FAQs on Sheffield’s
referendum held
in 2021 are here

Frequently Asked Questions about the Government Plan to Overturn Sheffield’s Referendum Result (August 2025)

1. What is the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and what is Section 57?

The government says its aim in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is to decentralise decision-making powers from Westminster to local leaders and communities across England. It has sections on the structures and powers of regional Mayors, on neighbourhood governance and on local audit reform.

These FAQs are concerned with Section 57 on local governance (the way councils work) and its direct impact on Sheffield.

Section 57 of the Bill affects Sheffield directly. It will overturn and disregards the democratic decision of the people of Sheffield on the way our council works. It breaks the legal promises given to Sheffield, and removes the right of local areas and people to decide how their council works.

2. Specifically, what does Section 57 do?

Section 57 makes a series of significant amendments to the Local Government Act 2000.

It abolishes the committee system of local governance in councils. All councils operating the committee system will be forced to adopt Leader and Cabinet governance (also called ‘strong leader’ or executive-led governance).

However, the few councils operating with a directly elected Mayor will not be treated the same way; they will be exempted from the imposition of Leader and Cabinet arrangements.

Specifically in Sheffield Section 57 will:

• Overturn the democratic will of the people of Sheffield that was clearly expressed in our city-wide local governance referendum of May 2021;
• Force Sheffield City council to adopt the exact model of local governance that local citizens resoundingly rejected in a democratic vote;
• Break the legal promise that our democratic decision would stand for at least ten years (and then any further change proposed would also have to be enacted by referendum);
• Remove the legal right and power that was secured by Sheffield citizens and communities, to decide how our council works (and remove the rights of local people everywhere in England to have a say in how their local council works)       

3. Tell me more about the relevance to Sheffield….

It’s directly relevant because Sheffield council runs under a committee system that the government now wants to do away with. Government wants to do away with the right of local people everywhere in England (and local councils themselves) to have a choice about the best way of working.

In 2021 Sheffield held a city-wide referendum to decide the way our council works (its governance system). We voted for change to the committee system and resoundingly rejected ‘strong leader’ governance.

Sheffield voted by 65% to 35% to get rid of a way of working where almost all decision-making power is in the hands of the Leader (and the chosen few they appoint to the Cabinet). Under ‘strong leader’ governance 74 of our 84 councillors who we all elect had no meaningful say in decision-making.

We voted for the more democratic committee system where ALL councillors we elect across all areas of Sheffield have the right to a formal and public say in council decision-making, on behalf of the voters they serve (that’s us). Our referendum was not just a democratic vote, it was a vote for democratic rights (basic democratic rights of representation).

But Section 57 is not only ‘relevant’ – Sheffield is the most affected city and council area in the country.

4. Why is Sheffield the most affected city in the country?      

Sheffield is the most affected place in the country because we are the ONLY council area where – in a democratic referendum of all voters in the city – we rejected the exact same system that the government now wants to force on councils.

And Sheffield is the only place where our city-wide referendum to change to a committee system was secured by the efforts and actions of Sheffield residents and communities who worked together to require our council to hold the referendum (we exercised community rights in the Localism Act to do this).

It was the people of Sheffield who secured our local referendum and voted for change to a more democratic committee system. The government says they want to put power in the hands of local people but Section 57 is a lie: the government is directly overturning and removing the rights and power of Sheffield citizens. (And for the future It is removing the right of local people everywhere to secure a local referendum for more democratic governance.)

5. Where else has had a referendum on local governance so that local people have decided how their council should work? Where else is government overturning the will of local people?

In the last five years six councils in England have held a referendum of local people on the way their council works, see table 1, below. The effect of Section 57 is that the government accepts the result of some referendums, but not others!

Three of the councils who have had a referendum (Newham, Tower Hamlets and Croydon) are exempt from Section 17. The government is not forcing councils to change where a referendum has decided on an elected Mayor, only where people have chosen a committee system! In Sheffield and Bristol, local people decided on a committee system but their democratic vote in a referendum will not be honoured. This is unjust and makes a nonsense of any government who claims it will protect democracy.

