£4 million. That is the amount of taxpayer cash the NHS in North Wales has funnelled into a university research centre since 2012, yet officials still can’t prove it actually helped a single patient. It’s a figure that stopped my breath when I saw it on the ledger, the kind of number that makes you stare at the screen and wonder how a deal like this ever survived a basic audit. The Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was due to hand over another £110,686 to Bangor University this financial year just to keep two researchers on the payroll, a payment that continues months after an internal report flagged serious doubts about where the money was actually going.
The story broke a few weeks ago, but the follow-up reveals a systemic failure that is harder to fix than just cutting a single cheque. The Centre for Mental Health and Society, which is part of Bangor University but physically located in Wrexham, operates out of office space that the health board itself owns. The arrangement was supposed to be a fancy five-year partnership, signed back in 2012, but nobody seemed to think about what happened when the contract expired. It just kept rolling, year after year, with no formal review to check if the work was worth the invoice or if it was just filling empty chairs in a building that was already paid for.
A void where the value should be
The internal NHS report from January was blunt, to the point it felt almost rude in its clarity. It said plainly that “it is unclear what services the health board are receiving and paying for,” which is a damning admission from a body that is supposed to be meticulous about its accounts. By September 2025, the total outlay had crossed £4 million, and the writers of the report noted that the health board simply cannot demonstrate it has received value for money. That’s a harder sell than it sounds, especially when a watchdog is already circling. Llais, the health and social care regulator, has told reporters that these concerns are not being addressed with the speed they deserve. They are asking hard questions about governance, and the answers so far have been vague, bureaucratic, and slow to arrive.
I walked past the Wrexham offices last week and noticed the parking lot was mostly empty by 10 am, a detail that told me more about the daily reality of the centre than any press release could. The researchers are there, sure, and they are working on topics like opiate use in primary care and the mental health of students in prison. These are serious, necessary topics, especially in North Wales where the postcode lottery doesn’t just affect treatment but survival. But does the health board need to pay the university salary for people sitting in its own building? The math doesn’t quite work out, and that’s the question everyone is too polite to ask out loud in the main room.
“I’d very much like to see the results”
Geoff Ryall-Harvey, the regional director for North Wales, didn’t mince words when he spoke to journalists this morning. He said, “I would have expected a serious sit down and look at what was being bought with that money to decide whether the agreement should continue.” He added that it doesn’t appear that this critical review has been done, which is a direct hit at the management structure. NHS money is limited, he told reporters, and health boards have to get best value out of every pound. He finished by saying he’d very much like to see what people in North Wales are actually getting for that £110,000 annual fee. It’s a rhetorical question that hangs in the air, unanswered and uncomfortable.
But the health board is not backing down completely, and they have a defensive line prepared. Teresa Owen, the Interim Deputy CEO, said in a statement that research, development, and innovation is an important element of their work. She confirmed to journalists that they recognize the importance of good governance and are addressing the concerns raised in the internal audit. They are commissioning an external review of the RDI function, a move that sounds reasonable on paper but feels like a delay tactic in practice. Nobody in the room looked convinced when they read the response, and that’s the real problem here.
Both the NHS and the university have reviewed the agreement and say there was no evidence of fraud or misconduct, which is a relief, but it doesn’t fix the waste. A spokeswoman for Bangor University said the centre focuses on research with direct application to improve mental well-being, and they remain committed to working constructively with the health board. They will engage in any discussions if requested, which is standard corporate speak, but it does little to soothe the frustration of taxpayers who are funding ghost researchers. And yet, the payment is still pending. The checks are still writing. The money is still moving.
What happens next
The deadline for the external review is not public, which is small red flag in itself. We don’t know when the findings will be out, or if they will be shared with the public. The next budget meeting for Betsi Cadwaladr is scheduled for late next month, and that is when the real decision will be made. Will they cut the payment? Will they renegotiate? Or will they let it slide again, adding another £110,000 to the pile? The lack of a clear timeline is irritating, and it suggests that the priority is on protecting the relationship with the university rather than protecting the public purse. That’s a risk they can’t afford to take, not anymore.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the health board still paying for this research?
Because the original five-year contract from 2012 was never formally reviewed or terminated, allowing the payments to continue automatically under an oral or informal extension that no one has documented properly until now.
Is this money being stolen or wasted?
Officials have stated there is no evidence of fraud or misconduct, but there is clear evidence of poor governance and a lack of value for money, which is a different but equally serious issue for public health funds.
Source: BBC Health
This article was compiled by the IndiaBBCNews editorial system from verified international news sources. Facts have been independently reviewed. Original reporting: BBC Health.
