THIS week, MP Catherine McKinnell brought forward a Bill – supported by me – to correct an anachronistic relic of the past, that is still causing pain to people today.

Clinical negligence, whilst rare, is sadly all too common in many cases. Maternity care has been singled out as a particular focus, however, and we have the data to back it up. As well as the local stories of poor quality care at Yeovil District Hospital, back when the CQC issued a warning notice, the Kirkup review looked into clinical care in East Kent, the Ockenden review investigated Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital, and now Baroness Amos is charged with reviewing 12 maternity units across the country.

All of these reviews bring with them shocking stories of personal tragedy, and tireless campaigners, like Rhiannon Davies and her husband Richard. After the tragic loss of their daughter, Kate, who was just 6 hours old, they vowed that this could never happen again to another family. Rather than a system which, in the words of the Kirkup review “always seems like one person is covering up for the next”, Rhiannon and Richard demanded better.

Faced with these types of situation, where accountability is in short supply – perhaps matched only in its scarcity by trust, it is perhaps no surprise that many patients feel they have to pursue legal avenues to get their answers. When the defensive culture in the NHS runs up against a wronged parent, where else would you expect that parent to go?

Maternity claims, therefore, are the highest value medical negligence claims – and, given the complexity of some of the incidents, take on average six and a half years to conclude.

The Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, has investigated the system of clinical negligence – and we were not satisfied that it either delivers value for money, or a compassionate system. New Zealand operates a comprehensive ‘no-fault’ scheme, costing roughly half of what England spends per capita, whilst Japan’s cerebral palsy scheme combines compensation with a robust investigation and prevention programme – combining a reduction in claims with an improvement in care as a direct result.

Out of the £183-million paid out by the NHS in claims under a value of £25,000 in 2024/25, only £39-million went to patients in the form of damages – the rest was swallowed up by legal fees and defence costs. This cannot be right. The previous Government agreed to a fixed recoverable costs scheme – but that was three years ago, and legislation came there none.

Fundamentally, the Bill is not about numbers on a balance sheet, nor about restricting compensation for those who have experienced harms. It is about the mothers, patients and families who live every day with the consequences of failure, and who are crying out for a system that listens, learns and acts to reduce harm.

This Bill would represent a great step forwards in how we deal, compassionately and fairly, with clinical negligence, and I am proud to have been a part of its progress thus far.