10 Accepted in Part

Indemnity regulation reform

Paterson Inquiry · Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Issues raised by Paterson · Issued 4 February 2020 · Addressed to: Department of Health and Social Care

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation

We recommend that the Government should, as a matter of urgency, reform the current regulation of indemnity products for healthcare professionals in light of the serious shortcomings identified by this Inquiry and introduce a nationwide safety net to ensure patients are not disadvantaged.

Paterson Inquiry, Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Issues raised by Paterson · 4 Feb 2020 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:

- In December 2021, the government accepted this recommendation in principle, stating that medical defence organisations were being encouraged to develop reforms to discretionary indemnity products (Government Response to the Paterson Inquiry, DHSC, December 2021).
- In a Written Ministerial Statement on 7 March 2024 (HCWS318), the government stated that medical defence organisations had proposed to implement a sector-led Code of Practice for discretionary indemnity cover by end of 2024, and that the government had commissioned an independent evaluation of the Code (Written Ministerial Statement HCWS318, 7 March 2024).
- On 6 January 2025, the Medical Defence Union, Medical Protection Society, and Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland launched a voluntary Code of Practice establishing seven core principles for discretionary indemnity cover (Progress update on recommendation 10, July 2025).
- No published legislation requiring mandatory regulation of medical indemnity products has been identified to March 2026.

Response — verbatim from government

Department of Health and Social Care

Accepted in principle. Medical defence organisations launched a voluntary Code of Practice for discretionary indemnity on 6 January 2025. DHSC commissioned an independent evaluation of the Code. Government continues to consider further policy options to reform clinical negligence cover, including addressing cover for criminal acts. The Code is voluntary, not the mandatory 'nationwide safety net' the Inquiry recommended. (Sources: Written Ministerial Statement HCWS318, March 2024; Lords Written Statement HLWS789, 8 July 2025)

Department of Health and Social Care · 16 Dec 2021

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

  • 8 Jul 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care The voluntary Code of Practice was launched by the Medical Defence Union, Medical Protection Society, and Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland on 6 January 2025, establishing seven core principles. Lords Written Statement HLWS789 (8 July 2025, Baroness Merron): DHSC has commissioned an independent evaluation of the Code to assess its impact. Government continues to consider additional policy reforms including addressing cover for criminal acts. The Code remains voluntary and does not constitute the mandatory nationwide safety net recommended by the inquiry. Source →
  • 7 Mar 2024 · Department of Health and Social Care Written Ministerial Statement HCWS318 (7 March 2024, Minister Will Quince): Medical defence organisations proposed to implement a sector-led Code of Practice for discretionary indemnity cover by end of 2024. The Code would establish principles for corporate governance, fair member treatment, scope of benefits, decision-making, and complaints review, to provide greater transparency around discretionary indemnity. Government announced it would keep wider policy reform options under consideration. Source →

Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.

How this page is built

Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.

This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.