SANDWELL REFORM SCRAPPED THE SANCTUARY LABEL — NOW SHOW US WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED
On 28 July 2026, Sandwell Council’s Reform administration made a very public political statement.
Leader Councillor Ray Nock moved the motion entitled “Our Borough Doesn’t Need Labels”, and the Council voted to stop subscribing to or seeking accreditation under the Borough/City of Sanctuary framework. Sandwell had held Council of Sanctuary recognition since 2023.
The argument put forward included Sandwell’s enormous housing pressures and residents waiting years for social housing.
Fine.
But removing a badge is the easy bit.
What has actually changed?
That is the question residents should now be asking the Reform leadership.
Because nearly five weeks after that Council vote, Sandwell Council's own website still says:
“Sandwell Council is a recognised Council of Sanctuary.”
The Borough of Sanctuary webpage remains online. The Borough of Sanctuary Strategy remains available. The page continues to promote the Sandwell Borough of Sanctuary Partnership and describes the Council's commitment to refugee and migrant communities.
So what exactly happened after the vote?
Was City of Sanctuary formally notified?
When was Sandwell's accreditation relinquished?
Has the Borough of Sanctuary Strategy been withdrawn?
Does the partnership still exist?
Were officers instructed to change anything?
Were policies reviewed?
Were contracts reviewed?
Were grants reviewed?
Were services reviewed?
Did any money actually get saved?
Or did Sandwell Council simply pass a politically attractive motion and then carry on much as before?
A MOTION IS NOT A POLICY RESET
This distinction matters.
The Government, not Sandwell Council, controls the asylum system.
Removing Council of Sanctuary status does not give Sandwell Council the power to prevent the Home Office placing asylum seekers in accommodation within the borough.
It does not by itself close an asylum hotel.
It does not by itself remove a Serco property.
It does not by itself reduce the housing waiting list.
It does not automatically release council houses for existing applicants.
And it does not rewrite national immigration law.
That does not mean the Council is powerless.
Far from it.
Sandwell can lobby government.
It can challenge disproportionate dispersal.
It can demand transparency about accommodation being placed within the borough.
It can rigorously enforce planning, HMO, housing and environmental health requirements within the powers available to it.
It can examine the impact of population pressures upon schools, SEND provision, healthcare, homelessness, community safety and other public services.
It can scrutinise every relevant grant and contract.
It can publish what it is doing.
And it can tell residents clearly what powers it has, what powers it does not have, and what representations it has made to Government.
So where is that programme of work?
£610,995 — HAS REFORM REVIEWED IT?
There is another issue which deserves proper scrutiny.
In January 2026, before Reform took control of Sandwell Council, the then administration approved a three-year consolidated grant worth £610,995 to Brushstrokes Community Project, covering the period from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2029.
Let us be absolutely clear about this.
This was not a Reform decision.
It was inherited.
The Cabinet report described Brushstrokes as providing support to vulnerable migrant communities, including asylum seekers, refugees, people at risk of destitution and homelessness, and others requiring support.
The consolidated arrangement brings together funding connected with Public Health, Housing Management, Voluntary Sector Support, Family Hubs and Sandwell Children's Trust.
Previous funding arrangements also included money connected with supporting contingency hotels and the Home Office Asylum Dispersal Grant.
The question for the new administration therefore isn't:
“Why did Reform approve it?”
They didn't.
The question is:
Has Reform reviewed it?
If your political position is sufficiently strong that Sandwell should relinquish Council of Sanctuary accreditation, surely it is reasonable to examine the actual policies, spending arrangements, contracts and grants operating in the same broad policy area.
What has been reviewed?
What remains unchanged?
What can legally be changed?
What cannot?
What is funded by central government?
What is funded from Sandwell's own resources?
What outcomes are being purchased?
And where public money is being spent, is Sandwell receiving full value for it?
Those are legitimate questions irrespective of somebody's political position on immigration.
THEN THERE IS THE NEW ASYLUM HOUSING MODEL
This is potentially much more important than the Sanctuary badge.
The Government has committed £500 million towards developing a new asylum accommodation model with local authorities.
The stated concept includes councils making basic alternative accommodation available temporarily for people awaiting decisions on asylum claims, with the Government saying it wants the investment eventually to leave a housing legacy for local communities.
A House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report recorded that 198 local authorities had expressed interest in participating in pilots testing localised asylum accommodation models.
That does not mean 198 councils signed up.
It means 198 expressed interest.
And there is an important information gap.
As recently as June 2026 the Government said locations and funding allocations were still being reviewed. It has also said some information concerning interested local authorities is commercially sensitive.
I have found no published evidence that Sandwell is one of the authorities selected for the scheme.
But equally, the absence of Sandwell from publicly reported shortlists does not prove that Sandwell never submitted an expression of interest.
That needs answering properly.
DID SANDWELL EXPRESS AN INTEREST?
