Sandwell Cabinet: Reform Has the Chance to Show It Has Learned From July
There is another Sandwell Council Cabinet meeting coming up on Wednesday 9 September 2026.
This time the agenda pack is 302 pages rather than July’s extraordinary 710-page marathon, so there really should be no excuse for rushing through the business.
And frankly, this meeting needs proper scrutiny.
Not theatre.
Not prepared speeches.
Not a procession of “approved”, “noted” and “delegated”.
Because buried in these reports are some very serious issues involving SEND, Sandwell Children’s Trust, Adult Social Care, capital delivery, community safety, procurement and the Council’s growing reliance on delegated authority. The agenda covers eight substantive items after the minutes, including the Q1 budget, Community Safety Strategy, Enhanced Assessment Beds and a major regional children’s care proposal.
Let me say this again before anybody reaches for their party-coloured pitchfork.
I want Reform to succeed.
I want this new administration to perform well.
I want them to challenge officers, improve services, strengthen scrutiny and finally deliver the sort of cultural change many Sandwell residents have been asking for years.
That doesn’t mean giving them a free pass.
Quite the opposite.
A critical friend says:
“I want you to succeed — which is precisely why I’m pointing out where the warning lights are flashing.”
And there are plenty flashing in this pack.
First, July Hasn’t Gone Away
September Cabinet will be asked to approve the minutes of the 15 July meeting.
You remember that one.
710 pages.
Fifteen substantive reports.
One hour and four minutes.
Some extremely significant decisions.
Very little visible challenge.
The September pack confirms the July agenda included the Corporate Peer Challenge, performance, finance, housing, regeneration, SEND and school capital decisions.
Those minutes should not simply be approved and forgotten.
Some of the issues Cabinet approved in July have already developed significantly.
SEND finances are worse.
Sandwell Children’s Trust remains financially troubled.
Housing pressures continue.
Capital delivery is still slipping.
If there was ever a time for “matters arising”, this is it.
A new administration should be asking:
What has changed since July?
What did we get right?
What now looks worse than we thought?
What needs bringing back for further scrutiny?
That would be healthy governance.
Item 5 — “Elevating Our Voice”
This is actually one of the stronger items.
The Council wants to adopt a new Children and Young People’s Engagement Strategy together with the SEND Working Together Charter.
More than 100 children and young people were involved in developing the proposals, and the strategy promises to move beyond one-off consultation towards genuine participation and co-production.
The language is good.
The five principles are:
Inform.
Involve.
Invest.
Influence.
Impact.
The accompanying young people’s material goes further.
It says adults should explain:
what young people said;
what was done with their views;
what changed;
what couldn’t change;
what happens next;
and what young people can do if they are unhappy with the decision.
Excellent.
That’s exactly the sort of accountability residents — young or old — should expect.
But here is the test.
What happens when young people say something the Council doesn’t want to hear?
That is when we find out whether co-production means:
“help us make the decision”
or:
“thanks for your views, now back to the original plan.”
The Council’s own legal section correctly says co-production cannot override lawful statutory decision-making.
Fair enough.
But if this strategy is going to mean anything, Sandwell should publish a simple annual record:
You said → We considered → We changed → We didn’t change → Here’s why.
That would be real accountability.
And One Interesting Public Health Red Flag
There is another issue tucked away in this report that deserves Cabinet attention.
The SHAPE programme is supported through a Public Health Redirect to Children’s Services.
The report itself explicitly warns there is a financial and governance risk if Public Health funding is used, or is perceived to be used, to meet statutory Children’s Services responsibilities. It says the distinction must be auditable.
That is a very specific warning.
Cabinet should ask:
How much money is involved?
Exactly what does it fund?
What Public Health outcomes are being purchased?
Who audits it?
Has Internal Audit looked at it?
That isn’t being awkward.
That is exactly what Cabinet is there for.
Item 6 — The Q1 Budget
This is the big one.
The headline says the Council is forecasting a General Fund overspend of only:
£623,000
On a £464.480m net budget, that sounds almost reassuring.
But please do not stop reading at the headline.
Directorate budgets are actually forecasting a combined overspend of:
£4.351 million
That is being substantially offset by £3.728m of centrally held underspends.
Those central savings include:
a £1.780m pension fund rebate;
a £1.724m Treasury Management underspend.
The pension rebate is expressly described as a one-off benefit.
So let’s be clear.
The Council’s service pressures are bigger than the £623,000 headline might suggest.
