English Devolution Requires a Clear Constitutional Framework to Succeed

Context Devolution has risen as a policy focus in England, with leaders arguing that shifting power from Westminster can spur growth.

The Tees Valley, which faces chronic underinvestment, slow growth and population loss, was presented as a place where reform could fit.

Yet the area already has a combined authority that has existed for ten years.

Key Facts The Tees Valley authority was created ten years ago and is led by a directly elected mayor.

Council leaders sit on the authority cabinet but continue to hold their day‑job positions.

This dual role means decision‑makers split their time between local councils and the combined body.

Despite the structure, the authority has not delivered measurable economic gains.

In April 2025 it was issued a best value notice, yet no clear improvements have followed.

Supporters of broader devolution say the case for reform is well argued, but they often overlook the Tees Valley’s record.

Critics point out that the authority’s political weakness stems from this divided accountability, which reduces transparency and effectiveness.

Public awareness of the authority’s work is low; most coverage comes from its own press releases, and many residents mistakenly believe a jobs boom has occurred in the area.

Political Dynamics The mayor is the only elected figure with a mandate covering the entire Tees Valley authority.

Council leaders serve on the cabinet in addition to their regular duties, meaning they divide attention between local and combined responsibilities.

Because the authority’s own press releases dominate local coverage, many residents assume a jobs boom has taken place despite the lack of independent verification.

Additional Context The Tees Valley’s experience reflects a broader pattern in England where devolved arrangements depend on negotiated deals with central government rather than on a fixed constitutional settlement.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each operate under statutory frameworks that define powers, responsibilities and a commitment to equivalent living standards across the nation.

England’s regions lack such a framework, leaving mayors to seek permission, funding and direction from Westminster for each new initiative.

This reliance creates uncertainty and limits long‑term planning.

Analysts note that without a clear constitutional relationship, devolved powers remain subject to ministerial discretion and can be altered or withdrawn with little notice.

What It Means The Tees Valley case shows that devolving selected powers without clarifying the constitutional link between regions and central government can leave authorities dependent on the centre for basic operational support.

The absence of a durable settlement means that any gains are vulnerable to shifts in political priority at Westminster.

Proponents of a written constitution for England argue that a codified framework would provide the stability and fairness seen in Germany’s postwar Basic Law, which binds the federation to equivalent living conditions across its states.

Until England adopts a comparable settlement, devolution may continue to produce uneven results, with some areas seeing progress while others stagnate.

Experts warn that without constitutional clarity, future devolution deals may replicate the Tees Valley’s pattern of limited impact.

What to watch next Policymakers will need to decide whether to pursue a written constitutional settlement for England’s regions or to refine existing ad hoc deals; the outcome will shape the next phase of devolution debates and determine whether areas like the Tees Valley can finally see sustained investment and growth.

Observers will also watch for any legislative proposals that aim to codify regional powers in statute soon.