F19

Gaps between the understood functions of separate regulators

Mid Staffs Inquiry · Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry · Issued 6 February 2013 · Addressed to: Department of Health and Social Care

Government responseDepartment of Health and Social Care: Not accepted (Nov 2013)

DeliveryDHSC and NHS England say not accepted (Feb 2026)Department of Health and Social Care says in progress (Feb 2015)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

There should be a single regulator dealing both with corporate governance, financial competence, viability and compliance with patient safety and quality standards for all trusts.

Mid Staffs Inquiry, Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry · 6 Feb 2013 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

The Inquiry called for a single regulator overseeing governance, finance, viability, and patient safety. In commentary of September 2024, published in February 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and NHS England stated that the recommendation was not accepted by the government (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team found in May 2024 that the government had rejected the recommendation, pursuing instead a single regulatory process dividing duties between separate bodies (The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team, May 2024).

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 1 Oct 2026.

Report-level response context

Government responded via "Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First" (2014), a single document covering all 290 recommendations with a blanket acceptance. Individual recommendation responses were not broken out.

Government response

●Department of Health and Social Care · Not accepted · 19 Nov 2013

Speaker not recorded. Source: Department of Health, Hard Truths: the Journey to Putting Patients First, volume 2 (Cm 8777-II), November 2013

Not accepted, although we agree with the principle of a single regulatory process.
We agree with the principle that there should be a single regulatory process with clearly defined responsibilities across governance, finance and compliance with safety and quality standards. It is important that the system is able to identify and act quickly where there are potential risks to service users and, in ensuring this, that there are clear roles and responsibilities for all those involved in that process.
In Patients First and Foremost (2013) we stated that the Care Quality Commission, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority would establish a single failure regime that would further clarify the separate functions of the Care Quality Commission and Monitor across health and social care. This will ensure that the role of inspecting Trusts is kept clearly separate from the responsibility for the turnaround of failing organisations, and there can be no conflict of interest in assessing quality. It also allows us to address, more fully, the Inquiry’s concerns regarding the potential impact on the whole system of rapid changes to the quality regulator.
The Care Bill lays the framework for a simple, flexible process for tackling quality failures in NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts. It will remain the primary responsibility of the board of a Trust, working with their commissioners, to ensure the provision of good quality care.
The Care Quality Commission will not exercise its enforcement powers, beyond issuing a new warning notice outlined in the Care Bill, in respect to Trusts unless patients and service users are at immediate risk of harm, in which case it will be able to act immediately. Where intervention is required it will be the role of Monitor (for Foundation Trusts) and the NHS Trust Development Authority (for NHS trusts) to take action. Ultimately, if it proves impossible for an NHS Trust or Foundation Trust to turn their performance around, the organisation may be placed into Trust special administration on quality grounds. Special administration will provide a framework for determining how best to secure a comprehensive range of high quality services that are both financially and clinically sustainable. In very serious cases, the Care Quality Commission (subject to Parliamentary approval) will have the power to prosecute a provider for a breach of fundamental standards of care.
The Care Quality Commission, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority will work together to publish further guidance on how they work together to address risks to quality. This will include details of how concerns, including immediate concerns, will be addressed; how and when special measures and the single failure regime could be triggered; and what guidance and support would be made available to the public in the event of large scale, significant failure. This guidance will build on the joint policy statement, The Regulation and oversight of NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts (May 2013) published by the Care Quality Commission, Monitor, the NHS Trust Development Authority, NHS England and the Department of Health.

Response document: Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First. Volume Two of the Government Response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Response to the Inquiry's Recommendations

Site note: This is volume two of "Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First" (Cm 8777-II), the government's response to the Inquiry's 290 recommendations, published by the Department of Health on GOV.UK on 19 November 2013 and dated to that day here. The PDF the row links to is the accessible edition, whose title page reads "January 2014". The Department of Health has been the Department of Health and Social Care since January 2018. The volume says it includes accounts from each of the national organisations the recommendations name, but it does not mark which passage each organisation wrote, so every row is filed under the Department that published it.

Delivery

●DHSC and NHS England say not accepted · 27 Feb 2026

This recommendation was not accepted by the Government.

From: The Thirlwall Inquiry: Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version dated April 2025)

Site note: DHSC and NHS England's own account of progress, supplied to the Thirlwall Inquiry in September 2024 and printed in the Inquiry legal team's Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version dated April 2025, published 27 February 2026). It is not a finding of the Inquiry. Their reviewed extent of implementation reads “Not accepted”. Table row: section 18.2 No. 19, PDF page 432-433.

