Back in May of 2025, I wrote a letter to Wes Streeting MP, expressing concern that harmed families from Shrewsbury and Telford were being sidelined and ignored when potential changes to maternity safety funding were being considered. Despite being aware that this letter was placed directly on his desk, and was also profiled with an interview by the BBC, I received no reply.

The following month, in June of 2025, a “rapid review” into maternity care in the UK was announced but only two family members from the Shrewsbury and Telford families were contacted and offered an opportunity to be involved in the process. By August of 2025, it was publicly announced that the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust (SATH) was one of the Trusts included in this review, to be led by Baroness Amos but there was still no contact made with any additional families from our area.

On 21st September, I wrote a further letter expressing my deep concern over this and sent it directly to Baroness Amos’ team and Wes Streeting MPs team. After some consideration, I made a decision not to publicise that letter here because I wanted to give either or both of their offices a chance to reply. However, it is today 21st October so an entire month has passed and, despite receiving a brief confirmation of receipt email from a member of staff, I have not received any further reply. On that basis, I will include the full text of this letter below.

This morning, I have learned that Shrewsbury and Telford have been formally removed from the rapid review into maternity care and that the two family members who had previously been involved on the panel have also now been removed. Apparently, this is being done on the advice of the police who have indicated that involvement in such a review would harm Operation Lincoln, which is the ongoing investigation into potential criminal responsibility at the Trust over decades of negligent maternity care. There has been no discussion with harmed families about either this advice or the resulting decision.

To say that I am both shocked and horrified by this decision would be an understatement.

Currently, we know that the review into maternity harm and avoidable death in Nottingham is the largest in NHS history, with I believe, around 2,500 families being considered. However, prior to this, the investigation into maternity harm and avoidable death in Shrewsbury and Telford was the largest in NHS history with a final figure of 1,486 families involved, some of whom experienced multiple incidents of harm either to mothers or babies. It is a good thing that the police are investigating this situation, however as will always be the case with a wide ranging police investigation, these things take time – if I remember correctly, Operation Lincoln began over five years ago and shows no sign of concluding anytime soon; it is also presently limited to corporate manslaughter so many of our families do not fit this narrow remit. However, three years ago in 2022, the Ockenden Review into the catastrophic events in our area was published with no suggestion that doing so would harm police activities. So why should participating in a much less involved, rapid review do so?

Once again, I am deeply concerned that families from Shrewsbury and Telford are being sidelined, our concerns ignored and our experiences dismissed. Our voices deserve to be heard, alongside those of other harmed families across the country, and lessons need to be learned from our experiences. There are 1,486 families in this area who have experienced avoidable bereavement, avoidable harm, lifelong disability and have had their lives changed forever as a direct result of care at our local hospitals that has been proven to be negligent.

So why are we being excluded and our experiences dismissed? This is unacceptable.

Text of letter sent on 21st September 2025 below:

Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP

By email only

21 September 2025

Re: Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Dear Mr Streeting,

I am writing to express my concern about how the Maternity and Neonatal Investigation, under the leadership of Baroness Amos, has so far sought input and participation from families harmed by negligent maternity care.  

By way of brief introduction, my son was catastrophically harmed at the point of his birth in Shrewsbury Hospital, when a developing Group B Strep infection triggered meningitis, signs of which were not attended to or treated in a timely manner by hospital staff. Despite my pregnancy being full term, my son ended up on life support in NICU for 23 days and has been left with a brain injury, is both hearing and visually impaired, autistic, asthmatic, has severe learning delays, demonstrates behaviour that is violent and challenging and at the age of just 14, due to the severity of his needs, has lived in full time residential care for the last three years. 

At the time of my son’s birth, I haemorrhaged, nearly died and then experienced a full pelvic split, which kept me hospitalised for 18 days and initially left doctors suggesting I may never walk again. Thankfully my body did eventually heal but the resulting trauma of these events has resulted in over a decade of campaigning for improvement in maternity safety, a need for extensive therapy, and the sight of a crash team surrounding our newborn son, as his tiny body shook with convulsions, haunted my late husband until the point of his death in 2020. There was no investigation by the hospital into the events that led to this catastrophic avoidable harm, but we were one of the original ‘23’ families that formed part of the Ockenden Review.

