The Failing No One Names: How DHCW Became Welsh Labour's Biggest Liability

In the run-up to the 2026 Senedd election, there is one thing every party in Wales agrees on: the NHS is in crisis. Plaid Cymru says Labour has "run the Welsh NHS into the ground." The Conservatives want to declare a Health Emergency. The Liberal Democrats warn the system is "at breaking point." Even Labour's own Cabinet Secretary for Health has used words like "indefensible" about parts of the service he oversees.

They are all talking about the same symptoms — waiting times, cancelled operations, ambulances queuing outside hospitals. But not one of them is naming the underlying condition.

The numbers they're all quoting

The statistics are beyond dispute. They come from the Welsh Government's own publications and from Senedd Research.

[Source: Welsh Government statistical release — NHS Wales waiting times, December 2025; NHS England Referral to Treatment statistics]

As of December 2025, approximately 741,000 patient pathways were open in Wales. Around 580,000 individual patients were waiting for treatment. Diagnostic waits hit a record high of over 137,000 pathways, with more than 46,800 people waiting beyond the eight-week target.

Rhun ap Iorwerth, the Plaid Cymru leader, frames this as the centrepiece of his pitch: a Plaid government would "not only bring down NHS waiting times, but also build a more sustainable health and care system." Darren Millar, leading the Welsh Conservatives, pledged to "declare not a climate emergency and not a nature emergency but a Health Emergency." Jane Dodds of the Liberal Democrats campaigns for 5,000 new social care beds and a shift toward early intervention. James Evans, now at Reform UK, stated that "nearly 40,000 patients have died waiting for NHS treatment."

These are powerful claims. But they share a common blind spot.

The infrastructure nobody mentions

Every GP appointment in Wales is booked through systems managed by one organisation. Every hospital referral passes through its platforms. Every prescription is transmitted — or, in many cases, still not transmitted — via its electronic prescription service. Every waiting list figure is compiled from its data systems.

That organisation is Digital Health and Care Wales. DHCW.

When its systems go down — and they went down 21 times in just seven months, according to the Welsh Assembly Public Accounts Committee (November 2018) — appointments are delayed, prescriptions stall, and clinical staff revert to paper. The BMA described the impact:

"Data outages can be extraordinarily disruptive for practices and for patients. They affect appointments, prescriptions and the nuts and bolts of a functioning practice and can take hours to recover from. Unfortunately these data outages are becoming all too common."

— British Medical Association

When the electronic referral system remains undelivered — as it does, years after it was promised — patients are referred between services by fax, by post, by phone, by luck. Every manual referral is a delay. Every delay is a longer wait.

When the NHS Wales App cannot show 653,000 people on waiting lists where they stand in the queue, the effect is not merely inconvenient. It is a failure to provide the most basic transparency to the people who need it most.

When a data quality failure at a single health board — Betsi Cadwaladr — causes the suspension of all waiting time statistics for six months, that is not a local error. It is a national infrastructure failure. The digital systems that compile, validate, and publish those statistics are DHCW's responsibility.

Audit Wales summarised the state of NHS Wales technology as "archaic and fragile IT systems which don't deliver on their promises." That is the foundation on which every politician's waiting time reduction plan depends. [Source: Audit Wales, Informatics Systems in NHS Wales, 2018]

Labour built this

DHCW was created by the Welsh Government in April 2021. The Welsh Government has been led by Labour continuously since 1999 — twenty-seven years.

Labour chose the governance model. Labour appointed the board. Labour approved the CEO. Labour set the budget. Labour designed the oversight framework. And when every single one of DHCW's nine major programmes ended up under Level 3 government intervention, it was Labour's own Cabinet Secretary who had to announce it.

In March 2025, Jeremy Miles told the Senedd:

"I am today announcing that DHCW has been escalated to Level 3 — enhanced monitoring — because of serious concerns about the organisation's ability to effectively deliver a number of major programmes."

— Jeremy Miles, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Senedd Statement, March 2025

This was not the opposition making accusations. This was Labour admitting, from the government benches, that the organisation it created could not do the job it was given.

In February 2026, Miles went further in a letter to DHCW:

"The organisation remains some distance from being able to consistently quantify return on investment, articulate realised benefits across Wales or demonstrate the scale of digital investment is matched by measurable improvements for citizens and clinicians."

— Jeremy Miles, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, letter to DHCW, February 2026

And:

"My clear expectation is DHCW must alert Welsh Government significantly earlier when risks threaten delivery, avoiding the pattern of late notification that undermines system confidence."

— Jeremy Miles, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, letter to DHCW, February 2026

The phrase "pattern of late notification" is the Welsh Government confirming that DHCW systematically fails to tell its overseers when things go wrong — until it is too late to intervene. The people who designed the oversight framework are now admitting the oversight framework does not work.

The CEO who cannot show the return

Helen Thomas has led DHCW since its creation. Her predecessor organisation, NWIS, was described by the Senedd Public Accounts Committee in 2018 as having a culture that was "the antithesis of open." Thomas was appointed to lead the successor body.

At DHCW's Public Accountability Meeting in January 2026, Thomas was asked to demonstrate the return on over GBP 200 million in identifiable programme costs:

"We don't have an ROI on all of our investments."

