Infants, Parents and Carers Bill

Allison Gardner Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 4th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I have spoken in this House before about Stoke’s rates of infant mortality, which consistently rank among the highest in the country. In the latest data, the infant mortality rate in Stoke-on-Trent was 7.6 deaths per 1,000 live births, almost double the national average. It is a stain on our society that in 2026 a child’s chances of reaching their first birthday can be influenced by where they are born. Infant mortality is explicitly linked to socioeconomic deprivation and is a consequence of deep-rooted inequality.

Tackling our infant mortality rate is a goal that is deeply important to me, and I want to take this opportunity to tell the story of one of my constituents, Ashley Wilshaw—I will get upset—and the short life of her baby daughter, Chloe. It is upsetting, so if anybody who has experienced baby loss wants to step out, I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker will understand.

Chloe was born prematurely, just before 26 weeks, on 28 April 2011. That may sound like a long time ago, but it is not to Ashley. She was, in her mum’s words,

“a settled, healthy and happy baby, a baby who knew what she wanted and fought so hard to be here.”

As a premature baby, Chloe was at high risk of necrotising enterocolitis, or NEC, a serious bowel condition that can become life-threatening without quick intervention. Chloe had received blood transfusions and had been given formula milk, which are both risk factors for NEC. Chloe began to show signs that something was wrong. She became pale and quiet, her body temperature lowered, her heart rate rose to 200 beats per minute, she struggled to breathe, she began vomiting profusely and she refused feeds. Her abdomen became hard and distended, and blood appeared in her feeding tube—a clear sign of a perforated bowel, which leads to sepsis.

Ashley did what any concerned parent should do—she asked questions, but she was not listened to. She was told that the blood was Gaviscon and that Chloe needed to continue being fed and medicated, causing Chloe agony. Ashley still was not listened to. When she persisted in raising concerns about Chloe, one nurse described her as an “over-the-top mother”. Chloe’s symptoms worsened. The investigations that may have identified the problem sooner were not carried out when they could have made a difference. Lactate levels were not checked. Blood gases were not carried out as appropriate. Scans focused narrowly on her lungs, and feeding continued despite signs of feed intolerance.

Tragically, little Chloe died on 4 June 2011, aged just 37 days old. Leaving behind a very traumatised mum who, 15 years later, still struggles every day with her mental health to cope with the memory of the unnecessary pain and death of her precious baby girl.

[Amanda Hack]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in such an emotional debate. Does she agree that looking after mothers before, during and after having a baby is vital, particularly when birth trauma or, sadly, baby loss is suffered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Gardner]

I wholeheartedly agree. I have never experienced it myself, but I live in awe of how women keep managing to go, day to day, having had that experience.

After fighting for answers, Ashley finally achieved an independent review, which identified missed opportunities to detect and treat Chloe’s NEC earlier, alongside multiple instances of sub-optimal care. That review came after four earlier investigations, fought for by Ashley, that, by the trust’s own admission, had not been conducted to the required standard.

Finally, the Royal Stoke hospital has accepted the independent review and its conclusions in full. It has apologised to Chloe’s family and acknowledged that Chloe most likely would have survived had those opportunities to detect and treat her NEC not been missed. This is devastating, because at the heart of this case is a mother who knew that something was wrong; a mother who should have been listened to, and a baby girl fighting to live.

I must state that the Royal Stoke has made considerable improvements to its maternity services in recent years. At the time of Chloe’s short life, the maternity service was rated as requiring improvement, with safety rated as inadequate. However, after much work, self-reflection, culture change and process improvements, the service is now rated good. I had the honour of visiting and seeing the work of the amazing midwives. I commend the hospital for turning things around.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour just acknowledged the massive improvements at the Royal Stoke hospital, and I join her in doing so because the impact on both my constituents and hers has been huge.

[Dr Gardner]

My hon. Friend was with me on that visit, and I am sure he remembers how impressive it was. Importantly, one of the areas highlighted in that service improvement was communication with families and the way that feedback and concerns are now heard and acted upon. Listening to parents is not an optional extra; it is part of delivering safe and effective care. I ask only now, 15 years after Chloe died, that the hospital finally forward the agreed settlement to Ashley. She wants to provide a caravan holiday home by the sea for parents who have experienced the loss of a child, to allow them time to grieve and rest from the trauma.

