Devolution has become the flavour of the month (The Guardian view on England’s centralised state: Andy Burnham must unbundle it, 31 July). The case is well argued and the need for such reform fits neatly into the situation we find in the Tees Valley – chronic underinvestment, lack of economic growth, depopulation, and so on.
But the Tees Valley has had a devolved authority for 10 years and the benefits of devolution have not landed. The Tees Valley authority was issued a best value notice in April 2025, though there’s nothing to show for it.
The new-age proponents of devolution, by ignoring how Tees Valley became its basket case, are missing something vital. Devolution is discussed in economic terms in relation to the regions, and as political upheaval in relation to Westminster and the Treasury.
What’s missing is acknowledgment of the political upheaval that it brings to the regions, and it is the weakness of that that the Tees Valley exemplifies. The mayor is the sole elected person in the authority. Leaders of local councils form the authority cabinet but do so in addition to their day jobs. Does the public know? No, because the only combined authority news in the local press comes from the authority’s own press releases. It’s not hard to find people on Teesside who believe that there’s been a jobs bonanza here.
But the problem of political weakness within the authority remains. Devolution cannot succeed until this problem is addressed.
Scott Hunter
Editor, Tees Valley Monitor
Andy Burnham is right to argue that England’s regions cannot deliver meaningful growth while power remains concentrated in Whitehall. Yet his intervention points to a deeper constitutional problem. England is being offered a form of devolution that remains inferior to the statutory settlements enjoyed by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
While those nations have defined legislative frameworks setting out their powers and responsibilities, England’s regions remain dependent on piecemeal deals negotiated with central government.
Burnham’s admiration for Germany’s postwar Grundgesetz (Basic Law) is therefore well placed. The law not only defines the relationship between federal and state governments but also commits the federation to equivalent living conditions across the country. It offers constitutional clarity, stability and fairness. England has no comparable settlement. Instead, its uncodified constitutional arrangements allow power to remain concentrated in Westminster, leaving regional government dependent on the centre for permission, funding and direction.
If England is serious about rebalancing its economy, constitutional reform cannot stop at creating metro mayors or devolving selected powers. It requires a coherent constitutional settlement that places England’s regions on a secure and equal footing, replacing ad hoc devolution with a durable framework that disperses power by right rather than by ministerial discretion.
John Hall
Alliance for Yorkshire
If devolution is to mean anything real at all, then actual power must be devolved, which would mean it sometimes being used for purposes some would not approve of. Your editorial was arguing for devolution only for your approved purposes (transport, skills and industry, not tax giveaways). Devolution for me but not for thee?
Richard Dowling
Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
Regarding the article (Devolution plans strengthen case for written UK constitution, says Burnham, 2 August), we should note that the argument about inequality doesn’t hold when we regard countries with inequality just as great as ours (if not worse), which have written constitutions, such as the United States and South Africa.
Regional devolution, or a written constitution, are not panaceas, because any system can only work as well as the humans operating it. If we are to have a written constitution, it might be well to make it as brief as possible, concentrating on principles rather than specific rules, so as to preserve the ability of the government to act nimbly when required, especially in crises.
One possible useful ingredient might be a rotating “citizens’ jury” within the Lords for handling complex or difficult issues, with the usual peers serving as expert consultors. The result would be an influential advisory body as a collective, with the members being temporary “peers” while they serve. Primary power would remain in the Commons, as now, with MPs who have a mandate from their constituents.
Miland Joshi
Birmingham
