F29

Sanctions and interventions for non-compliance

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: Accepted (Nov 2013)

DeliveryDHSC and NHS England say in progress (Feb 2026)Department of Health and Social Care says in progress (Feb 2015)

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

It should be an offence for death or serious injury to be caused to a patient by a breach of these regulatory requirements, or, in any other case of breach, where a warning notice in respect of the breach has been served and the notice has not been complied with. It should be a defence for the provider to prove that all reasonably practicable steps have been taken to prevent a breach, including having in place a prescribed system to prevent such a breach.

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 recommended creating a criminal offence when regulatory breaches cause patient death or serious injury. In commentary of September 2024, published in February 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England stated that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) can prosecute providers without a prior warning notice under regulations introduced in 2014 (DHSC and NHS England, Feb 2026). The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team found in May 2024 that regulations made breaches prosecutable where avoidable harm or significant risk occurred, with a defence available if providers took all reasonable steps (The Thirlwall Inquiry legal team, May 2024).

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 5 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 · 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

Accepted.
We agree that there should be serious consequences for any organisation that breaches basic quality standards in the provision of care.
In its response to the Inquiry, Patients First and Foremost, the Government committed to draw up a new set of fundamental standards of care that will sit within the legal requirements that providers of health and adult social care must meet to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The fundamental standards of care set a clear bar below which standards of care should not fall and focus on the very basics of care that matter to people and will be easily understood by all. These fundamental standards will be consulted on soon, and further details of this are set out in recommendation 13.
There will be immediate, serious consequences for services where care falls below these standards. Subject to the passage of regulations, the Care Quality Commission will have new powers during 2014, including the ability to prosecute a provider for failing to provide fundamental levels of care, without having to issue a formal warning first. See recommendation 28 for further details.

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 in progress · 27 Feb 2026

As per Government response in 2014. When the fundamental standards came into effect, the CQC published a new enforcement policy for all providers. This permitted the CQC to prosecute a provider without first issuing a warning notice.

As the Thirlwall Inquiry has noted breaches of regs. 11, 16(3), 17(3), 20(2)(a), 20(3) and 20A of the Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 were made prosecutable without the need for a warning notice or harm.

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 “Implemented - Ongoing”. Table row: section 18.2 No. 29, PDF page 438-439.

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

The Care Quality Commission have made progress in ensuring that providers can be held to account where they provide care that is of an unacceptable standard.

When the new fundamental standards come into force in April 2015, the Care Quality Commission will publish a new enforcement policy for all providers. This will allow the Care Quality Commission to take the most appropriate action straight away. For example, the Care Quality Commission will be able to prosecute a provider without first issuing a warning notice, where appropriate. The Care Quality Commission will use these new arrangements to protect people who use regulated services from harm and the risk of harm and to hold providers and individuals to account for failures in how the service is provided.

The changes to the Care Quality Commission’s enforcement policy do not mean that the principles that underpin effective enforcement will change. The effective use and deployment of the Care Quality Commission’s powers are achieved through robust evidence gathering at the outset, consideration of the range of enforcement tools available and taking action that is proportionate to the concerns identified and the impact on people who use services.

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.

What other bodies have found

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

●Thirlwall Inquiry legal team · 15 May 2024

The Government accepted this recommendation.

Breaches of regs. 11, 16(3), 17(3), 20(2)(a), 20(3) and 20A of the Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 were made prosecutable without the need for a warning notice or harm.

Breaches of regs. 12 to 14 were made prosecutable if the breach resulted in patients being exposed to avoidable harm, significant risk of harm occurring or loss of money/property. This included a power to prosecute for failure to provide safe care and treatment. Reg. 22(4) provided a defence of proving that all reasonable steps were taken and all due diligence exercise to prevent the breach of the regulations which occurred.

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. 29, PDF page 400-401.

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.