●Department of Health and Social Care says in progress · 11 Feb 2015

The Care Quality Commission and Monitor work together to assess the capability of a Foundation Trust and/or its leadership to ensure safe and quality care. Monitor makes this assessment from the Board down, the Care Quality Commission from the ward up. The Care Quality Commission and Monitor have a new single, overarching framework for judging whether or not an organisation and/or service are well-led. The Care Quality Commission and Monitor use the framework to help inform their assessments and inspections.

The framework is used during the routine inspection of Foundation Trusts where the Care Quality Commission requests information from Monitor in preparation for an inspection. The Care Quality Commission’s inspection provides a judgement on the quality of services and Monitor will then take action where necessary to support improvement. The Chief Inspector of Hospitals can also recommend that a Foundation Trust be put in special measures. As part of this, Monitor provides intensive support, including appointing an Improvement Director. The Care Quality Commission will then re-inspect and recommend whether the Foundation Trust should be kept in, or taken out of, special measures.

For example in July 2013, after the Care Quality Commission inspection identified significant concerns about the quality of care, the Chief Inspector of Hospitals recommended that North Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust be placed in special measures. Monitor initially used its powers to agree a programme of work with the Foundation Trust to address issues in governance, clinical effectiveness, patient safety and experience. Monitor subsequently oversaw the Foundation Trust’s delivery of this programme, resulting in the quality issues being addressed. Following a recommendation from the Chief Inspector, the Foundation Trust was removed from special measures in July 2014.

The Care Quality Commission, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority have jointly developed and published guidance on how the special measures programme worked for NHS trusts and Foundation Trusts. The Care Quality Commission and Monitor have also published a joint working agreement document setting out how they will work together.

From: Culture Change in the NHS supporting Annex (annex to Culture change in the NHS: applying the lessons of the Francis Inquiries)

Site note: This is the supporting annex published on 11 February 2015 with "Culture change in the NHS: applying the lessons of the Francis Inquiries" (Cm 9009), attached to the GOV.UK page as "Culture change in the NHS supporting annex". The annex has no title page; that title is GOV.UK's and the PDF's own. Its table has four columns (No., Recommendation, Hard Truths Government response, Progress update), and the row carries the Progress update cell. No column says which organisation wrote an update, so the row is filed under the Department of Health (now the Department of Health and Social Care), which published it.

Earlier statements on delivery (0)

●Department of Health and Social Care · 19 Nov 2013

Not accepted, although we agree with the principle of a single regulatory process. We agree with the principle that there should be a single regulatory process with clearly defined responsibilities across governance, finance and compliance with safety and quality standards.

From: Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First. Volume Two of the Government Response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Response to the Inquiry's Recommendations

●Department of Health and Social Care · 19 Nov 2013

In Patients First and Foremost (2013) we stated that the Care Quality Commission, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority would establish a single failure regime that would further clarify the separate functions of the Care Quality Commission and Monitor across health and social care.

From: Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First. Volume Two of the Government Response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Response to the Inquiry's Recommendations

What other bodies have found

In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.

●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024

This recommendation was rejected by the Government.

In the January 2014 Hard Truths report, the Government took the position that there should be a single regulatory process, as opposed to a single regulator. The Care Quality Commission, Monitor, and the NHS Trust Development Authority were to make up that regime, keeping the role of inspecting Trusts separate from responsibility for the turnaround of failing organisations. Intervention was to be the role of Monitor or the NHS Trust Development Authority, unless patients and service users were at immediate risk of harm.

In the February 2015 Culture Change report, the Government said that the Care Quality Commission and Monitor would work together closely to assess capabilities of a foundation trust to ensure safe and quality care, with Monitor making the assessment from the Board Down and the Care Quality Commission from the ward up. The Government said that the Care Quality Commission and Monitor would use a new single, overarching framework for judging whether an organisation/service was well-led and that the Care Quality Commission and Monitor would communicate information with each other.

From: The Thirlwall Inquiry: Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version of 15 May 2024)

Site note: The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team's own notes on implementation, from its Review of Implementation of Recommendations from Previous Inquiries into Healthcare Issues (version of 15 May 2024). The review does not colour its Extent of Implementation cell for this recommendation green; it leaves the cell uncoloured where a recommendation was rejected, where evidence of implementation was insufficient, or where steps had been taken but implementation was not yet complete. Table row: section 16.2 No. 19, PDF page 394.

How this page is built

The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.