applied retrospectively, we need have no fear of such claims being made. I hope that, if ministers are serious about transparency, they will support amendment 7 to ensure that the Parliament is informed promptly, not at a time of their choosing. We will support amendment 8, in the name of Stephen Kerr.”
“I point out that we will try to amend the bill at stage 2 in a number of ways. Douglas Ross, who will speak shortly, will rightly try to ensure that we get greater transparency and accountability. This is the most significant legislative failure in recent years, and the minister should not be seeking to brush that under the carpet. Independent scrutiny is needed to restore confidence in the system and to identify the lessons to be learned. This bill is, I fear, fraught with difficulty and complexity. I appeal to ministers not to be frivolous with the legislative process now, as they were in 2020. They should pause, think, consult and ensure that they approach it in the proper manner. 17:40”
“Although non-domestic rates on unoccupied property may have brought in £400 million, what damage has that done to the commercial property sector and the construction industry? Would this not be an opportunity to pause for some form of impact assessment to see what damage the legislation has done? If the minister were to speak to those in the industry— many of whom are very angry at the situation that the Government finds itself in—they would tell him, in plain language, what the effects of the tax have been. On that basis, we cannot support the financial resolution. Given the significant doubts that we have about the possibility of a legal challenge, to support the financial resolution would be to give the Scottish Government a blank cheque while it could face significant legal fees.”
“As I said yesterday, the Government’s solution to fix a problem in legislation that was rushed is to rush through legislation. I also have concerns about the lack of consultation. Ministers are saying that it is because they need to bring forward remedial legislation as quickly as possible following the concerns that were raised with them, but I do not accept in any way that, if they have been able to spend five months giving the matter due consideration, they cannot consult even for a matter of weeks, and that we should be forcing the bill through in two days. We will not support the bill and we will seek to amend it to the point where ministers must go back and try to get it right. We also question the numbers.”
“It also repeals a power that allows ministers to prescribe by regulation classes of unoccupied lands and heritage for which such rates are payable. Although amendment 42 is simple, the implications are significant, both for national non-domestic rates policy and for local empowerment.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 4 December 2019; c 36.] The Government believed that the matter was simple, simply because it did not do its homework properly. It went back to the 1966 statute, but, apparently, it did not go back any further. Ms Forbes is meant to be the brains of the Scottish National Party operation when, in fact, it was slapdash and shoddy. Who is to be held accountable for that? I see no signs of any heads rolling. However, here we are again.”
“Looking back to the consideration of that legislation at stage 2 by the Local Government and Communities Committee, it is clear that ministers did not do what was required of them in terms of legislative scrutiny or legal due diligence. At the time, the Government explicitly referred to repealing section 24 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, but it overlooked the existence of section 16 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956. Kate Forbes and her legal team were asleep at the wheel. In fact, at stage 2 deliberations on what became the 2020 act, Ms Forbes told MSPs that the bill was sound. She said: “Amendment 42 delivers that by repealing legislation that provides that no rates will be payable on unoccupied lands and heritages.”
“The member emphasises that businesses have had to pay the rates, but where would the £400 million come from? Would he support cutting it from local authorities? Craig Hoy: Mr McKee has managed to magic up £1 billion in public sector reforms in the blink of an eye, so I am sure that he could find another £400 million. The damage has been very real. Some developers have razed buildings to the ground because they could no longer afford to pay or were not prepared to pay tens of thousands of pounds in tax for buildings that they could not sell or rent. Others have collapsed corporate structures and simply handed back the keys, leaving the councils with the liability for hard-to- maintain properties. The ministers who were responsible for the defective legislation that the bill seeks to remedy were Derek Mackay and Kate Forbes.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of NatureScot’s species licensing review, including timelines for producing and implementing recommendations for improvements alongside charging for licensing services. (S6O-05192)”
“Such folk may never be recognised, paid high salaries or given awards but, like Andrew, they serve faithfully and we should be grateful for all of them, just as I believe that we should be grateful for Andrew. 17:56”
“He is mentioned 12 times in the gospels, and four of those are part of a list of the disciples’ names. After that, in the book of Acts, which tells the story of the early church, he is mentioned just once. However, from what we know of him, Andrew is someone whom we can look up to and take as an example. Andrew’s brother Peter is much better known and was the first leader of the early church after Jesus had left to go to heaven. Like Andrew, we may not be in the limelight all the time, and many of our constituents are in the same situation—they are people who serve faithfully as volunteers or as carers or parents of disabled children, or people who are conscientiously working in a poorly paid job.”
“It is worth remembering that Jesus and all his disciples were Jewish and that there was quite a cultural divide between Jews and Greeks. These Greeks first spoke to another disciple—Philip. It is worth noting that Philip and Andrew were both Jews but had Greek names and so might have been more approachable. Philip might have been unsure of what to do, so he turned to Andrew, and it was Andrew who went to Jesus with the issue. So, for the third time, we see Andrew bringing someone to Jesus, which is very much a theme in what we know about him. Philip obviously felt that Andrew was somebody with whom he could share a problem. We have a picture of Andrew as someone very solid and dependable and someone whom others came to for help or with questions. Overall, it seems to me that Andrew is something of an unsung hero.”
“Jesus had been teaching a large crowd out in the countryside, and the people were getting hungry. How to feed them? It is Andrew who finds a boy with five loaves of bread and two fish and brings them all to Jesus, admitting that they are not much. However, Jesus performs a miracle and feeds everyone. For the second time, we see Andrew bringing someone to Jesus, and it shows that Andrew was a practical kind of person. He could see that there was a big problem. He did not know what the complete answer was, but he threw in his tuppenceworth, and God used it and blessed it. That is a good example for us. We can at least try to contribute a little to solving problems, even if we cannot fully tackle or maybe even understand the whole thing. Our third picture of Andrew comes when some Greeks went to see Jesus.”