This is therefore one of the questions I have now put directly to Sandwell Council under the Freedom of Information Act.
Between 1 January 2025 and the present:
Did Sandwell express an interest in the new asylum accommodation model?
Did it request information?
Did it apply?
Was it invited to participate?
Was it approached?
Was any business case prepared?
Was funding sought?
Were properties or bedspaces proposed?
And, importantly, who authorised any such submission?
There is another dimension.
If an expression of interest was submitted under the previous Labour administration, what did the incoming Reform administration do with it after taking control?
Continue it?
Withdraw it?
Change it?
Suspend it?
Or nothing at all?
Residents deserve a straight answer.
DON'T CONFUSE ASYLUM SEEKERS WITH REFUGEES
This debate also needs precision.
An asylum seeker awaiting a decision is not legally the same thing as somebody who has subsequently been granted refugee status.
Likewise, Afghan resettlement schemes are not the same thing as the general asylum dispersal system.
Sandwell previously accepted government Local Authority Housing Fund money for properties associated with Afghan resettlement.
Those arrangements need scrutiny too, but they should not simply be lumped together and described as “housing asylum seekers”.
Getting these distinctions right matters.
Otherwise councils and government can legitimately dismiss criticism because the terminology is wrong.
There are plenty of difficult questions to ask without getting basic facts wrong.
THE REAL TEST FOR REFORM
The Reform administration now controls Sandwell Council.
It chose to make Sanctuary status an issue.
It chose the motion.
It chose the political language.
It connected the debate with Sandwell's housing pressures.
Therefore it is entirely reasonable for residents to ask Reform to demonstrate what practical difference its decision has made.
Not another photograph.
Not another slogan.
Not another Facebook graphic.
Not another declaration about what Labour did before May.
Show us the work.
Has Sandwell challenged the Home Office over dispersal?
Has it asked for further placements to be restricted because of existing pressures?
Has it quantified the impact on public services?
Has it reviewed relevant expenditure?
Has it reviewed the Brushstrokes agreement?
Has it reviewed inherited migration and resettlement policies?
Has it established how many properties are involved in Home Office asylum accommodation across Sandwell?
Has it asked what effect concentrations of accommodation are having on individual neighbourhoods?
Has it examined the relationship with HMOs?
Has it strengthened enforcement?
Has it reviewed government grants?
Has it published any assessment of what withdrawing Sanctuary status actually achieves?
And has it established whether Sandwell has been involved in the Government's new asylum housing proposals?
These questions require answers.
THE WEBSITE ITSELF NOW SYMBOLISES THE PROBLEM
There is something almost absurd about the current situation.
Reform passed a Council motion saying Sandwell no longer needed the Sanctuary label.
Yet, at the time of writing on 29 August 2026, the Council's own website is still proudly telling residents:
“Sandwell Council is a recognised Council of Sanctuary.”
Perhaps it is simply an administrative delay.
If so, fix it.
But it also illustrates the wider problem beautifully.
Passing the motion was the easy part. Implementing change is the part that counts.
THE FOIs ARE NOW GOING IN
I have now submitted a focused Freedom of Information request asking Sandwell to disclose what was actually done following the 28 July decision and whether the Council has had any involvement in the Government's new asylum accommodation proposals.
Further tightly focused requests will look at the financial and property side rather than bundling everything into one enormous request.
Those will include questions around funding, grants, housing assets and the practical asylum accommodation picture within Sandwell.
This isn't about making allegations.
It is about obtaining records.
Then residents can judge the evidence for themselves.
REMOVING A BADGE IS NOT ENOUGH
Sandwell has very real problems.
Housing shortages.
HMOs.
Homelessness.
Pressure on GP services.
School places.
SEND provision.
Infrastructure.
Community cohesion.
Deprivation.
And residents who have spent years waiting for suitable social housing.
Those pressures deserve serious government.
Whatever someone's view of national immigration policy, pretending a Council of Sanctuary certificate is the source of all those problems would be far too simplistic.
But equally, a council cannot invoke those pressures to justify removing Sanctuary status and then refuse to explain what meaningful action follows.
If Reform's position is that Sandwell needs a fundamentally different approach, then deliver one.
Publish the evidence.
Challenge government where necessary.
Review the spending.
Review the contracts.
Review the housing implications.
Enforce the rules.
Tell residents what is happening.
And be transparent about Sandwell's involvement—or lack of involvement—in new government asylum accommodation schemes.
Because residents did not vote for a change of logo.
They voted for a change of administration.
Now we need to see whether that produces a change in outcomes.
#Sandwell #SandwellCouncil #ReformUK #BoroughOfSanctuary #AsylumHousing #Migration #Refugees #SocialHousing #HousingCrisis #HMOs #FOI #FreedomOfInformation #Transparency #Accountability #LocalGovernment #PublicSpending #HomeOffice #SandwellPolitics #HousingPressure #CouncilWatch