And that matters.
SEND: £34.7 MILLION
This figure should dominate the meeting.
The High Needs Block budget is £81.364m.
Forecast expenditure is £116.064m.
The result?
£34.700 million overspend.
The report says Sandwell supported 5,273 children with EHCPs at the end of 2025/26 and that figure could rise to 6,273 by the end of 2026/27.
The cumulative High Needs deficit is forecast to reach:
£40.753 million
before potential Government support.
The Government may cover 90% of Sandwell’s historic High Needs deficit up to the end of 2025/26, subject to an approved SEND reform plan.
Sandwell estimates that could mean £5.448m.
But then comes the sentence every Cabinet Member should underline:
the Council “will be reliant on similar arrangements being put in place” for the 2026/27 overspend.
Reliant.
Not guaranteed.
Not confirmed.
Reliant.
That is a significant financial risk.
The obvious question is:
What happens if Government support for the new £34.7m deficit is nowhere near 90%?
Where is the downside scenario?
Where is Plan B?
SEND Transport: Another £3.3 Million
Children and Education is also forecasting a £3.3m overspend on SEND Home-to-School Transport.
The report attributes this to:
growth in EHCP numbers;
clearance of assessment backlogs;
passenger numbers exceeding assumptions;
around one-third of future EHCP growth being assumed to require transport.
This is not simply a transport issue.
It is part of the same SEND system pressure.
More EHCPs.
More specialist places.
More out-of-area provision.
More transport.
More cost.
Cabinet needs to stop looking at these numbers in separate boxes and demand one joined-up five-year SEND demand model.
Sandwell Children’s Trust — Still Not Fixed
Then we arrive at Sandwell Children’s Trust.
The Trust ended 2025/26 carrying a deficit of:
£18.2 million.
The Council’s contract for this year includes:
£96.352m for current activity;
£6.597m towards part of the accumulated deficit.
And at the end of Quarter 1?
Another:
£1.2 million actual overspend.
And here is the part that should really concern Cabinet:
No full-year forecast has yet been reported.
Really?
A wholly Council-owned company with an £18.2m accumulated deficit, receiving substantial additional Council funding, still hasn’t produced a reliable full-year forecast?
That is not something to glide past.
July’s minutes already recorded that the Trust’s deficit reduction was not on track.
So what exactly is the revised plan?
What went wrong with the previous assumptions?
What did the audit find?
When will councillors receive a credible trajectory?
How much more taxpayer support could ultimately be required?
Those are perfectly reasonable questions.
Adult Social Care — Another £4.772 Million Pressure
Adult Social Care is forecasting an overspend of:
£4.772 million.
The main driver is external placements, with a £4.797m pressure because new packages are costing more than packages ending.
Learning disability placements alone account for more than £4m of that pressure.
Again, these are demand-led services.
You cannot simply stop helping vulnerable people because the spreadsheet looks uncomfortable.
That means the answer has to come through:
better commissioning;
more local provision;
prevention;
better market management;
and better forecasting.
Cabinet should be asking whether Sandwell has enough local care capacity and whether it is paying too much because suitable provision is not available locally.
Vacancy Savings — Saving Money or Losing Capacity?
There is another recurring theme across the budget report.
Vacancy savings.
They appear across:
Place;
Housing;
Adult Social Care;
Finance;
Customer Services;
Transformation.
The HRA alone forecasts £4.190m of vacancy and employee-related savings.
That looks lovely in a budget table.
But empty desks don’t answer phones.
Vacant posts don’t manage contracts.
Vacant posts don’t deliver capital projects.
Vacant posts don’t process adaptations.
Vacant posts don’t complete procurement exercises.
So Cabinet needs to ask:
Are we saving money because work has genuinely become more efficient — or because work simply isn’t getting done?
That is a very different thing.
£11 Million of Savings — But Some Old Ones Still Haven’t Arrived
The Council is trying to deliver £11.008m of ongoing savings this year.
Only 63% are currently delivered on an ongoing basis.
Another 17% are expected by year end.
And 11% are currently only being delivered as one-off savings.
Even more tellingly, £3.697m relates to savings from previous years that were not delivered permanently.
At some point a “saving” that keeps rolling forward stops being a saving.
It becomes wishful thinking with a spreadsheet.
Cabinet should demand named owners, deadlines and replacement measures for every red or amber saving.
Reserves — Healthy, But Being Used
Sandwell began the year with £175.661m of General Fund earmarked reserves.
