Lord Philip Hunt of King’s Heath, a prominent former Labour health minister, has predicted the government will be forced to abandon its controversial plan to abolish Healthwatch. His comments sharply criticise what he calls "command and control from the Department of Health and Social Care" in the context of the NHS’s latest reforms. This intervention comes amid mounting parliamentary and health sector apprehension regarding patient advocacy, centralisation, and governance within the proposed Health and Care Bill.
Established in 2012, Healthwatch England and its local network act as independent champions for health and social care users. Their function is to gather patient views, highlight service issues, and drive change. Lord Hunt, who previously served in the Department of Health, warned that the proposal to scrap Healthwatch—merging its functions into central government or the NHS. Peers across all major parties are expected to challenge the clauses that would dismantle this independent patient-voice body.
Critics argue that abolishing Healthwatch would weaken independent scrutiny and diminish the mechanism through which patients' experiences inform policy and practice. Healthwatch organisations point to their vital work on issues like long waits for care, access barriers, and experiences of vulnerable populations as essential evidence for system improvement. The government defends the move as an effort to streamline NHS governance and reduce duplication, by integrating patient-voice functions into the Department of Health and Social Care and frontline NHS structures. Ministers claim this will simplify accountability and reduce bureaucratic layers.
However, Lord Hunt's warning reflects broader unease about the government's reform agenda. The Health and Care Bill has also drawn criticism for provisions to abolish NHS England and shift many of its responsibilities back to direct ministerial oversight. In the House of Lords, opposition and cross-bench peers have signalled their intent to amend or defeat the Healthwatch-related clauses. They argue that the Lords, acting as a revising chamber, will demand stronger safeguards for independent patient representation than those currently included in the Bill.
Opposition parties view this as symptomatic of a wider centralising trend, accusing ministers of attempting to "quietly dismantle" patient and professional accountability. While the government insists the reforms will enhance performance, critics counter that patient voices may be marginalised.
Alongside political debate, health sector groups and patient advocates are alarmed at the potential loss of an independent patient voice. Local Healthwatch bodies question how patients' views will be effectively heard and acted upon without statutory independence. Campaigns are underway to urge Parliament to retain Healthwatch's statutory basis, warning that its loss risks making the NHS less responsive. Policy analysts and think-tanks question the robust evidence presented to justify the abolition. They caution that structural change without preserving independent advocacy could weaken the feedback loops crucial for quality improvement and safety initiatives.
The debate highlights a key policy theme: how to best integrate patient experience and feedback into service design, quality monitoring, and digital innovation. While NHS bodies are exploring tools like real-time feedback platforms and analytics, experts stress that technology cannot wholly substitute independent advocacy and statutory representation, the core functions Healthwatch was designed to fulfil.
