Almost exactly a month ago, SNP and Green councillors in Glasgow voted to cut funding for MCR Pathways, a mentoring programme for vulnerable teenagers that has been described as transformational, pioneering and life-changing.

The decision to do so can be traced back to February’s budget deal between the two parties – one that also included cutting hundreds of teaching posts from the city’s schools. Back then, councillors actually voted to remove all funding from the scheme, a move that they were warned would mean “the deletion of the service”.

There was, unsurprisingly, a major backlash, with mentors, mentees, parents, celebrities and even one of Scotland’s leading judges speaking out against the plans, but some councillors – most notably Cllr Blair Anderson, the Greens education spokesperson – were keen to point out that the matter would first be considered by a “cross-party group.”

As part of this process, councillors on the cross-party group were given an ‘assurance’ that major funding cuts to the programme would not result in a reduction in young people receiving mentoring. This was, obviously, an extraordinary claim. It was also an extremely convenient one for those who wanted to push through the funding reductions.

This ‘assurance’ became a major defence for the cuts being imposed – for example, Cllr Anderson said it would “ensure that there is no reduction in the number of children receiving that one-to-one mentoring support.”

An explicit reference to the ‘assurance’ councillors received was even included in a Green amendment (which supported the cuts) that was accepted by the SNP administration and subsequently passed following a vote.

But there was an obvious problem: people were making extraordinary claims while refusing to provide extraordinary evidence – or indeed any evidence at all.

At the time, the Glasgow City Parents Group demanded that such material be released, and I tried repeatedly to have councillors or council officials hand it over – but it didn’t happen. In fact, neither the SNP nor the Greens bothered responded when we reported this.

Instead, the council’s education convener, Cllr Christina Cannon, told me that the ‘assurance’ had been “a verbal commitment from officers to the Political Oversite Group which I fully take their word for.”

As I wrote at the time, it seemed incredible that councillors could hear and accept such an extraordinary claim without asking to see the detail behind it.

After all, if someone told you they could turn lead into gold, you would at least ask to see their working, right?

Or let’s put it another way: if the Scottish Government decided to withdraw half of Glasgow City Council’s budget, but gave an ‘assurance’ that services wouldn’t be affected, do we think councillors would just take them at their word?

READ MORE

Even if those swinging the axe didn’t think that all mattered, I did – so I submitted an FOI request to the council.

In it, I explained that the Green amendment to the SNP motion regarding cuts to MCR Pathways had been accepted, and that it explicitly referred to “an assurance from officers that they foresee no reduction in the number of children receiving one-to-one mentoring”.

I added that I was aware that this ‘assurance’ had been given verbally to the Political Oversight Group, but pointed out that I didn’t believe that it could have “appeared out of thin air”, and explained that I was trying to understand the work that went on in order to arrive at the conclusion presented to councillors.

I therefore asked that the council released all material it held regarding this ‘assurance’ to councillors, and said that this might include, but would not be limited to, “analysis, briefings, internal and external communications, and personal notes.”

It would take up to twenty working days to receive a response but at least we’d eventually be able to see all the evidence.

Glasgow City Council had until the 18th of July to reply to me. The council took every single day of that window to issue its response, which didn’t arrived until nearly six o’clock in the evening.

And what did I find when I opened it?

An admission that the council holds no evidence whatsoever to support that critical ‘assurance’ given the councillors – the one that provided a key justification for slashing funding to the MCR Pathways programme.

An FOI response confirming that Glasgow City Council holds no material in relation to the 'assurance' given about mentoring numbers.An FOI response confirming that Glasgow City Council holds no material in relation to the 'assurance' given about mentoring numbers. (Image: The Herald)

To be clear, the council didn’t claim it would cost too much to find all the information, nor did it withhold a load of documents through the tenuous application of exemptions in FOI law.

It said that it does not hold information within the scope of my request.

It already seemed incredible that councillors didn’t ask to see evidence behind the ‘assurance’ that was given to them (the one that just happened to be telling them exactly what they wanted to hear) but now we know that if they had asked the officials for that evidence they would have found out that it did not exist.