The current forecast would draw around:
£24.968 million
leaving approximately £150.693m.
That is not evidence of financial collapse.
Let’s not exaggerate.
Reserves exist to be used.
But there is a difference between:
using reserves for planned transformation
and:
using reserves to repeatedly prop up structural pressure.
The General Fund balance itself is forecast to finish around £22.799m, close to the bottom of the Council’s preferred 5–10% range.
So no, Sandwell is not broke.
But neither is this the time for complacency.
Capital Slippage — Here We Go Again
General Fund capital budget:
£98.919m
Forecast expenditure:
£85.683m
Expected slippage:
£13.236m.
HRA capital budget:
£118.459m
Forecast:
£105.661m
Slippage:
£12.798m.
That is more than £26m of planned capital activity moving backwards.
And this comes after the previous year when the Council delivered only 71% of the revised General Fund capital programme and 67% of the revised HRA programme.
At some point we need to stop calling this “slippage” as though the budget has merely tripped over a loose paving slab.
It is becoming a delivery pattern.
Residents need to see:
Budgeted.
Spent.
Completed.
Outcome delivered.
They are four very different things.
Disabled Facilities Grants — This Needs Explaining
One particular figure should concern us all.
The Disabled Facilities Grant budget is £11.478m.
Forecast spend:
£5.5m.
Forecast underspend:
£5.978 million.
The report says unspent grant funding has built up over a number of years.
That needs a proper explanation.
How many disabled residents are waiting for adaptations?
How long are they waiting?
Is there an Occupational Therapy backlog?
A contractor backlog?
A processing problem?
Is the money committed but simply not yet paid?
Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable answer.
Fine.
Let’s hear it.
But millions of pounds of adaptation funding sitting unspent while residents need ramps, wet rooms, stairlifts and other changes should not be buried in a finance appendix.
Item 7 — Treasury Management
This is less alarming.
The report confirms treasury management remained within approved limits and is being referred onwards in line with the CIPFA Prudential Code.
Good.
But “we stayed within the limits” should be the starting point, not the end of scrutiny.
Cabinet should still ask:
What is total borrowing?
What is the average interest rate?
What does the refinancing profile look like?
How much planned borrowing has been delayed because capital projects slipped?
What does future debt servicing do to the Medium-Term Financial Strategy?
Compliance is necessary.
Affordability matters too.
Item 8 — Funeral Services
This looks broadly sensible.
A four-year procurement is being proposed to maintain continuity in funeral-related services.
This is one of those areas where quality should matter every bit as much as cost.
This is an exceptionally sensitive service.
I would want reassurance around:
safeguarding;
deceased-person handling;
dignity;
provider resilience;
inspection;
contract monitoring;
quality weighting in the tender.
Not everything needs to become a political battlefield.
But everything still needs proper oversight.
Item 9 — Community Safety Strategy
Another strategy.
Another glossy set of ambitions.
ASB.
Violence.
Exploitation.
Domestic abuse.
Hate crime.
Modern slavery.
Organised crime.
Community cohesion.
All important.
But there is an awkward bit.
The strategy is expected to be delivered largely through existing resources and partnership arrangements.
That immediately raises the question:
With what capacity?
If crime and vulnerability are becoming more complex, then which officers are doing more?
Which police resources are increasing?
Which enforcement teams have spare capacity?
What are the measurable targets?
What will residents actually see improve?
Residents do not experience “strategic alignment”.
They experience whether somebody responds when their road is plagued by ASB.
Whether nuisance motorcycles are dealt with.
Whether drug dealing is tackled.
Whether repeat offenders are stopped.
Whether victims get help.
July already gave us a new ASB Policy.
September now gives us a broader Community Safety Strategy.
Fine.
Now show us the outcomes.
Item 10 — Enhanced Assessment Beds: This One Needs Answers
This is probably the clearest governance failure-risk in the pack.
The Council currently commissions 10 non-complex beds at Hilltop Lodge and four complex beds at The Gables.
The contracts expire on:
30 September 2026.
That deadline was not a surprise.
Back in March, Cabinet approved procurement of replacement arrangements starting on 1 October.
Now we are in September and the Council is asking for interim extensions because the replacement procurement is not ready.
The September report openly says it was not possible to complete procurement and mobilisation within the original timetable.
So the obvious question is:
Why?
Not:
“What happens now?”
We know what happens now.
The Council has to extend the service because vulnerable people cannot simply be left without it.
