Here is the document that amused me greatly. http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20150916_national_guardian_consultation_final.pdf The CQC calls this type of structure "independent". Is it really?? :) I often wonder what Mike Durkin as Patient Safety Tsar was doing all these years then? The CQC Consultation document states "The independence of the National Guardian is critical for the role’s credibility and impact, and we would welcome views on the proposals set out below. The Freedom to Speak Up review states that the National Guardian must be independent of both providers and national bodies so it is able to review their practices and make recommendations without fear of interference. As CQC is itself an independent regulator, locating the role within CQC gives the necessary" I love these words really. They are so well structured and formed that it could convince anyone until you look at who is on the Board of the CQC. http://www.cqc.org.uk/taxonomy/term/89 . Take a look at how many members have links to the NHS :). Is this independent? Then if you go to Twitter, you will find how many bleat there with their friends in the NHS and associated patient groups. Is this independent? Is this a sign of a professional body that can robustly regulate. Even the GMC's own employees do not bleat in such a unprofessional manner. Again, the National Guardian is much like the Patient Safety Tsar, yet another ineffective method of persuading the public that accountability and transparency will take place in this culture where "no one will be blamed". It is though a very effective method to catch "trouble-makers" early. We must not forget the CQC's own dubious record of harassment and bullying http://www.cqc.org.uk/content/cqc-publishes-independent-report-bullying-and-harassment-order-learn-lessons-and-make . Do they want us to believe they have suddenly changed and learned from their experiences? Do we really believe that. With its intimate contacts with the NHS, the GMC and other regulatory bodies, how can the whistleblower be sure that the concerns raised with these people will not be leaked further to engage the phenomena of whistleblower reprisal? The GMC partners with everyone. http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/partners_index.asp . So everyone can imagine the data flow. Is a whistleblower's information safe with these people? My experience of the CQC is fairly bad. I feel they gossip too much, spend too much time on Twitter and associate with many groups whose primary aim is winning litigation. I can even speculate as to the potential of findings made to reach positive litigation settlements. If this was happening, would it be fair? Whether its happening or not is irrelevant, there is clearly a potential risk to fairness. For all these reasons, the CQC should not be hosting the National Guardian. Its own culture is failing, I don't see that they can offer any rationality to concerns raised by legitimate whistleblowers.