— Helen Thomas, CEO, DHCW Public Accountability Meeting, January 2026

A Welsh Government official at the same meeting described the compounding cost of programme delays:

"There is a tipping point where, actually, if we have delays and reprofiling, the benefits reduce... the benefits might be zero by the end. If we'd have known that, we'd have never started."

— Welsh Government official, DHCW Public Accountability Meeting, January 2026

Zero benefit. From over GBP 200 million in identifiable programme costs. The Welsh Government's own representative said it. On the record.

Labour appointed this CEO. Labour retained this CEO. Labour continues to retain this CEO — even after every programme she oversees has been escalated to Level 3 intervention, even after she admitted she cannot demonstrate the return on the public's investment, and even after the Welsh Government's own official contemplated the possibility that some of those programmes may deliver nothing at all.

The connection the politicians will not make

Here is the chain that no party leader in the Senedd is willing to spell out:

1. 741,000 patient pathways are open in Wales.
2. Every one of those pathways depends on digital systems — for booking, referral, records, prescriptions, and data reporting.
3. Those systems are managed by DHCW.
4. DHCW's systems suffer chronic outages. Its electronic referral system is undelivered. Its app excludes waiting list patients. Its data systems are so unreliable that a single health board's error caused six months of suspended national statistics.
5. All nine of DHCW's major programmes are under Level 3 government intervention (Enhanced Monitoring) — simultaneously.
6. The CEO cannot demonstrate a return on the investment.
7. The Welsh Government's own assessment is that DHCW is "some distance" from showing its spending produces results.
8. DHCW was created by Labour, governed by Labour, funded by Labour, and overseen by Labour — for the entirety of its existence.

No amount of pledging to "bring down waiting times" will succeed if the digital plumbing underneath is broken. You cannot reduce waits when the referral system runs on fax machines. You cannot improve cancer pathways when the data reporting collapses for half a year. You cannot manage a waiting list of three-quarters of a million people with "archaic and fragile IT systems which don't deliver on their promises."

DHCW is not a minor technical agency. It is the single organisation on which every patient interaction in NHS Wales depends. And after twenty-seven years in power, Labour owns it entirely.

What accountability looks like

Plaid Cymru talks about waiting lists. The Conservatives talk about a Health Emergency. The Liberal Democrats talk about social care beds. Labour talks about its investment and falling headline numbers.

Nobody talks about DHCW. Nobody asks why, after five years and over GBP 200 million in identifiable programme costs, the organisation created to modernise NHS Wales digital infrastructure cannot deliver a single programme on time or on budget. Nobody asks why its CEO remains in post. Nobody asks why its board — appointed by the Welsh Government — failed to prevent the escalation of every programme it was supposed to govern.

These are not opposition questions. These are questions the Welsh Government has already answered — in its own escalation notices, its own letters, its own officials' testimony. The evidence is on the public record. The verdicts have already been delivered, by the people who created DHCW in the first place.

The only question that remains is whether the politicians now competing for votes will have the honesty to name the failing they have all, until now, preferred to ignore.

Questions for Your MS

The 2026 Senedd election is your opportunity to demand answers. The following questions can be put directly to any candidate standing in your constituency — or tabled as written questions in the Senedd by any sitting MS.

1. For the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care:

"Given that DHCW has been under Level 3 enhanced monitoring since March 2025, that the organisation's CEO has acknowledged an inability to demonstrate return on investment for any programme, and that a Welsh Government official stated at the January 2026 public accountability meeting that delayed programmes may produce 'zero' benefit — will the Cabinet Secretary confirm whether he retains confidence in DHCW's current CEO and board, and if so, on what basis?"

2. For the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee:

"Will the Committee call DHCW's CEO and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to give oral evidence on the total lifecycle cost of each of the nine programmes currently under Level 3 intervention, and on the Welsh Government's de-escalation criteria — specifically, what measurable outcomes must be achieved, and by what date, before Level 3 is lifted?"

3. For any opposition party leader or candidate:

"Your manifesto commits to reducing NHS waiting times. Every patient pathway in Wales depends on digital systems managed by DHCW — an organisation under Level 3 government intervention for failing to deliver any of its nine major programmes. What is your party's specific proposal for reforming DHCW, and will you commit to commissioning an independent external review of its leadership, governance, and programme delivery within the first 100 days of government?"

Send these questions to your MS. Ask them at hustings. Demand written answers. The Senedd's committee chairs — Peter Fox MS (Health and Social Care) and Mark Isherwood MS (Public Accounts) — have direct oversight. Use their names. Hold them to account.

Right of Reply: CareNHS welcomes a response from DHCW to the matters raised in this article. No response has been received to date. Contact: carenhs@carenhs.org

All statistics in this article are sourced from Welsh Government published data, Senedd Research publications, and the NHS Wales waiting times statistical releases for 2025-26. All quotations are sourced from Senedd proceedings, DHCW Public Accountability Meetings, Welsh Government correspondence, Audit Wales reports, and the BMA. A full source index is available on request.

carenhs.org is an independent public accountability campaign focused on NHS Wales digital infrastructure. We welcome corrections and responses from DHCW, the Welsh Government, and any individual named in this article. Contact: info@carenhs.org

Related pages:

• Nine Programmes, Zero Results — every programme examined
• The Scale of Failure — the full programme failure breakdown
• Financial Waste — The Evidence — where the money went
• Write to Your MS — make your elected representatives answer