Sandwell Council’s Pledge Factory: Time For A Proper Audit, Not Another Badge

Sandwell Council’s Pledge Factory: Time For A Proper Audit, Not Another Badge

Sandwell Council does love a pledge.

A covenant here. A charter there. A strategy over there. A badge, a logo, a partnership board, a consultation, a launch event, a glossy PDF, and usually a photograph of somebody important-looking standing next to a pull-up banner pretending this is all terribly meaningful.

We have had the Armed Forces Covenant. The Hate Crime Pledge. The Domestic Abuse Pledge. Slavery-Free Sandwell. Borough of Sanctuary. Social Value. EDI. Child Friendly Sandwell. Dementia Friendly Sandwell. Animal Welfare Charter. Young Carers Covenant. Town twinning. Climate commitments. Green Flag ambitions. Place branding. Civic pride campaigns. Partnerships. Frameworks. Boards. Meetings. Sub-groups. Toolkits. Buzzwords.

Some of these may be valuable. Some may be legally necessary. Some may help vulnerable people. Some may bring agencies together.

But the question now needs to be asked properly:

What do they cost, what do they deliver, who owns them, and do they actually improve life for Sandwell residents?

Because residents do not live inside a strategy document. They live in streets where bins need emptying, fly-tipping needs clearing, anti-social behaviour needs tackling, housing repairs need doing, roads need fixing, vulnerable people need supporting, parks need maintaining, and public services need answering the phone.

A badge does not fill a pothole.
A pledge does not clear a dumped mattress.
A charter does not house a veteran.
A glossy strategy does not support a domestic abuse victim unless there is actual service delivery behind it.

And a photograph of councillors nodding solemnly next to a banner does not count as an outcome.

This Is Not About Scrapping Good Causes

Let us be clear.

This is not an argument for ignoring hate crime, domestic abuse, modern slavery, veterans, disabled people, refugees, children in care, young carers, older people, dementia, animal welfare or community safety.

It is the opposite.

If something matters, it should be properly delivered, properly measured and properly scrutinised.

The problem is not that Sandwell Council has values. The problem is that Sandwell appears to have developed a growing pledge-and-badge culture, where worthy words are launched, promoted and photographed, but residents are left wondering what has actually changed.

A proper rationalisation review would not mean throwing everything in the bin.

It would mean asking:

• what is legally required;
• what is genuinely useful;
• what duplicates existing law or policy;
• what has no measurable outcome;
• what costs money or officer time;
• what should be retained;
• what should be merged;
• what should be simplified;
• what should be stopped.

That is not extremism. That is basic governance.

The Positive Case For Rationalisation

Rationalisation should be seen as a positive reform.

It could make the Council sharper, leaner and more focused. It could reduce duplication. It could free up officer time. It could cut unnecessary consultancy, events, publicity, memberships, accreditation work, meetings, reports and internal bureaucracy.

More importantly, it could redirect effort back into the services residents actually notice.

Sandwell Council’s approved net budget for 2026/27 is £464.48 million. Even tiny percentage savings across a budget of that size are not insignificant. A saving of just 0.05% would be about £232,000. A saving of 0.1% would be about £464,000. A saving of 0.2% would be about £929,000. A saving of 0.3% would be around £1.39 million. Sandwell Council confirmed the £464.48 million total net budget when the 2026/27 budget was approved.

Nobody should pretend that reviewing pledges and charters will solve every financial problem. It will not.

But is it really impossible that Sandwell could save £250,000 to £500,000 by removing duplication, cutting non-essential consultancy, reducing meetings, merging boards, ending weak accreditations, trimming publicity and redirecting staff time?

Is it impossible that a more serious review could find close to £1 million in cashable and non-cashable savings if unnecessary posts, projects, memberships, events, contracts, grants and consultancy were properly examined?

I would suggest the burden is now on the Council to prove there is not a saving.

Sandwell Is Missing Targets, So Focus Matters

This all matters because Sandwell Council is not currently in a position to indulge endless civic wallpaper.

The Council’s own Quarter 2 performance report for 2025/26 says it measured 87 indicators between July and September 2025. It met or exceeded 41, nearly met 11, and missed 35. That means 40% of the indicators were missed.

So before Sandwell adds another pledge, another board, another charter, another strategy, another logo and another “exciting journey”, councillors should ask:

Are the basics being delivered?