		Forced by a petition	Leader and Cabinet	Directly elected mayor	Committee system	Section 17 effect
Newham	May 2021	N		45,960 (56%)	36.424 (44%)	Exempt
Tower Hamlets	May 2021	N	17,957 (22%)	63.046 (78%)		Exempt
Sheffield	May 2021	Y	48,727 (35%)		89,670 (65%)	Not exempt
Croydon	Oct 2021	Y	11,519 (20%)	47,165 (80%)		Exempt
Bristol	May 2022	N		38,439 (31%)	56,113 (59%)	Not exempt
Plymouth*	July 2025	Y	19,840 (52%)	18,044 (48%)		No change/change delayed*

Table 1: Local governance referendums in England – the last five years

*Note that Plymouth’s referendum has only just happened; it overlapped with the introduction of the Bill in Parliament. Legally the referendum could not be stopped from taking place but government did immediately make some complex regulations that would delay any change of governance taking place before the Bill has completed its way through Parliament. This meant the referendum took place under great dispute – with many saying it was now a complete waste of time as any change voted for would not be able to be implemented. Undoubtedly this situation will have had some impact on both the turnout and result of the local referendum.

It is also worth noting from the table of recent referendums that ‘strong leader’ Leader and Cabinet governance is not popular when it comes to people deciding in a referendum. Yet this is the model government wants to impose on all local councils in England.

6. So why exactly does the government want to overturn the results of Sheffield’s referendum and force our city back to a ‘strong leader’ Leader and Cabinet system – the very thing we rejected in a referendum vote?

The government says it wants to standardise and simplify so that all councils operate the same way. It claims that ‘strong leader’ (Leader and Cabinet) governance is more understandable, efficient and accountable, and that committee systems are wasteful and inefficient.

We do not know why the government thinks ‘standardisation’ (one size fits all) is so important that it must overturn the will of local people who have made a democratic decision in a referendum. Or even why it is so important that councils themselves in a local area are no longer going to be permitted to carefully work out what works best for their local democracy and the delivery of services. We think that ‘one size fits all’ is just more convenient for central government, not local areas, so Section 57 is more about forcing its undemocratic mindset, top-down decision and own government preferences on us all. Many stakeholders and experts say that far from devolving power out of Westminster, the government is actually more interested in securing its own central power to control and decide.

We do know that the claims the government makes about the committee system are not true. There is no evidence that modern committee systems are any more inefficient and wasteful than ‘strong leader’ systems (or even slower at making decisions). All the very established, national, impartial bodies and actual experts know this too – for example, the Local Government Association (LGA), the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS), and the Association of Democratic Services Officers (ASDO). One committee council (Kingston Borough Council) has pointed out that no council operating under a committee system has gone bankrupt (since the committee system was re-introduced in 2012), but eight councils operating under ‘strong leader’ governance have, and this is linked to poor council governance and decision-making.

It is sad and damaging to see the government use myths and misinformation to impose its own
bias and distorted preferences. It is wrong for government to say it wants to devolve power to people and communities, when it is doing the opposite in Section 57.

7. How is it even possible that the government can overturn the results of a referendum, and not respect the will of Sheffield people?

The legal promise in existing law is that the result of Sheffield’s referendum has to be fully honoured for a minimum of ten years – no further governance change can be made during these ten years. After that time, if someone was proposing another change of system then this, too, would have to be by a referendum. In acting together to secure a referendum, people in Sheffield won the right to decide how our council works.

By introducing the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (and, specifically, Section 57), government plans to change the law so that it does not have to respect the will of Sheffield people, nor the legal promises made to us. The same applies in Bristol who also voted for the more democratic committee system. It will remove the rights of local areas everywhere in England to have choices about how their council works, and remove the rights of local people to secure democratic rights (via a referendum) to decide on more democratic local governance under a committee system. Other areas that have had referendums will, however, be exempt, from Section 57 because their democratic choice was one that apparently the government can live with (see question 5)!

8. Why is the government taking away democratic rights from local people?

This is a very good question and one you might like to ask your MP directly, and why it is that other things (like standardisation across all councils) might be considered more important than upholding a democratic referendum decision, legal promises made, and basic democratic rights.

The government claims it is protecting democracy and the Minister Jim McMahon says he wants to place power in the hands of local people, where it belongs. It is pretty unfortunate that this is such a nonsense in light of the government’s plans, to betray democratic decisions (in Sheffield and Bristol) and to take away democratic rights from local residents (not just in Sheffield but everywhere in England).

