In a recent development that has drawn significant attention and controversy, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has been accused of a “betrayal” regarding funding for maternity care amidst a reevaluation of budget allocations. This issue has been brought to the forefront following the aftermath of an interim report that highlighted severe deficiencies in maternity care at the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust. Following the publication of this report, a substantial investment of approximately £100 million per year was allocated to enhance maternity safety. However, recent changes instituted by the Department of Health have drastically reduced the guaranteed funding for maternity care to a mere £2 million for the year.
The implications of this funding cut are profound, particularly for campaigners and families affected by tragedies in maternity wards. Rhiannon Davies, who is a poignant voice in this discourse having lost her daughter due to inadequate care at the Shrewsbury Trust, expressed her outrage, deeming the decision an “absolute betrayal by Wes Streeting.” Such comments echo the outcry from various advocacy groups and the Royal College of Midwives, who characterized the funding adjustments as akin to swinging “a wrecking ball” through essential maternity services.
The reallocation of funding cap raises eyebrows as it places reliance on local health leaders within the Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to determine spending priorities. The concern is that without specifically allocated funds for maternity care, resources may be diverted elsewhere, effectively undermining previous commitments to enhance safety in maternity services.
The historical context surrounding this issue is critical to understanding its gravity. The inquiry into the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust unveiled devastating results showing that around 201 babies and nine mothers might have survived with more attentive care. The 2022 review, which followed an interim report back in March 2021, prompted NHS England to claim it would significantly boost maternity expenditure, including hiring up to 1,000 midwives and 80 consultant obstetricians. Moreover, the funds were aimed at facilitating collaborative training for midwives and consultants, a recommendation initially highlighted by senior midwife Donna Ockenden.
However, recent analyses by the Health Service Journal reveal stark discrepancies in funding allocations for the year 2025/26, where it has been determined that only a fraction of the promised funding—the aforementioned £2 million—will be explicitly reserved for maternity care. With the remaining funds subject to the decision-making of the 42 ICBs, there is palpable apprehension that maternity budgets could face drastic cuts. A senior midwife has voiced concerns by stating that the removal of protective budgets would impede the progress achieved in maternal health, reminiscent of setbacks from years prior.
Adding to this dissatisfaction, Ockenden herself expressed profound disappointment on social media, questioning how such drastic changes could occur, particularly given the context of continuous challenges in perinatal care services. The reality the maternity staff face is one filled with fear of potentially devastating cuts to services which had only begun to see improvement.
In contrast to the backlash, the Department of Health reassures that maternity care remains a top priority, asserting that the same funding level will be maintained through ICB allocations, thereby supposedly allowing local healthcare leaders the flexibility needed to serve their communities. They emphasized ongoing commitment to providing safe, personalized, and compassionate maternity care, alongside plans to expedite improvements in hospitals and augment training for midwives.
Ultimately, the crux of the issue lies in the tension between local flexibility in health funding allocation and the urgent need for guaranteed financial support within maternity services. It is a delicate balance, especially when lives depend on the very fabric of care that these funds are intended to secure. As this situation unfolds, it remains critical for stakeholders, including governmental departments and advocacy groups, to navigate these challenges with an unwavering commitment to maternity safety and care quality.