CEO's blog: Inside the Health Bill Committee

Parliament’s examination of the Health Bill has now reached the Committee stage, where proposals to abolish local Healthwatch - including Healthwatch Milton Keynes - are being explored in detail. 

As part of this process, Committee members have been inviting evidence and testimony from national figures (including the Chair of Healthwatch England and the CEO of the Patients Association) to understand the implications of removing the statutory local voice.

Across these sessions, the questions posed by committee members prompted witnesses to set out a grounded picture of how patient voice works locally. While some national arguments suggest a fragmented or duplicative landscape, the evidence presented to the Committee painted a different reality.

One of the central claims put to witnesses was that the “patient voice landscape” is overly complex. In response, witnesses explained that although national structures can appear layered, the local experience is far more coherent. As one contribution put it, “At a local level it is the system that is fragmented, not the public voice.” Local Healthwatch was described as the only statutory, independent service with a clear duty to listen to residents and report those insights directly into local NHS and council structures. Witnesses also highlighted the essential role local Healthwatch plays in helping people navigate complex, siloed services. This is a responsibility no other organisation currently holds.

Committee members also explored the argument that the health system receives an unmanageable number of recommendations. Witnesses provided important context: over 13 years, local Healthwatch has produced 20,000 reports. This equates to around ten per local area per year. These reports cover GP access, care homes, dentistry, dementia support and more, and are practical, targeted pieces of work designed to address issues at the point of need. We heard testimony stating “if the system isn’t acting on recommendations, the answer is better accountability – not less evidence.” The suggestion that the system is overwhelmed was strongly questioned, with testimony pointing instead to defensive cultures and siloed working as the real barriers to change.

Independence emerged as another key theme. Committee members heard how local Healthwatch fits into local decision‑making, and witnesses were clear: local Healthwatch is already embedded in local structures, sitting on Integrated Care Boards, Health and Wellbeing Boards, and a wide range of strategy and working groups. The issue is not proximity to decision‑makers, but the importance of maintaining a voice that can speak honestly and without fear or favour. As one comment captured, “a voice inside the system is easier to ignore – independence is what makes it heard.”

The Committee also examined proposals to integrate patient voice functions into NHS and local authority structures. While this was presented as a route to greater coordination, witnesses raised serious concerns about the conflict of interest this would create. If the system becomes both provider and assessor of its own performance, it risks amplifying voices it agrees with and silencing those it does not. For many residents, particularly those who are vulnerable or have had poor experiences, the loss of an independent route to raise concerns could erode trust.

What these evidence sessions make clear is that the debate is about the principles that underpin public voice: independence, accountability, and the ability to speak truth to power. Through their questions, committee members have drawn out testimony that highlights how these principles operate locally and why they matter.

As the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, we will keep residents updated. 

Whatever the outcome, we're committed to ensuring that your experiences continue to shape, inform, and improve local health and care services.