If 40% of measured indicators are being missed, then officer time matters. Management attention matters. Meeting time matters. Every report, every board, every launch event and every duplicate strategy has a cost.

Even where there is “no direct financial implication”, there is still officer time, HR time, legal time, communications time, management time and scrutiny time.

That is not free. It is just hidden.

The Armed Forces Covenant: Keep The Duty, Prove The Delivery

We have already looked at Sandwell Council’s Armed Forces Covenant.

The principles are sound: no member of the armed forces community should face disadvantage when accessing local services, and in some circumstances special treatment may be appropriate, especially for the injured and bereaved. Sandwell’s own page sets out those key principles.

This is not something that should simply be scrapped as “just another pledge”. There are legal duties around the Covenant in areas such as housing, education and healthcare.

But the local machinery still needs scrutiny.

If there is a partnership board, where are the minutes?
Where are the actions?
Where are the KPIs?
How many veterans have been helped?
How many housing cases have been affected?
How many armed forces families have had barriers removed?
What has changed since adoption?

Armed Forces Day photographs are nice. Comments about respect are nice. But our armed forces community deserve more than ceremonial warm words, poppy-season speeches and civic chest-puffing.

The Covenant should be kept where it protects veterans and families. But the delivery structure should still have to prove its effectiveness.

EDI / DEI: Equality Law Already Exists

The EDI/DEI issue is one of the clearest examples of where scrutiny is needed.

Sandwell Council’s own EDI page says the EDI team provides advice, support and guidance to ensure the Council meets its statutory responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 in providing fair and accessible services.

Sandwell Cabinet also approved the EDI Strategy 2026–2029, “Unity through Inclusion”. The decision report states that, under the Equality Act 2010, the Council is legally required to ensure equality is actively considered and embedded throughout services and functions. It also links the strategy to the Local Government Association Equality Framework.

So the question is not whether equality matters. Of course fair treatment matters. Of course discrimination should be tackled. Of course services should be accessible.

The question is whether Sandwell needs a large separate EDI structure, with extra meetings, training, internal process, reports, staff networks, action plans, frameworks and external benchmarking — or whether fairness should simply be built into normal lawful service delivery.

If DEI becomes a separate industry inside the Council, residents are entitled to ask:

What does it cost?
How many staff are involved?
How much consultant time is used?
How many training hours are required?
How many Equality Impact Assessments actually changed a decision?
What improved for residents?
Could the same statutory duties be met more simply and cheaply?

Equality is too important to be turned into a paperwork factory.

Woke Words Or Working Services?

There is a phrase residents use when they see too much of this stuff: virtue signalling.

That phrase annoys some people, but perhaps it annoys them because it lands a little too close to the truth.

When a council says “zero tolerance”, what does that actually mean?

Sandwell’s Hate Crime work talks about tackling hatred, increasing awareness, supporting victims, encouraging reporting and working with partners. Fine.

But residents should be able to see how many reports were made, how many were acted on, what support was provided, where hotspots are, what has changed in schools, workplaces and neighbourhoods, and whether victims feel safer.

Sandwell’s Domestic Abuse Pledge says domestic abuse and sexual abuse will not be tolerated, victims’ voices will be heard, perpetrators will be addressed, and communities will be engaged.

Again, fine.

But where are the public outcomes? How long are people waiting for support? What is refuge capacity? What are repeat victim figures? What does prevention actually mean in practice?

“Zero tolerance” is a fine phrase. But without measurable action, it is just “No Place For Hate” printed on expensive cardboard.

Borough Of Sanctuary: No Wonder Residents Are Confused

Sandwell also says it is a Borough of Sanctuary.

The Council says the strategy was developed by the Council, residents and local organisations forming Sandwell’s Borough of Sanctuary Partnership, and that the strategy sets out commitments to welcoming and integrating individuals and families who arrive in Sandwell.

That may have decent intentions. It may help new arrivals understand services, reduce isolation, improve community cohesion and prevent exploitation.

But residents are entitled to ask what it means in plain English.

Does it affect housing?
Does it affect funding?
Does it affect access to services?
Who approved it?
What does it cost?
Who runs it?
What are the outcomes?
How is it reviewed?

And there is another awkward point. The Sandwell Borough of Sanctuary page on the City of Sanctuary website currently says the group is inactive.

So Sandwell Council says it is a recognised Council of Sanctuary, while the local City of Sanctuary group page says inactive.

Well, that is helpful, isn’t it?