That brings me back to why the Bill matters. It calls for better support, guidance and information for parents and carers. In providing that support, we must recognise that parents know their children best. They know what is normal for their baby. They notice when something is changing. They may not always have the medical vocabulary to explain exactly what is wrong, but their observations are valuable. Their concerns should be acknowledged and considered and, where appropriate, incorporated into the clinical picture. Chloe’s case shows why that matters. Ashley saw that something was wrong; she raised concerns, she asked questions and she should have been listened to.

Even while contending with the grief of losing her daughter, Ashley has sought to ensure that another family does not experience what hers did, and to ensure that Chloe’s legacy lives on. Ashley has developed recommendations for dealing with NEC, which show exactly what better support and guidance are needed—practical recommendations grounded in her lived experience. I ask the Minister to meet Chloe’s mother Ashley Wilshaw and me to discuss the recommendations and the lessons that can be learned from Chloe’s case. In the interests of time, I will not go through them now.

I will never forget little Chloe Wilshaw or her brave mum Ashley. I hope Ashley has received some comfort from today. She has been listened to. I thank the Bill’s sponsor, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), for bringing this crucial Bill to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I am honoured to support the Bill. With it, we may create a brighter future for all our children.

Infants, Parents and Carers Bill (First sitting)

Allison Gardner Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill’s ambition to strengthen support for babies, parents and carers during pregnancy and the earliest years of life. Parents love their babies and want them to be happy and healthy, and Governments must support them in that important role.

I acknowledge that the simplicity of the Bill is part of its beauty. I understand that there is a little resistance to adding amendments and creating Christmas tree legislation, but I worry that in fear of creating such legislation we risk—apologies for the pun—throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we do not make explicit in the Bill amendments on inequalities that will be difficult to change in future. To put it starkly, we have to be honest that it would be very hard, politically, to argue for the removal of provision on inequalities from the babies Bill. It is important to build that into the Bill.

I strongly support amendment 1, which would require the Secretary of State to consider the wellbeing of babies and their parents, and inequalities in their outcomes, when assessing need and reporting on infant support services. The amendment speaks to why we are all here: to improve babies and parents lives. We need to understand whether families are doing well, where outcomes are falling short and where further action is needed. We cannot just look at national statistics. An improvement in the national average can conceal the fact that some babies are being left further behind. We need to be able to look at the outliers.

Across the country, there are stark and persistent inequalities. A baby’s chance of surviving pregnancy, birth and their first years of life, and of growing up healthy and developing well, are affected by factors including family income, ethnicity, disability and where they live. The amendment would ensure that future Secretaries of State pay attention to those differences when making decisions in what they do and where they target action and resources.

On Second Reading I talked about Stoke-on-Trent’s persistently high infant mortality rate. The number of babies in Stoke-on-Trent who die before their first birthday is almost twice the national rate. We frequently top that saddest of all charts. If national Government do not pay attention to those local differences and inequalities, they will miss opportunities to improve and save babies lives.

Behind every statistic is a real baby whose life has been lost. [Interruption.] It is a hard one, this one. I will never forget little Chloe Wilshaw, or her brave mum Ashley, who I talked about on Second Reading. These are the babies and families I think of when we talk about the need to do better. I am very grateful that, following that debate, not only has the Minister agreed to meet Ashley, but so has the maternity commissioner, to really bring about change. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for enabling that opportunity.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to clause 3(3), which states:

“The Secretary of State may determine that different levels of provision are appropriate in different areas.”

She makes the point very well that Ministers have to bear in mind exactly what she is drawing the Committee’s attention to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Gardner]

I acknowledge that point, and it is clear in that clause, but I feel very strongly that the Bill should deal with inequality explicitly.

The amendment would establish a clear and consistent base for assessing needs and holding Governments to account. Governments and priorities change. We all know the future Governments may not care as much as today’s Ministers do about how babies are doing or addressing inequalities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft so clearly explained. Putting outcomes and inequalities on the face of the Bill would help to ensure that they remain central to decision making and reporting in the years ahead.

We owe it to every baby and every family to understand where support is falling short, to confront the inequalities that persist and to ensure that no child’s early experiences and life chances—and no parent’s experience of their children—are determined by their postcode or family circumstances.