Sandwell’s Constitution: Democracy, But Only If You Book Early, Speak Fast, Sit Down and Shut Up

Sandwell’s Constitution: Democracy, But Only If You Book Early, Speak Fast, Sit Down and Shut Up

Sandwell Council has a new-ish Constitution.

Do not all cheer at once.

On paper, it is full of the usual warm civic language. Openness. Transparency. Accountability. Citizen involvement. Public scrutiny. All the nice laminated words that councils love to polish while quietly bolting the public gallery door from the inside.

The Constitution says it exists to show who is responsible for decisions, how decisions are made, and how decision-making is open to public scrutiny. It even says one of its purposes is to “encourage the involvement of citizens in local authority decision-making.” Lovely. Almost moving. Almost believable.

Then you get to the actual rules.

And suddenly the warm democratic welcome turns into a security checkpoint with a stopwatch.

Because Sandwell’s Constitution does not really say: “Come in, residents, this is your council.”

It says: “Submit your statement in advance, make sure it relates to an agenda item, do not ask a question, do not expect a proper answer, do not speak for more than three minutes, do not come back for six months, and please return quietly to the public gallery while the grown-ups continue.”

That is not public engagement.

That is managed inconvenience.

The Council’s own Constitution records that the original version was produced in May 2025, sections 3.1 and 3.2 were updated in November 2025, and the latest version was approved in March 2026. It also says a version showing the changes from 2025 onwards will be kept in the Modern.Gov library.

So this is not some dusty ancient relic accidentally left in a filing cabinet next to a broken fax machine.

This is current. This is deliberate. This is the rulebook.

And what a rulebook it is.

Full Council is supposed to be the big democratic stage. The place where councillors meet, decisions are taken, questions are asked, and residents can see their elected representatives being held to account.

Except, in Sandwell, the public speaking slot is capped at three members of the public.

Three.

For a borough of six towns.

Three people, three minutes each, maximum total public speaking time: nine minutes.

Nine minutes for the public. In a council that can spend millions, approve major policies, set budgets, change services, alter governance, pass motions, and make decisions affecting thousands of lives.

You get longer waiting for someone to answer the phone.

And even that tiny ration of public speaking is not a right to question power. It is only a right to make a statement. The Constitution makes clear there is no opportunity for the speaker to ask questions or respond to any debate. The Leader or a Cabinet member may respond for one minute, or may choose to provide a written response.

One minute.

How generous.

A resident gets three minutes to raise a serious concern. The political executive gets sixty seconds to waft it away. Then everyone moves on as if democracy has been satisfied because somebody from the public was briefly allowed near a microphone.

And let us be brutally clear: there is no obvious direct public question time at Full Council.

Councillors get question time. Political groups get question time. The machinery of the chamber gets question time. But the resident? The taxpayer? The service user? The parent? The tenant? The campaigner? The person living with the consequences of council decisions?

They get a statement.

Not a question.

Not a supplementary.

Not a follow-up.

Not a challenge.

A statement.

In other words: “Say your little piece, dear resident, and then off you pop.”

Then we come to petitions.

Surely petitions are the people’s route into the chamber?

Well, yes — if you can gather 3,000 signatures.

Three thousand.

For many ward-level issues, that is not a democratic threshold. That is a brick wall in civic clothing.

A dangerous junction? A failing park? A local flooding problem? A community building under threat? A botched consultation? A housing estate being ignored? A neighbourhood being dumped on?

Apparently, unless thousands of people sign, Full Council does not need to be troubled.

This rule favours large, organised campaigns and disadvantages ordinary residents dealing with real, practical, local problems. It is democracy for people with clipboards, databases and spare weekends.

Everyone else can take a number.

And then there is the gatekeeping.

The Monitoring Officer may reject public speaking requests if they do not comply with the rules, if they are not about an agenda item, if they are considered defamatory, frivolous or offensive, if they are substantially the same as something raised in the past six months, if the speaker has already spoken at Full Council in the past six months, or if confidential or exempt information would be disclosed.

Some controls are obviously necessary. Nobody serious argues for chaos, abuse or unlawful disclosure.

But this goes much further.

This gives the system a big velvet-covered lever marked: NO.

No, wrong item.

