Wales seeks a new devolution deal: the powers, funding and disputes explained

What Wales is asking for

Welsh First Minister Rhun ap Iorwerth has asked Prime Minister Andy Burnham for a devolution agreement giving Wales powers comparable to Scotland's. He presented the demand at Plaid Cymru's conference in Llandudno on 2 October. The published account of his letter includes policing and justice, rail infrastructure, the Crown Estate, welfare and greater funding flexibility. It is a request for changes within the United Kingdom, not an announcement that those responsibilities have transferred. Developments in the Senedd on 6 October show both support for funding reform and disagreement over how to secure it. (Nation.Cymru; Welsh Parliament; bbc.co.uk; theguardian.com)

Plaid's May election victory ended Labour's 27 years running the Welsh government, according to the BBC. But it remains five seats short of a Senedd majority and needs another party group's support for its spending plans. Ap Iorwerth has acknowledged a difficult fiscal backdrop. Plaid has ruled out an independence referendum during its first term. The immediate argument is therefore about governing powers and resources, alongside the practical business of passing a budget. (bbc.co.uk; theguardian.com)

Which powers does Wales already have?

The Senedd's own explanation starts with the Wales Act 2017. It replaced the previous approach with a reserved-powers model: the Welsh Parliament can legislate on matters that are not kept for the UK Parliament. That does not mean an unrestricted power to legislate. Acts must pass legal tests, including the boundaries in Schedule 7A and restrictions in Schedule 7B. The practical question for any proposed transfer is which boundary would move and what responsibilities would accompany it. (senedd.wales)

The Scotland comparison concerns particular responsibilities. The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales noted in its 2024 report that justice and policing are devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wales has a mixed transport settlement: some rail-service responsibilities sit with Welsh ministers, while much of rail remains reserved. Other services are already Welsh responsibilities; social care is one example. Further devolution would change specific boundaries rather than move every public service from Westminster. (bbc.co.uk; gov.wales)

Justice: services, funding and a phased transfer

A transfer of justice responsibilities would involve much more than changing the name of the government in charge. In its January 2024 report, the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales recommended agreement between the two governments, secured funding and a phased timetable. It proposed beginning with policing, probation and youth justice. Its subgroup considered a jointly led programme likely to take about ten years to implement the wider change. That was an assessment of implementation, not a deadline now agreed by Burnham and ap Iorwerth. (gov.wales)

One concrete consequence is the distance between some women in custody and their support networks. In July, Deputy First Minister Sioned Williams called for fewer women sentenced in Wales to be imprisoned in England, far from their families. She also reported that funding had not been secured for the proposed Residential Women's Centre in Swansea and urged UK ministers to revisit the decision. That is an account of the position in July, not proof of the centre's funding status today. It illustrates why responsibility, resources and access to services must be considered together. (GOV.WALES)

Some narrower changes were already being pursued before Plaid took office. A March Welsh government statement said new youth-justice functions were planned for April 2027. It also described a proposed probation memorandum intended to link the Probation Service more closely with devolved services and tailor support to individual needs. Those announced plans should be distinguished from completed transfers. They offer specific measures against which readers can judge progress, rather than treating all justice reform as one immediate switch. (GOV.WALES)

The commission's case was not unanimous. Its Welsh Conservative nominee dissented from recommending justice devolution, citing the shared England-and-Wales jurisdiction and concerns including value for money. The report also recognised that stronger shared governance can sometimes be preferable to either leaving powers reserved or transferring them outright, if governments establish effective arrangements based on trust. That makes costs, accountability and workable cooperation essential questions for the negotiation, alongside the first minister's argument for greater national control. (gov.wales)

Rail: who plans services, and when money arrives

Passengers face a network that crosses political boundaries. The March statement described planned joint objectives for Great British Rail and Transport for Wales, with coordination over access, capacity and charging, and a framework for jointly managing and funding cross-border services. Its aim was a more seamless passenger experience. Full rail devolution remained an ambition. The 2024 commission separately warned that transfers require a fair, transparent funding settlement. These proposals concern how services and investment would be organised; they do not establish that journeys have already improved. (gov.wales; GOV.WALES)

