The ongoing push for greater devolution across the United Kingdom is adding fresh momentum to long-standing demands for a formal, written constitution, according to Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. His comments, reported by The Guardian, come as political leaders debate the future of the UK's territorial governance and the balance of power between Westminster and the nations and regions.

Why Devolution Demands a Constitutional Reset

Burnham argues that the current patchwork of devolution arrangements, which have developed piecemeal over decades, is no longer sustainable. With powers flowing to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and increasingly to English metro mayors, the absence of a codified constitutional framework creates ambiguity over where ultimate authority lies.

"The more we devolve, the more we need to be clear about the rules of the game," Burnham said, stressing that a written constitution would provide a stable foundation for future transfers of power. He pointed to the ad hoc nature of recent deals, such as the English devolution agreements, as evidence that a more systematic approach is needed.

Unlike most democracies, the UK relies on an uncodified constitution built on statutes, conventions, and judicial precedents. That flexibility has historically been praised, but critics say it leaves too much room for central government to override local decisions. A written constitution, Burnham suggests, would lock in devolved powers and prevent future governments from quietly rolling them back.

The Case for Clarity and Accountability

Supporters of a written constitution argue that it would strengthen accountability by clearly delineating the responsibilities of each level of government. Citizens would know exactly who to hold responsible for services like health, transport, and education, which currently overlap between councils, metro mayors, and national ministries.

Key arguments in favor include:

  • Legal certainty: A codified document would make it harder for Westminster to unilaterally alter devolution settlements.
  • Democratic legitimacy: Clear rules would enhance public trust in how power is distributed and exercised.
  • Conflict resolution: Courts would have a clearer basis for adjudicating disputes between different tiers of government.

Burnham's intervention is significant because it comes from a senior Labour figure who has been at the forefront of English devolution. His support for a written constitution could shift the debate within his party, which has historically been cautious about wholesale constitutional reform.

Political Reactions and the Road Ahead

The proposal is likely to face resistance from those who fear that a written constitution would be rigid and difficult to amend. Critics also warn that the process of drafting one could become a political battleground, with parties fighting over every clause.

However, constitutional experts note that many countries with written constitutions have successfully combined flexibility with codification. The key, they say, is to design a document that sets out core principles while allowing for adaptation through legislation or amendment procedures.

For now, Burnham's remarks add to a growing chorus of voices calling for a more deliberate and principled approach to how the UK is governed. As devolution continues to expand, the question of whether the country needs a formal constitutional framework is unlikely to fade from the political agenda.

Key Takeaways

  • Andy Burnham has linked ongoing devolution plans to the case for a written UK constitution.
  • He argues that piecemeal devolution creates ambiguity and that a codified framework would provide clarity and protection for transferred powers.
  • The proposal faces political hurdles but is gaining traction among those who want stronger checks on central government.