England’s Devolution Push Requires a Firmer Constitutional Foundation

Devolution has become a popular policy theme in England, with leaders arguing that shifting power from Whitehall can revive lagging regions. The Tees Valley, which has hosted a combined authority for ten years, illustrates the limits of the current approach. Despite a decade of devolved governance, the area still faces chronic underinvestment, stagnant growth and population loss. In April 2025 the Tees Valley authority received a best value notice, yet tangible improvements have not emerged. Critics say supporters of new devolution plans overlook why the Tees Valley became a basket case, missing a vital lesson about political weakness within regional bodies. The mayor is the sole elected person in the authority, while council leaders serve on the cabinet alongside their day jobs. This arrangement limits public scrutiny and awareness of decisions made.

Public awareness of the authority’s work is low; most local news comes from the authority’s own press releases. Some residents mistakenly believe a jobs boom has occurred, but the underlying problem of weak political accountability persists. The authority’s best value notice in April 2025 highlighted failures to deliver value for money, with no clear evidence of improved services or economic outcomes. These facts show that devolving selected powers without addressing governance structures yields limited results. The Tees Valley case demonstrates that devolution cannot succeed until the internal political weakness of regional bodies is fixed. Proponents of broader devolution often ignore this lesson, focusing instead on transferring more functions without reforming how authority is exercised.

Andy Burnham’s call to unbundle England’s centralised state points to a deeper constitutional issue: England’s regions operate under ad hoc deals rather than a statutory framework like those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Without a written settlement that guarantees equivalent living conditions and clear power divisions, regional governments remain dependent on Westminster for permission, funding and direction. Experts argue that creating metro mayors or transferring selected functions is insufficient; a durable constitutional settlement is required to disperse power by right, not by ministerial discretion, and to place English regions on an equal footing with the devolved nations. John Hall of the Alliance for Yorkshire warns that real devolution must allow powers to be used for purposes some may dislike, not just for politically safe areas such as transport, skills and industry. Richard Dowling of Leighton Buzzard cautions against advocating devolution only for approved ends, noting the risk of a “devolution for me but not for thee” dynamic. Miland Joshi of Birmingham notes that a written constitution alone is not a panacea; any system depends on the people operating it, and a brief principles‑based charter could preserve governmental agility while adding clarity.

Policymakers will need to decide whether to pursue a comprehensive constitutional reform that defines regional powers and responsibilities, or to continue with piecemeal devolution that risks repeating the Tees Valley’s shortcomings. Observers will also watch for any moves toward a written UK constitution that includes a rotating citizens’ jury in the Lords to improve deliberation while keeping primary power in the Commons.