In 2021, after a year’s long legal battle, NHS Resolutions on behalf of Shrewsbury Hospital, finally admitted 80% liability for my son’s injuries at the High Court and both legal teams continue to work towards an eventual settlement intended to meet his lifelong medical and care needs. Our story has been frequently profiled in the media, and you may remember it from my earlier letter to you this past May, although this sadly received no response.

My story is relatively unique in that my son survived, where the babies of so many Shrewsbury families died. However, you will be aware that the stories of both negligence and harm in the Shrewsbury and Telford areas include horrific situations of infant death and stillbirth, maternal harm and death, as well as harm and resulting disabilities in both mothers and babies, all of which were avoidable. Each family has different relevant experience to contribute to any review of maternity and neonatal care as we all work together to improve future outcomes for families like ours. However, I was very concerned to have it confirmed to me earlier this week that only two families from this area have so far been invited to contribute to the terms of reference for Baroness Amos’ appointment and review. This occurred when one of the Nottingham families forwarded copies of four letters they had received, one from Marian Holliday sent on 24^th July but including thanks for responses received to a letter from you sent on 20^th June, another from your Senior Private Secretary sent on 13^th August thanking families for their input towards the choice of Chair for the review and to its Terms of Reference, a third sent on 13^th August sent by Baroness Amos introducing herself to families and including a revised draft of these Terms of Reference and finally, a fourth sent by Baroness Amos on 2^nd September, advising of next steps for the review and including a proposed shortlist of experts intended to assist her in which she invited feedback.  

At this point, Mr Streeting, I am left wondering why a vast majority of families have been left unaware of progress so far made, being left to hear updates via the media, and have not been invited to contribute in any way to either the appointment of the Baroness, her expert team or to the Terms of Reference.  I am aware that representatives from two families from my area, Mrs Rhiannon Stanton-Davies and Mrs Kayleigh Griffiths were invited to participate, and while none of us doubt their passion, commitment or skills in the area of maternity campaigning, they cannot represent the experiences of 1,486 families whose situations were included in the Ockenden Review. Their stories of avoidable infant death are entirely tragic, and I have the greatest of respect for the work they have engaged in through the years, but theirs is only one aspect of the harm inflicted upon families in this area. 

If Baroness Amos’ review was intended to be a lengthy process, similar to that conducted by Donna Ockenden, then I would be content to wait and see if a larger number of families were contacted by the Baronesses team.  However, as you have ordered this review to be rapid and release early findings by December 2025 with final results by Spring 2026, I do not believe there is a luxury of waiting for developments. I note from your letter of 13^th August that, “Baroness Amos has personally committed to work with yourselves and other families in a way that ensured families voices are at the centre of this investigation…” (Letter to Maternity Families 13082025, pg.2) At this point, I am wondering how this centring of family voices and experiences may be achieved when only two families from my area have so far been invited to participate? I am aware that Donna Ockenden offered contact details of a variety of families to the team who could be contacted but this offer has not been taken up. 

As I believe it to be most constructive when suggestions are put forward, rather than simply complaints, I would like to make it clear that I do understand it is not possible to include all 1,486 families from this area, and similar numbers from the other nine Trusts chosen for review. However, I believe that at minimum, representative families who have experienced baby death, stillbirth, baby brain damage, death of a mother, and maternal harm should all be invited to participate, in order to ensure a diversity of experiences are included.

From the start, I have been concerned that a rapid review, even under expert leadership, will not succeed in getting to the bottom of catastrophic failings in maternity care in the UK; I continue to believe that a statutory public enquiry would be more effective. However, I note from the letters forwarded to me that this has already been highlighted to the Baroness, with her response being, “The Secretary of State will consider future calls for an inquiry depending on the recommendations of the Investigation.” (Summary of Family Feedback for ToR, pg.3) On that point alone, I will therefore pay close attention to the results of this investigation and your decisions going forward. However, working within the remit of this current investigation, I would be grateful to hear that, in light of our extremely diverse experiences, a wider group of families as suggested above, will be invited to contribute to the review.  Should it be helpful, as a mother whose child suffered a brain injury and has been left with multiple, lifelong complex disabilities, I am willing to be among those representative families.

For clarity, I copy this letter to Donna Ockenden as I am among the group of families currently working with her to improve communication between SATH and harmed families, and also copy the letter to Baroness Amos, via the Maternity and Neonatal Investigation Team. 

I look forward to your early reply.

Kind Regards,

Rev’d Charlotte Cheshire   

Cc:       Donna Ockenden 

Baroness Amos, via Maternity & Neonatal Investigation Team