In the 6 October Senedd funding debate, Finance Minister Elin Jones called for a delivery programme and timetable for the UK government's £14 billion rail investment commitment. She sought an additional £1 billion of that existing commitment during the spending-review period ending in 2029-30, rather than a separate £1 billion added to the headline total. Welsh Labour's Huw Thomas also supported the £14 billion commitment. The immediate test is therefore the schedule and delivery of investment, alongside the wider question of who controls infrastructure. (Welsh Parliament)

The Crown Estate: management and realistic revenue

The Crown Estate debate concerns management and the benefits of land and seabed assets. Its own governance explanation says the assets belong to the Crown as an institution, not to the monarch personally, and its net revenue profit goes into the UK Consolidated Fund. Welsh ministers want revenues and investment decisions to reflect Welsh community priorities; Scotland's transfer of management provides a precedent. Changing management would still require arrangements for responsibilities and funding. It is not simply a transfer of the King's private property or an automatic spending cheque. (gov.wales; GOV.WALES)

The latest Wales review shows why revenue claims need qualification. The Crown Estate reported £210 million in Welsh operating profit for 2025/26, driven chiefly by short-term option fees from the Mona offshore-wind project. It said those fees had ceased when Mona entered its pre-generation phase; excluding option fees, operating profit was £9.8 million. These are reported operating profits, not a guaranteed recurring addition to Wales's budget. The Estate also described cooperation with the new Welsh government over Celtic Sea opportunities, showing that partnership already exists alongside the demand for devolution.

The detailed Welsh case is still being developed. On 6 October, Constitution Minister Dafydd Trystan Davies told the Senedd that an expert group was building the evidence case for Crown Estate devolution, with a final report expected next summer. The constitutional commission had supported examining a Scottish precedent while acknowledging that its own subgroup had not studied the Welsh implications in detail. The expected report is a further point for scrutiny, not confirmation that a transfer or its financial terms has been agreed. (Welsh Parliament; gov.wales)

Funding flexibility, and the political disagreement

Fiscal flexibility is also about using existing resources. Elin Jones told the Senedd on 6 October that, without full access to the Wales reserve, she could draw down only £200 million to address pressures. She proposed reviewing the fiscal framework, including reserve restrictions and borrowing powers. This is distinct from receiving a larger annual allocation: changing when resources can be accessed may affect how ministers respond to costs and investment needs. The proposed review does not itself settle the future rules. (Welsh Parliament)

The debate does not divide neatly into Plaid demanding more powers and Labour rejecting them. Huw Thomas said Welsh Labour supported more powers, needs-based funding and greater flexibility within the UK. He nevertheless criticised ap Iorwerth's emphasis on Burnham, arguing that a fairer settlement requires agreement among all four UK nations. Reform's Cai Parry-Jones urged ministers to deliver better results with existing powers and money, and challenged them to specify requested fiscal powers, costs and safeguards. These are the named positions expressed in the Senedd debate; they should not be treated as the views of every Welsh MP. (Welsh Parliament)

What has been agreed, and what to watch next

Ap Iorwerth says Burnham has promised to respect Wales's institutions. The BBC reports that Burnham had expressed openness to devolving policing, while the UK government's response emphasised cooperation, growth and a fairer Wales within the UK. Those statements do not approve every part of the requested package. This account uses published reporting about the letter and public documents, rather than presenting the full letter or claiming direct interviews. The published list of policy areas, including welfare, does not supply a complete implementation agreement or establish specific changes to benefits. (Nation.Cymru; bbc.co.uk; theguardian.com)

The BBC reported an expected meeting between Burnham and the devolved first ministers at the end of October. It should be watched for specific decisions, not treated as a guaranteed settlement deadline. Other checkpoints include the rail delivery timetable, the planned April 2027 youth-justice changes and the Crown Estate expert group's report. A useful assessment of any deal will ask which responsibilities change, what funding follows, how cross-border services are protected, and when users can expect practical effects. A political assurance, a funded programme and an operative transfer are different stages of that process. (Welsh Parliament; bbc.co.uk; GOV.WALES)