No, wrong wording.

No, too similar.

No, too soon.

No, you spoke before.

No, come back after six months.

And that is before we even get to Cabinet.

Cabinet is where much of the real power sits. The Constitution itself explains that most powers are executive powers, reserved to the Leader, who usually delegates them to Cabinet or officers.

So naturally, you might expect public participation at Cabinet to be strong, guaranteed and clearly protected.

Do not be silly.

At Cabinet, speaking rights for members of the public are not framed as a solid public right. The Leader may allow other people to speak, including councillors, in relation to agenda items. The time allowed is at the Leader’s discretion.

So the body holding major executive power has less of a democratic doorway and more of a polite side hatch.

This is the constitutional equivalent of a nightclub bouncer saying: “Not tonight, mate.”

The Scrutiny section sounds better. Scrutiny Boards exist to review Executive decisions, make reports and recommendations, and look at matters affecting Sandwell or its inhabitants.

Good.

But where is the proper resident trigger?

Where is the right for residents, tenants, Friends Groups, campaigners, carers, parents, community groups and service users to put matters onto the scrutiny agenda?

Where is the guaranteed mechanism that says: “If enough residents raise a concern, scrutiny must look at it”?

Where is the public evidence session route?

Where is the action tracker?

Where is the plain-English guide?

Where is the democratic spine?

Because without that, scrutiny risks becoming yet another room where councillors and officers discuss accountability while the public are expected to watch quietly from the cheap seats.

This is the recurring Sandwell problem.

The Council talks about openness. Then writes procedures that control it.

It talks about accountability. Then filters it.

It talks about resident involvement. Then restricts it to three speakers, three minutes, no questions and a six-month cooling-off period.

It talks about transparency. Then turns participation into a procedural obstacle course.

A constitution should not be a device for protecting the council from residents.

It should be the rulebook that protects residents from a closed council.

So what needs to change?

First, Sandwell needs a real Public Question Time at Full Council. Not statements dressed up as participation. Actual questions. Written answers. Published responses. One supplementary question. Proper democratic exchange.

Second, the public speaking limit should be expanded. Three speakers for the whole borough is laughable. Ten should be the minimum, with discretion to extend where major public interest exists.

Third, Cabinet needs guaranteed public participation. Not “the Leader may allow”. Not “at discretion”. A right. Cabinet makes major decisions; the public should have a route in before decisions are rubber-stamped.

Fourth, the petition threshold needs ripping up and replacing with something proportional. Ward issues should not need 3,000 signatures. Town issues should not be treated the same as borough-wide issues. A sensible scale is needed: ward, town and borough thresholds.

Fifth, the six-month speaker ban should go. Residents are not pests. They are the people the council exists to serve. If new evidence, a new report, a new decision, or fresh public concern arises, they should be heard.

Sixth, every public question, statement, petition and scrutiny request should be logged on a public tracker. Date received. Responsible officer. Response due. Response given. Action promised. Action completed.

Because otherwise these things vanish into the Sandwell mist, never to be seen again.

And finally, the whole Constitution needs a resident-friendly democratic access section written in plain English.

Not 588 pages of procedural fog.

A simple guide:

How do I ask a question?

How do I speak at Council?

How do I submit a petition?

How do I get Scrutiny to look at something?

How do I challenge a decision?

Who answers me?

When must they answer?

Where is the response published?

That is what resident-friendly government looks like.

Not this.

Sandwell’s Constitution currently reads like a document that wants to look open while keeping the public at arm’s length. It offers participation, but only in carefully measured spoonfuls. It gives residents a voice, then removes the microphone before they can ask anything awkward.

The new Reform administration now has a clear test.

Will it keep the old machinery of managed democracy?

Or will it open the doors properly?

Because after years of Sandwell governance failure, intervention, weak accountability, officer fog, political complacency and residents being treated like background noise, tinkering is not enough.

This Constitution needs reform.

Real reform.

Resident-first reform.

Not another polished document telling the people of Sandwell they are welcome to participate — provided they book early, speak fast, ask nothing, challenge nobody, and remember their place.

#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #LocalDemocracy #CouncilAccountability #PublicQuestions #Scrutiny #Governance #ResidentRights #SandwellPolitics #DemocraticReform