Two major NHS trusts—Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust (SaTH) and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (LTH)—have been abruptly removed from England’s national review into maternity failings, a decision that has provoked outrage among bereaved parents, campaigners, and local politicians. The move, announced on October 22, 2025, has shifted the focus of the government’s “rapid review” to twelve other trusts, with a final report still expected by December. Yet for many, the exclusion of SaTH and LTH leaves a gaping hole in the inquiry’s credibility and scope.
According to multiple reports from the BBC, the removal of SaTH followed discussions with West Mercia Police, who have been conducting a criminal investigation into the trust since 2020. This investigation, which includes the interviewing of current and former staff, aims to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges in relation to catastrophic failings in maternity care. In the case of LTH, the trust is now subject to a separate, newly announced maternity inquiry, which Health Secretary Wes Streeting described as a step intended to help families "learn the truth about what went wrong in their care."
The rapid review was initially established to examine the worst-performing maternity and neonatal services in England, with the aim of learning from systemic failures and preventing future tragedies. Both SaTH and LTH had been included due to their troubling records. A 2022 review led by senior midwife Donna Ockenden found that catastrophic failures at SaTH may have contributed to the deaths of more than 200 babies, nine mothers, and left other infants with life-changing injuries. At LTH, a BBC investigation uncovered that at least 56 babies and two mothers died under potentially preventable circumstances over the past five years. Earlier in 2025, LTH’s maternity units were downgraded from “good” to “inadequate” after unannounced inspections raised serious concerns about avoidable harm to women and babies.
For families affected by these tragedies, the decision to remove the trusts from the national review feels like a betrayal. Rhiannon Davies and Kayleigh Griffiths, bereaved mothers who were instrumental in campaigning for the original inquiry into poor care at SaTH, expressed their "profound disbelief" at what they called a "misguided decision." In a letter to review chair Baroness Valerie Amos, they wrote, "The experiences of families from Shrewsbury and Telford remain pivotal to understanding the origins and necessity of the national review." Their plea was echoed by other families who feel their stories are now at risk of being sidelined.
Charlotte Cheshire, whose son was left severely disabled due to failings in Shropshire’s maternity services, told the BBC she was "absolutely horrified" to learn of SaTH’s removal. "I cannot see how there is any possibility of Baroness Amos and her team actually getting to the bottom of the issues that could improve maternity care going forward," Cheshire said. She learned of the exclusion when a letter was sent to some parents on October 21, 2025, a move that many saw as abrupt and insensitive.
North Shropshire MP Helen Morgan, who also serves as the Liberal Democrat health spokesperson, voiced her concerns both in Parliament and to the press. "I am quite concerned that a review into maternity care in the UK doesn't think it can learn from one of the most in-depth investigations into failings at a maternity unit over decades," Morgan stated. She further emphasized the importance of including families who have endured "incredible tragedy and trauma," asserting that their experiences are highly relevant to any meaningful national inquiry.
The government’s rationale for the exclusions hinges on procedural and legal considerations. SaTH’s ongoing police investigation, led by West Mercia Police, is cited as the principal reason for its removal. The police probe, launched in 2020, is examining whether criminal charges are warranted following the Ockenden review’s damning findings. Meanwhile, LTH’s inclusion in a separate, dedicated inquiry is framed as a way to provide focused attention to the trust’s specific issues, though critics argue this fragments the national effort and risks obscuring broader systemic lessons.
In response to the mounting criticism, Baroness Amos issued an apology for the "distress" caused by the change. She assured families that their "views on national aspects" of the inquiry could still be included, though many remain unconvinced that their stories will be given the weight they deserve. Rhiannon Davies, whose baby Kate died just six hours after birth in 2009, told the BBC, "This is a high-level, thematic investigation... it's not looking at specific cases or events... therefore it can exist completely in parallel." Her point underscores a widespread fear that the inquiry, as currently structured, may fail to capture the full scope of what went wrong—and what must change.
The sense of exclusion is particularly acute for families in Shropshire and Leeds. For years, campaigners from both regions have fought to have their voices heard and their losses acknowledged at a national level. The Ockenden review, which originated from grassroots efforts by bereaved parents, was a testament to the power of collective advocacy. Its findings shocked the nation and catalyzed calls for sweeping reform. To now be left out of the national review feels, to many, like a step backwards.
The government, for its part, maintains that the rapid review remains robust and that the separate inquiries will still deliver answers and accountability. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has publicly expressed hope that the Leeds-focused inquiry will "help families learn the truth about what went wrong in their care." The trust itself claims it is "taking significant steps to address improvements," though details remain scant.
As December approaches and the national review’s report deadline looms, questions persist about the inquiry’s legitimacy and inclusiveness. Can a review that omits two of the country’s most scrutinized and troubled trusts truly deliver on its promise to overhaul maternity care? Or does the exclusion of SaTH and LTH represent a missed opportunity to learn from the deepest wounds in the system?
For families like those of Rhiannon Davies, Kayleigh Griffiths, and Charlotte Cheshire, the stakes could not be higher. Their determination to see meaningful change—rooted in personal tragedy and public advocacy—continues to drive the conversation, even as official channels shift and narrow. As the nation awaits the review’s findings, their voices serve as a poignant reminder that accountability and reform in maternity care are battles still very much underway.