Many people recognise that there is a crisis in our democracy. When people are ignored, and even the formal exercise of a democratic vote can be disrespected, then this does further damage to democracy and people’s trust in it.

9. Did the government hold a public consultation on Section 57?

No the government did not consult on Section 57. It was a shock to everyone to suddenly see what Section 57 of the Bill is proposing.

The White Paper on English Devolution (White Papers are issued before the introduction of Bills to Parliament) was published in December 2024. There was some public consultation, notably in relation to the establishment of regional mayoralties in some areas, but nothing on changing local governance.

10. Can the plans to overturn the results of our referendum be legally challenged?

No. A Judicial Review challenge can be made in relation to a decision by ‘public authorities’. But an actual Act of Parliament does not count as a ‘public authority’ for Judicial Review purposes.

If this had just been about changing statutory regulations (announced, for example, by the Minister as these things sometimes can be) a strong legal challenge via Judicial Review may well have been possible – although this would have cost tens of thousands of pounds.

To get an amendment to the Bill (to stop all or some of the effects of Section 57) we will be reliant on influencing the passage of the Bill through Parliament, before it becomes law. This means:
• the government could come to its senses and amend the Bill itself
• a change or amendment could be made at the other stages of the Bill (in the House of Commons or the Lords), before the Bill becomes law.

11. What is the reaction of Sheffield City Council to the plans to force them to change governance back to exactly what was rejected in our democratic vote?

The Minister for English Devolution (Jim McMahon MP) announced on 23rd June 2025 that the committee system would be abolished and that councils operating this system would be forced to move back to Leader and Cabinet Governance.

Sheffield City Council was shocked. They had not been consulted nor informed about the government intentions. The immediate response said they would be seeking an urgent conversation with the government to ensure the perspectives and experience of Sheffield “are given due consideration”. On 2nd July the Leader and Deputy met with the Minister Jim McMahon MP at the LGA Conference in Liverpool; the Minister agreed to meet again “within a month” with the three main political group leaders in Sheffield City Council (Labour, LibDem, Green) but no assurances were received from the Minister that the will of the people of Sheffield will be respected. A week later the Bill was introduced in Parliament with Section 57 unchanged.

The main political groups in our council have all issued statements in support of the committee system and on 9th July in full council, a motion was passed entitled “Protect Local Democracy in Sheffield” that outlined the benefits of the committee system in Sheffield, the democratic decision of the city that preceded its introduction stating, “it benefits nobody in Sheffield to return to the autocratic, top-down decision-making Cabinet system” and resolving to take a number of actions to counter the proposals to abolish the more democratic committee system.

12. What do other councils affected say?

MJ (the Municipal Journal) has published a short summary of some committee council responses, including:

• Kingston LBC states that the “broader sentiment among many local authorities is that this move represents centralisation by stealth, rather than genuine devolution” and that retaining flexibility is important so that governance models “best reflect the unique needs and expectations of their communities. Imposing a one-size-fits-all structure risks undermining local autonomy and the democratic engagement of elected representatives”
• Sutton LBC urge a ‘rethink’ and “If it ain’t bust, don’t fix it! This is not pushing power out of Whitehall into the hands of local leaders. It is an unhelpful top-down approach which will impose costs and provide zero benefits to the public.”
• Bristol calls for the government to “provide funding so that the substantial costs of further change isn’t borne solely by local taxpayers”.

Others have responded too:

• In their letter to the Minister the Association of Democratic Services Officers (ADSO) question the evidence-base for statements made about the committee system and ask for confirmation of formal consultation on the proposals.
• Ed Hammond from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) raises a number of questions including what difference might it make for those councils that have changed to a committee system via a local governance referendum, and he also surfaces likely issues where the committee system has been argued for for democratic reasons.

The responses outlined here might seem positive in terms of raising the issues to government but the reality is that none of these players and stakeholders are likely to mount any serious challenge to government on Section 57 and as the Bill proceeds through Parliament.

It will be for MPs and the House of Lords to act to secure changes to the Bill and as they consider the impact and implementation of their plans on local areas. On that note, Baroness Bennett has already been heard at the LGA Conference pointing out the democratic injustice that overturning the will of the people of Sheffield would involve (and she was at the It’s Our City! press conference back in 2018 as we first announced our intention as citizens to act for more democratic governance in Sheffield). In their consideration of the Bill as it proceeds through Parliament it will be vital that citizens act to defend and bring pressure to bear on the process, to retain the more democratic committee system, so that the will of people in a referendum will not be overturned, so that legal promises are not broken, and so that local areas will retain rights to decide how they can best work to serve local people and deliver local democracy.

