English devolution is facing a critical test as the Tees Valley, which has had a devolved authority for a decade, shows no tangible benefits, according to a letter published in The Guardian. Scott Hunter, editor of the Tees Valley Monitor, argues that the region's experience reveals a fundamental flaw in the current approach: the political weakness of combined authorities undermines the entire project.
Tees Valley's Decade of Devolution: A Case Study in Failure
Hunter points out that the Tees Valley has suffered from chronic underinvestment, lack of economic growth, and depopulation, yet the devolved authority has not changed this trajectory. In April 2025, the Tees Valley authority was issued a best value notice, indicating serious concerns about its performance, but there is "nothing to show for it." The mayor is the sole elected official, while local council leaders form the cabinet in addition to their day jobs, leaving the public largely unaware of how decisions are made. Local press coverage is dominated by the authority's own press releases, and many residents mistakenly believe there has been a jobs bonanza.
Hunter emphasizes that devolution is often discussed in economic terms for regions and as political upheaval for Westminster, but the political upheaval it brings to regions is ignored. This weakness, he argues, must be addressed before devolution can succeed.
The Constitutional Gap: England's Inferior Devolution
John Hall, from the Alliance for Yorkshire, responds to The Guardian's editorial and Andy Burnham's comments by highlighting a deeper constitutional problem. England's devolution is inferior to the statutory settlements enjoyed by Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which have defined legislative frameworks. England's regions depend on piecemeal deals negotiated with central government, leaving them vulnerable to ministerial discretion.
Hall praises Burnham's admiration for Germany's Basic Law, which commits the federation to equivalent living conditions across the country. England has no comparable settlement, and its uncodified constitution allows power to remain concentrated in Westminster. To rebalance the economy, constitutional reform must go beyond metro mayors and selected powers, requiring a coherent framework that disperses power by right.
Devolution for Me, Not for Thee?
Richard Dowling from Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, criticizes The Guardian's editorial for advocating devolution only for approved purposes, such as transport, skills, and industry, but not for tax giveaways. He argues that real devolution means accepting that power may be used for purposes some disapprove of, cautioning against a selective approach.
Written Constitutions Are Not a Panacea
Miland Joshi from Birmingham responds to a related article, noting that countries with written constitutions, like the United States and South Africa, have inequality as great as or worse than the UK's. He argues that devolution or a written constitution is not a panacea, as any system depends on the humans operating it. If a written constitution is adopted, it should be brief, focusing on principles rather than specific rules, to preserve government agility in crises. He suggests a rotating "citizens' jury" in the Lords to handle complex issues, with peers as expert consultants, while primary power remains in the Commons.
Devolution's Success Hinges on Political Reform
The letters collectively underscore that devolution's success requires addressing political weaknesses and establishing a durable constitutional framework. The Tees Valley's experience serves as a warning that without such reform, devolution may fail to deliver its promised benefits. As England considers further devolution, these insights from readers highlight the need for a more robust and equitable approach.
