Select committee: Public Accounts Committee
Conclusion 27
64th Report - Costs of clinical negligence
Published 30 Jan 2026
Addressed to HM Treasury
Public Accounts Committee Costs of clinical negligence All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
Written evidence from the Medical Defence Union told us that Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 is based on a recommendation made in 1946, two years before the establishment of the NHS, which was caveated that it “might need to be radically altered if a comprehensive health service is introduced”.70 Evidence from The Medical Protection Society and the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland suggested that repealing the Act would save the NHS money that could be reinvested into frontline care.71 However, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers raised concerns that removing the presumption of private care would force patients to return to the NHS institution which injured them in the first place.72 Action against Medical Accidents suggested to us that the issue should be subject to its own dedicated inquiry or review.73 NHS Resolution recognised that it needs to do more to understand the true extent and cost of any double recovery by claimants.74 69 Q 76; C&AG’s Report, para 2.20 70 The Medical Defence Union (CCN0004) 71 The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland (CCN0009); The Medical Protection Society (CCN0019) 72 The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (CCN0017) 73 Action against Medical Accidents (CCN0018) 74 Q 43 18
From: Public Accounts Committee, 64th Report - Costs of clinical negligence (HC 1234), 30 January 2026
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 7 April 2026 (deadline 30 March 2026).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government agrees with the Committee's recommendation to set out an operational plan on clinical negligence, disagrees with others, and has some recommendations "under consideration".
- It agrees to write to the Committee "by this Autumn" with its workplan, key milestones and likely areas of focus for reform, but "disagrees" with publishing David Lock KC's review, saying it has "no current plans" to publish a separate report.
- It "disagrees" with estimating and tracking the costs of treating avoidable harm, stating it "would not be financially or logistically feasible", and "disagrees" with a new national data-sharing system, saying "there is already data sharing arrangements in place".
- On maternity, it agrees with the recommendation to learn lessons. Baroness Amos has confirmed the independent investigation will publish its final report in June 2026, and a National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce will develop a national action plan.
- Alternative dispute mechanisms and fixed recoverable costs are "under consideration", and the government is "unable to commit" to the six-month timeframe for double recovery estimates. It will write to the Committee by Autumn 2026 on each.