Andy Burnham has said his programme of devolution strengthens the case for a written constitution for the United Kingdom, a move that would fundamentally change the workings of a state built up over centuries. The prime minister has long believed that the country's «antiquated» political system needs a dramatic overhaul if opportunity is to be shared equally across all parts of the country, and he now argues that the case for codifying the constitution has been reinforced by the devolution plans his government is already carrying out.
The United Kingdom is one of the few major democracies without a single written constitution. Its constitutional order has developed gradually through statute, common law, parliamentary conventions and international treaties rather than through one authoritative document. A written constitution would bring together the core rules of the political system, defining how power is exercised, how institutions relate to one another and where responsibility lies for different areas of public policy. It would represent a decisive break with the flexible and largely uncodified arrangements that have long been regarded as a defining feature of the British state.
Burnham's intervention links the government's drive to decentralise power with the wider argument for constitutional modernisation. In his view, the devolution programme now under way makes it harder to rely on informal conventions and piecemeal legislation. If more decisions are being transferred from Westminster to local and regional leaders, there is a stronger need for a clear framework that sets out who is responsible for what and how the different parts of the state fit together. The prime minister sees this as a question of fairness, arguing that the existing arrangements do not spread opportunity evenly across the country and that the system itself must change if it is to serve all communities properly.
The exact content of any future written constitution has not been set out in full, and his remarks stop short of a formal announcement of a new constitutional settlement. They do, however, signal the direction of Burnham's thinking and are consistent with the views he has held for some time. He has described the UK's political system as antiquated and in need of a dramatic overhaul, and he has made clear that devolution is central to the changes he wants to see. A codified model of decentralisation, with the rules of the system written down and open to scrutiny, would be a radical departure from centuries of practice.
The implications of a written constitution would extend well beyond devolution. Such a change would raise fundamental questions about the sovereignty of Parliament, the role of the courts and the protection of rights. The UK's existing arrangements place Parliament at the centre of the political system, with relatively few legal limits on the scope of its authority. Codification would introduce new legal constraints and would raise the question of how disputes between central government and devolved institutions should be resolved. For these reasons, the move Burnham is describing would amount to a major constitutional change.
For Burnham, the argument is ultimately about who holds power and how that power is used. He has long argued that opportunity should be shared equally across the country, regardless of where people live, and that the structures of the state should reflect that principle. His latest comments suggest that the devolution agenda and the case for a written constitution are now closely connected in the government's thinking. The wider debate over how the UK is governed, and whether its unwritten rules should eventually be put in writing, is therefore likely to remain at the centre of British politics for some time to come.