No wonder residents are confused. If the Council wants to use big emotional labels like “sanctuary”, it must explain them properly and publish the evidence.

Social Value: This One Might Have Teeth

Not every pledge should be dismissed.

Social Value, for example, could be one of the more useful areas if it is properly monitored. Procurement and commissioning can be used to support local jobs, apprenticeships, small businesses, community benefit and environmental improvement.

That is not just badge-wearing. That could be serious.

But again, the test is delivery.

How many local jobs?
How many apprenticeships?
How much local spend?
How many small Sandwell businesses won contracts?
How many promised benefits were actually delivered after contracts were signed?

Social Value should not be a magic phrase used to bless contracts that were going ahead anyway.

If it delivers, keep it and strengthen it. If it is just tender-box poetry, rewrite it.

Twinning: Nice For The Few, But What About The Many?

Sandwell’s long-standing twinning link with Le Blanc-Mesnil in France appears to have some cultural and educational value. There is evidence of visits, hosting, student involvement and anniversary activity.

That is fine as far as it goes.

But let us be honest: how many Sandwell residents know who we are twinned with? How many have benefited? How much does it cost? Has it brought investment, trade, tourism, school links, business links, or just a few civic receptions and photo opportunities?

If twinning is valuable, prove it.

If it is harmless and mainly volunteer-led, say so.

If it costs public money, publish the figures.

Civic nostalgia is not a performance indicator.

What A Full Review Should Do

The new controlling group should order a full review of every Sandwell Council pledge, charter, accreditation, covenant, twinning arrangement, “friendly borough” scheme, civic status, partnership commitment and public-facing badge.

The review should not begin with the assumption that everything must go.

It should begin with the assumption that everything must prove its worth.

Each item should be placed into one of five categories:

1. Retain and strengthen — where it is statutory, useful and delivering outcomes.
2. Retain but improve reporting — where it is useful but poorly evidenced.
3. Merge into existing policy — where law or policy already covers the issue.
4. Pause or redesign — where purpose, cost or benefit is unclear.
5. End — where there is no clear resident benefit or value for money.

That is how a sensible Council should behave.

Create A Public Register

Sandwell should publish a single public register of all pledges, charters, accreditations, civic statuses, twinning arrangements and “friendly borough” initiatives.

For each one it should show:

• date adopted;
• who approved it;
• whether it is statutory or voluntary;
• lead councillor;
• lead officer;
• annual budget;
• officer time;
• consultancy cost;
• membership or accreditation fees;
• communications and publicity cost;
• event, travel or hospitality cost;
• action plan;
• KPIs;
• latest performance update;
• review date;
• evidence of benefit to residents;
• recommendation to retain, merge, redesign or end.

If the Council cannot provide that, then perhaps the pledge was not much of a pledge in the first place.

Perhaps it was just gloss.

The Saving Should Be Set As A Target

A review like this should not be vague.

Sandwell should set a target to identify at least £250,000 to £500,000 in savings or capacity release from rationalising duplicated pledge work, unnecessary meetings, consultancy, communications, accreditation chasing, events, and overlapping officer time.

A stronger review should be asked to test whether £1 million or more could be saved or redirected over a full year if weak schemes, duplicated functions, posts, contracts, events, grants and consultancy are included.

That does not mean cutting statutory duties. It does not mean abandoning vulnerable people. It does not mean ignoring equality law, domestic abuse, veterans, hate crime or safeguarding.

It means asking whether the Council is spending too much time describing itself as caring, inclusive, welcoming and committed — and not enough time proving it through ordinary services.

Bottom Line

Some pledges should stay.

Some should be strengthened.

Some should be merged into normal lawful service delivery.

Some should be stopped.

But every one of them should now have to answer the same questions:

What do you cost?
What do you deliver?
Who benefits?
What would residents lose if you disappeared tomorrow?
Could the same outcome be achieved more simply, more cheaply and more effectively?

Sandwell residents do not need more woke words, virtue signals and civic wallpaper.

They need effective services, honest reporting, value for money and long-term positive outcomes.

The pledge factory needs an audit.

And if some of the badges turn out to be all gloss and no substance, they should be quietly peeled off the wall — with the savings put back into the basics residents actually need.

#SandwellCouncil #CouncilPledges #ArmedForcesCovenant #BoroughOfSanctuary #EDI #DEI #SocialValue #TownTwinning #Governance #ValueForMoney #LocalDemocracy #Scrutiny #PublicAccountability #CouncilSpending