This is all especially striking because on the day of the vote, Labour moved a motion to have the cuts delayed. This, they argued, would provide the time needed to fully assess the impact of the proposals, which they felt was particularly important given that the council had admitted that it hadn’t carried out a full Equality Impact Assessment.

The motion was rejected. Cllr Cannon of the SNP said it was a “delay for delay’s sake.” Cllr Jon Molyneux of the Greens went even further, angrily insisting that Labour councillors had “not engaged seriously” with the hard work being done by Green councillors, and that the calls to delay the cuts were “frankly an insult to those who have put in hard work.”

We now know, of course, that all that ‘hard work’ didn’t involve looking at the evidence behind the outlandish ‘assurance’ being provided, because there isn't any. Perhaps the councillors would have found that out for themselves if only they’d looked a bit harder.

READ MORE

Leanne McGuire, chair of the Glasgow City Parents Group, was scathing in her response to the latest revelations, which she said highlight “a severe lack of accountability and transparency” and show the ‘assurances’ provided at the time were “entirely baseless”:

“We called for the evidence behind these assurances at the time, only to be dismissed with claims of verbal guarantees. This blatant disregard for proper due diligence and transparent decision-making processes is irresponsible. It shows a troubling level of disengagement from the councillors elected to serve our community's best interests.

“If councillors had taken the time to verify these assurances before voting, they would have discovered the complete lack of supporting evidence. Instead, they chose to proceed with cuts that directly impact the welfare of our children and young people based on unfounded promises. This negligent approach has profound consequences, and it is the families and pupils of Glasgow who will bear the brunt of this recklessness.”

The Glasgow City Parents Group recently held a March for Education to protest cuts in Glasgow.The Glasgow City Parents Group recently held a March for Education to protest cuts in Glasgow. (Image: Colin Mearns)

When we put the latest revelations to the Glasgow Greens, Cllr Molyneux incorrectly claimed that the FOI response “simply reflects that there aren’t verbatim minutes of cross party group meetings” – in fact, the response related to any and all material held by the council in relation to the ‘assurance’ around mentoring numbers.

A separate FOI response from the council has, however, confirmed that there are no minutes or notes for any of the claimed meetings between councils officials and “MCR Pathways, trade unions and elected members as part of a review process that took place between March and June 2024.”

Cllr Molyneux then said: “Clear assurances were given by senior officers to elected members at cross-party meetings, based on their engagement with headteachers.  The response to this information request does not change or invalidate that. The basic facts of this matter - which are clearly spelled out in the publicly-available committee paper on it - are that the revised model for MCR Pathways has ensured that Pathways coordinators can be retained in all schools and they can be flexible to meet demand. It stands to reason therefore that the full mentoring offer will still be available to young people in Glasgow schools.”

But at least the Greens said something, which is more than can be said for the SNP, who didn't respond when asked if they now regretted voting for the MCR Pathways cuts, given the latest revelations, and whether they would be willing to revisit the policy given the lack of evidence for the 'assurance' they received.

A spokeswoman for Glasgow City Council, which issued the FOI response, and whose officials provided the 'assurances' to councillors, said: “Recent correspondence from MCR Pathways to all mentors confirms that all colleagues undertaking the Pathways Coordinator roles are being retained.

“In fact, officers met with MCR yesterday to discuss positive ways forward together to retain levels of support and meet demand.

“We have never underestimated the role of mentoring in complementing the work of our teachers and school staff and the benefit to the young people being helped.

“Senior education officers engaged with staff, trade unions and secondary schools during the MCR mentoring review.

“It stated very clearly in the report that this was in the form of discussions.

“These discussions therefore formed the basis of the report and recommendations that were passed at the City Administration committee on 20 June, where the decision was taken publicly, on camera, and minuted.

“There is no question that our officers carried out this review with integrity and professionalism and any assurances given will be reported on during the future monitoring and evaluation process.”

She also added: “Officers have been meeting with MCR colleagues routinely before the budget and during the review to discuss several topics including future models of delivery.”

However, a source with significant knowledge of the discussions challenged this characterisation of the engagement and said that while discussions have taken place, talks on the implications of the cuts for the numbers of young people in the programmes have only recently begun.

Unfortunately, the decision to hold such meetings without taking minutes means that, once again, transparency is impossible.