English devolution needs a firm constitutional base, not just new mayors

The letter to The Guardian warns that English devolution will not succeed unless it is built on a solid constitutional foundation. It notes that devolution has become the flavour of the month, with figures such as Andy Burnham urging the government to unbundle the centralised state. The case for reform is said to fit neatly into the reality of places like the Tees Valley, which suffers from chronic underinvestment, weak economic growth and depopulation.

Evidence from the Tees Valley shows that a devolved authority has existed for ten years, yet the promised benefits have not materialised. In April 2025 the authority received a best value notice, but there is little to show for it. The region continues to lag behind national averages on jobs and productivity, despite local claims of a jobs bonanza.

The authority’s structure reveals a political weakness that undermines its effectiveness. The mayor is the sole elected figure within the body, while council leaders sit on the authority’s cabinet in addition to their day‑job responsibilities. This arrangement means that decision‑makers are not fully accountable to the public, and most residents learn about the authority’s work only from its own press releases. Consequently, public awareness remains low and scrutiny limited.

From these facts, a verified conclusion can be drawn: the Tees Valley’s experience demonstrates that devolving selected powers without addressing the underlying governance gaps does not deliver tangible improvements. The letter argues that the new‑age proponents of devolution ignore this lesson and therefore miss something vital.

Analysis of the situation suggests that England’s current approach — relying on ad hoc deals negotiated with Westminster — leaves regional governments dependent on the centre for permission, funding and direction. By contrast, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland enjoy statutory settlements that define powers and responsibilities clearly. The letter points to Germany’s postwar Basic Law as a model, noting that it not only clarifies the relationship between federal and state levels but also commits the federation to equivalent living conditions across the country.

If England is serious about rebalancing its economy, the letter contends that constitutional reform must go beyond creating metro mayors or transferring isolated policy areas. It calls for a coherent settlement that places England’s regions on a secure and equal footing, dispersing power by right rather than by ministerial discretion. Such a framework would provide the clarity, stability and fairness that the Tees Valley and other areas currently lack.

The letter also acknowledges alternative viewpoints expressed in other correspondence. Some correspondents warn that a written constitution alone is not a panacea, noting that countries with significant inequality — such as the United States and South Africa — still face challenges despite having codified rules. They suggest that any constitution should be brief, focused on principles, and include mechanisms like a rotating citizens’ jury in the Lords to improve deliberation while preserving governmental flexibility.

Other writers argue that real devolution must allow regions to use powers in ways that some may find objectionable, insisting that authority should not be limited to government‑approved purposes such as transport, skills and industry. They see the debate as a test of whether devolution means genuine self‑determination or merely a conditional grant of power.

Taken together, the evidence points to a clear lesson: devolution in England will not succeed unless the political weakness exposed in places like the Tees Valley is addressed through a durable, constitutionally guaranteed settlement. Without that step, the risk remains that new mayoral roles and policy transfers will produce little more than symbolic change.