13. Will forcing our council back to ‘strong leader’ governance cost our council money?

Yes, it costs a lot of money to change governance systems (and it requires a rewrite of the council constitution).

Government is not only forcing councils to change from governance systems that have been very carefully constructed to best meet the needs of their area, and to take away local rights to decide on the best governance system for them, they are forcing local councils and council tax payers to foot the bill.

14. What happens now in the passage of the Bill through Parliament?

The Bill has its second reading in Parliament on 2nd September where there is the first opportunity for MPs to have a debate. (and submit amendments).

Then the Bill goes to a Public Bill Committee where oral and written evidence will be received (It’s Our City! hope to submit evidence about Sheffield and Section 57). The Public Bill Committee will go through the Bill line by line and normally make a few changes before the Bill goes back to the House of Commons for its third reading.

After its third reading, the Bill goes to the House of Lords and the stages here mirror those in the House of Commons.

There will be several opportunities for amendments to the Bill to be introduced as it passes through its different stages – both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

It is in a successful amendment that changes can be made to Section 57.

15. What can ordinary people do now to oppose Section 57 and make their voice heard?

• Talk to people about Section 57 and what the government is planning
• Write to your MP – citizen action makes a difference
• If you can, get more involved in the campaign

Talk to people
Firstly, please DO talk to your family, friends and neighbours about the government’s plan to overturn the results of Sheffield’s referendum, to break legal promises made to us, and to take away local peoples’ democratic rights. And DO refer them to this information if they want further details.

It is crucial to spread the word, share good information, and help enable local citizens to take action to support each other in our local communities in Sheffield and for all of our democratic rights to be upheld.

It is very important that ordinary people exert pressure on the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It has become very difficult for some to have any trust in politics and politicians but citizen action does make a difference.

Write to your MP
The most important thing that people can do to make their voice heard in the passage of the Bill is to write to your MP. It’s Our City! has provided a short template letter that can be used by Sheffield voters to send to your Sheffield MP:

• Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) email: officeofclivebettsmp@parliament.uk
• Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) email: olivia.blake.mp@parliament.uk
• Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) email: gill.furniss.mp@parliament.uk
• Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) email: louise.haigh.mp@parliament.uk
• Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) email: abtisam.mohamed.mp@parliament.uk
• Dr Marie Tidball (Stocksbridge and Penistone) email: marie.tidball.mp@parliament.uk

If you are unsure who your local MP is, you can check here by simply entering your postcode.

Do feel free to use the template letter provided to send to your Sheffield MP (you MUST add your name, address and postcode as MPs can only respond to their own constituents).

You do not have to but you can also adapt the letter or add to it with your own more personal response. Please also feel free to include/add any of the additional points in this further information including the short list of general points below, if they are particularly important to you.

Get more involved in the campaign
If you want to become more involved in the campaign (e.g. share things on social media, or come out to parks and on the streets of Sheffield during August 2025 to have citizen to citizen conversations about what is happening) then do please contact us via our facebook group: It’s Our City! Sheffield or via the It’s Our City! email.

If you are not a Sheffield voter…
You can still write to your MP! This will be very important because it is, of course, all MPs who will vote on the proposed legislation. If amendments are introduced that support an exemption for Sheffield and for local areas and local people to retain rights to decide more democratic governance structures then MPs will need to support these!

In writing to your MP you can of course highlight the particular situation of Sheffield (and Bristol) and tell them that it is wrong that government plans (in Section 57) to overturn a democratic vote in a local referendum (but accept the results of referendums in other areas).

You may also wish to make the more general points. For example:

• you could point out that Section 57 will remove the right of local council areas to decide how they work (and to choose more democratic alternatives) and that this is clearly not devolving power to local areas only forcing them to work according to central government preferences and by top-down government edict.
• you could also point out that it is important that local areas work carefully to decide the best governance structures for them.
• you could point out the misinformation the government is spreading about the committee system.
• you could point out that governments could or should be looking to maintain and strengthen local democratic rights and practices, not to remove them, as this will only further damage democracy and peoples’ trust in it.