Controversy has erupted in Wales over the management of several GP surgeries by the English-based company eHarley Street, sparking demands from prominent politicians for a formal investigation into the region’s health board and its dealings with the firm. The issue, which has simmered for months, now finds itself at the center of a heated debate about patient safety, contract oversight, and the future of primary care in parts of Wales.
On August 8, 2025, calls for an official probe intensified when Labour ministers Lynne Neagle and Nick Thomas-Symonds—representing Torfaen in the Senedd and Parliament, respectively—publicly challenged the Aneurin Bevan health board’s handling of its relationship with eHarley Street. Their intervention followed a series of complaints from patients and medical professionals, with particular concern focused on Pontypool Medical Centre, one of just three Welsh surgeries still managed by the company.
According to BBC Wales, eHarley Street, headquartered in Leicestershire, once oversaw nine GP practices across Wales, eight of which fell under the Aneurin Bevan health board. Over time, mounting concerns about safety, staffing, and supply led to five of those surgeries being handed back to the health board. Today, the company continues to manage Gelligaer Surgery near Ystrad Mynach, Lliswerry Medical Practice in Newport, and Pontypool Medical Centre, which alone serves around 17,000 patients. A Cardiff surgery previously under the partnership’s control has also reverted to local management.
The roots of the controversy stretch back to last year, when patients—including some with terminal illnesses—voiced frustration over difficulties accessing appointments and essential treatments at practices run by eHarley Street. These complaints, echoed by healthcare workers and even Wales’ first minister, fueled a growing sense of unease about the company’s operations. Despite this, the Aneurin Bevan health board has repeatedly stated that its enhanced monitoring of the surgeries “has not identified any contractual breaches or safety concerns.”
For Neagle and Thomas-Symonds, this assurance has not been enough. After holding 10 meetings with health board officials—none of which, in their view, produced satisfactory answers—the pair wrote to the public spending watchdog, Audit Wales. In their letter, they called for an independent investigation into the health board’s “engagement of eHarley Street and subsequent management of the contracts.” As they explained in a joint statement, “Given the months that have gone by, and continued public concerns, we do not believe that this response will provide constituents with the level of reassurance they need.”
The politicians were careful to stress that their criticism was directed at the management structure, not the staff on the ground. “We know [the staff] are working with great dedication, often in what we understand are difficult circumstances,” they wrote, acknowledging the pressures faced by those delivering care at the affected surgeries.
eHarley Street, for its part, has pushed back against what it sees as unfair targeting. In a statement quoted by BBC Wales, the GP partnership accused the politicians of choosing “to escalate the issue through the press while refusing multiple offers for constructive dialogue.” The company suggested that the controversy is being stoked by “the context of a pre-election year, with the political landscape in Wales shifting rapidly.”
The partnership went further, arguing that its status as an English-led provider operating in Wales has made it a scapegoat for broader systemic issues. Citing “chronic underfunding, outdated funding formulas and burnt-out workforce” in the Welsh NHS, eHarley Street claimed it had spent “personal and private funds to stabilise operations and recruit clinical staff.” The company welcomed the prospect of an Audit Wales inquiry, saying, “There is a growing view that the partnership is being targeted, at least in part, because it is an English-led provider operating in Wales.”
The health board, meanwhile, has reiterated its commitment to oversight, stating that it “continues to work closely with the partnership, through enhanced monitoring arrangements, in respect of the three practices to ensure contractual compliance and the ongoing delivery of accessible primary care services.” It maintains that “the enhanced monitoring has not identified any contractual breaches or safety concerns.”
Audit Wales has confirmed that it “already has work under way to obtain a better understanding of how the health board is managing the concerns they have set out.” The auditor general, Adrian Crompton, will decide whether further audit work is necessary once this initial review is complete. Neagle and Thomas-Symonds welcomed this approach, expressing hope for clarity and accountability in the near future.
Amid all this, the Welsh government has acknowledged the concerns surrounding Pontypool Medical Practice. However, it has emphasized that the health board is “responsible for managing contractual compliance and any necessary support to the practice.” This stance, while technically correct, has done little to ease the anxieties of patients and their families who continue to report difficulties in accessing timely care.
The dispute has highlighted a number of thorny questions about the management of primary care in Wales. Should English-based providers be welcomed as partners in delivering Welsh healthcare, or does their involvement risk undermining local accountability? Are the funding formulas and support structures in place adequate to meet the needs of both patients and practitioners? And, perhaps most urgently, how can confidence be restored for the thousands of people who rely on these surgeries every day?
For now, the answers remain elusive. What is clear is that the situation has exposed deep-seated frustrations on all sides: politicians frustrated by what they see as a lack of transparency and urgency; a management company feeling besieged and unfairly blamed; and patients and staff caught in the crossfire, simply wanting reliable, accessible healthcare.
As Audit Wales continues its investigation, all eyes will be on the outcome—and on whether it leads to meaningful change. In the meantime, the debate over eHarley Street’s role in Welsh primary care is likely to rumble on, a symbol of the broader challenges facing the NHS in Wales and beyond.
With so much at stake for patients, practitioners, and policymakers alike, the coming months could prove decisive in shaping the future of GP services across the region.