The question is:
What happened between March and September?
Who owned the programme?
Which milestones slipped?
When was the Cabinet Member informed?
Was the problem market capacity?
Officer capacity?
Procurement?
Specification?
Legal issues?
This is exactly the sort of thing Reform said it wanted to get underneath.
Approve continuity.
Protect residents.
But demand the lessons.
Item 11 — Regional Care Cooperative
This one has real potential.
Sandwell is being asked to accept up to £1.7m of Department for Education funding and act as the Lead Local Authority and accountable body for a West Midlands Regional Care Cooperative.
Regional commissioning could be a good thing.
Councils acting together may gain more negotiating power.
It could reduce reliance on expensive spot placements.
It could improve placement sufficiency.
It could improve fostering capacity.
Good.
But “accountable body” is not ceremonial wording.
It means Sandwell carries responsibility.
Across multiple authorities.
For funding.
Governance.
Data.
Delivery.
Compliance.
Possibly grant clawback.
So Cabinet should ask:
Why Sandwell?
What due diligence has been done?
What liability sits with us if another authority gets something wrong?
Are all administration costs recoverable?
How many additional staff are required?
Who audits the arrangement?
What happens when the Government money stops?
And perhaps most importantly:
Which decisions come back to elected councillors and which disappear under delegated authority?
Because delegation is necessary.
But the more major programmes Cabinet delegates, the more important it becomes to keep visible political oversight.
Item 12 — Finally, Some Proper Scrutiny
This report deserves credit.
The Children’s Services and Education Scrutiny Board has carried out a review into the transition to adulthood for care-experienced young people.
It involved briefing sessions, engagement with services, visits, Sandwell Children’s Trust, Personal Advisers and — importantly — care-experienced young people themselves.
That is what scrutiny should look like.
Gather evidence.
Talk to people.
Hear lived experience.
Challenge services.
Develop recommendations.
Then require Cabinet to respond.
Cabinet can approve all, some or none of the recommendations, but must respond.
This is exactly the sort of work that should be strengthened.
Not treated as an irritation.
Not bypassed.
Not sidelined.
Proper scrutiny helps good administrations.
It does not weaken them.
So What Should Reform Do on Wednesday?
This is not a blog saying:
“Reform has failed.”
It hasn’t.
They have been running Sandwell for only a few months.
Much of what is in these reports is inherited.
The SEND system did not suddenly develop a £34.7m problem because Reform won an election in May.
The Children’s Trust deficit did not appear because Ray Nock became Leader.
Capital slippage and procurement issues have histories.
That distinction matters.
But Reform owns what happens next.
That is equally important.
They inherited the problems.
They now inherit responsibility for asking the questions.
And that is where July disappointed me.
This meeting is an opportunity to do better.
The Critical Friend Test
If I were sitting on Cabinet, I would have five questions written at the top of every report:
What has gone wrong?
What is the real financial exposure?
Who owns fixing it?
When will we know whether it worked?
What will residents actually notice?
If the officer presentation does not answer those questions...
Ask them.
If the first answer is vague...
Ask again.
If a report needs more work...
Send it back.
That is not confrontation.
That is governance.
One Final Thought
I want Reform to succeed.
I've said it before and I will continue saying it.
But success is not measured by how quickly Cabinet gets through the agenda.
It is measured by whether the right decisions survive the right scrutiny.
This week's papers contain a £34.7m SEND High Needs overspend, an £18.2m Children’s Trust deficit, another £3.3m SEND transport pressure, major Adult Social Care pressures, millions of pounds of unspent Disabled Facilities Grant, more capital slippage and a procurement timetable that has already failed once.
There is good work in the pack too.
The children and young people's engagement strategy deserves support.
The care-experienced young people scrutiny review is encouraging.
Regional care commissioning may prove very worthwhile.
But a good Cabinet does not choose between positivity and scrutiny.
It does both.
So my message to Reform is simple:
You told us Sandwell needed change.
You told us officers needed stronger political challenge.
You told us the old culture had to go.
Fine.
Wednesday is another chance to show us.
Read the papers.
Challenge the assumptions.
Ask the difficult questions.
Own the decisions.
And please — this time — take as long as the business deserves.
Because Sandwell does not need another Cabinet that simply processes reports.
It needs one that governs.
#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #Cabinet #SEND #ChildrensTrust #AdultSocialCare #CouncilFinance #Scrutiny #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #CommunitySafety #LocalGovernment
No comments:
Post a Comment