Baby Loss Awareness Week

Debate between Anna Dixon and Andy MacNae

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andy MacNae]

I thank John and Holly for raising that question. Of course, I agree that listening to parents, listening to families and listening to mothers is crucial to a good service. To me, it is the thing that defines a good service: the personalisation and individualisation of care.

Building on that, families must be genuinely involved in decisions. Information must be clear and accessible. Risk must be assessed individually. When a mother or parent says that something is wrong, that concern must be taken seriously. The national action plan should establish what every family is entitled to expect throughout the maternity and neonatal pathway: physical and psychological safety, dignity, informed choice, and compassionate care and communication.

In designing this change, we should recognise that there are midwives, doctors, nurses, support workers and bereavement specialists throughout the country delivering extraordinary care every day, often under immense pressure. We must learn from that and build on it. To give just one local example, we have the Lancashire Women and Newborn Centre in Burnley. Speaking with staff and patients there, we can see what good practice looks like. It is a high-quality environment, with a triage unit to catch early issues. There is mutual respect among staff and personalised care for patients. They take time to listen and to provide compassionate bereavement support when needed. This same high standard of care is replicated in many units throughout the country, so reform must not simply identify what has gone wrong. We must recognise, celebrate and share what works. We must have structures that identify best practice and effectively propagate it throughout maternity services.

That brings me to my fourth point. Supporting and empowering staff must be central to reform. Throughout the all-party parliamentary group’s work, we have heard from healthcare professionals who care deeply about families and take great pride in their work, but goodwill cannot compensate for a lack of time, training, capacity or appropriate facilities. Safe care requires the right staff with the right mix of skills and the right resources and facilities needed to deliver it. Staff need time to listen properly to families, undertake training, reflect on difficult cases and learn from colleagues.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for leading the debate so admirably. One thing we heard at the APPG on patient safety is the need for staff to feel confident to speak out if they see things going wrong and the importance of a safe culture, yet in the NHS staff survey only four in 10 midwives say that their organisation would address concerns if they were raised. Does he agree that we need to do more to build a safe staff culture within the NHS and maternity units?

[Andy MacNae]

I fully agree. I am so glad my hon. Friend raised that point, because she has, wonderfully, set up the next passage of my speech. Staff must be able to raise concerns without fearing damage to their careers. The figure in the NHS staff survey is, I believe, that 43.5% of midwifery staff felt confident that concerns would be addressed. Staff are often the first to recognise when a system is becoming unsafe. If they believe speaking up will make no difference, an opportunity to prevent harm may be lost.

Improving culture must therefore mean more than asking staff to attend another programme or complete another exercise. It must mean creating an environment with time to listen and time to care. Speaking up should be welcomed, concerns taken seriously and those who raise them protected. Boards and senior leaders must hear what staff are telling them. They must be able to trace concerns from the ward to the boardroom, demonstrate what action has been taken and report back to those who spoke up. Whistleblowers must be protected from retaliation or isolation. No healthcare professional should be forced to choose between remaining silent about unsafe care and risking their livelihood by raising it. If staff are trusted, supported and heard, they are far better placed to listen to families in turn. Fundamentally, we should empower staff to provide the standard of care they entered the NHS to deliver.

Finally, we must deliver compassionate and equitable bereavement care. Our daughter Mallorie died at five days old. Nothing could have been done to prevent that, and we received exceptional care throughout our time in hospital. We also received good emotional support in the immediate aftermath from hospital staff, but trauma can take time to kick in. The impacts of losing a child do not end after a week or a month or a year. They stay with us. My wife, Vanessa, suffered depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in the years following Mallorie’s death. For 11 years now, she has had consistent difficulties accessing specialist and sustained mental health support. Instead, she has been bounced between short-term interventions and generalists, and often reliant on limited voluntary services. At no point was she able to get support from a mental health professional who actually specialised in birth trauma. She was never able to return to her role as a senior health visitor. She has now had her NHS career terminated on ill health grounds and she is back on another waiting list for therapy.

Vanessa’s experience is far from unique. Time and again, I have heard from mothers and fathers about how the system was incapable of responding to their individual circumstance, and the timing and depth of trauma.

Road Safety

Debate between Anna Dixon and Andy MacNae

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy MacNae]

Absolutely. This is a hugely important issue and, as in many other areas, we know the solutions. Fantastic work is done by organisations such as Active Travel England that detail the solutions, yet our current or past funding structures make it incredibly difficult. I am campaigning in our constituency for a safe path to a school, yet I find there are essentially no dedicated funding opportunities to meet that very obvious and stark need. This is an absolutely crucial area.

I mentioned active travel, but there is also the question of older people. Residents in social housing along Newchurch Road in Rossendale feel trapped in their estate because there is literally nowhere safe to cross the road near them to reach the amenities they need.

In 2023, there were 1,624 road deaths in Great Britain and 132,977 casualties in total. Pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists still make up a disproportionate share of those killed or seriously injured on UK roads. Department for Transport estimates suggest that the annual cost of reported road collisions is around £43 billion. We cannot afford any of these costs, so what do we do about it? We know the basic principles, and we have touched on them in the debate, with many Members raising them brilliantly.

Many local authorities have adopted strategies based around vision zero, which is an approach originally adopted in countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands. It emphasises that no level of death or serious injury is acceptable on the roads, and it is focused on prevention, protection and post-collision response, coupled with evidence-based targets and robust safety performance indicators. We know that such approaches can be effective and save a great deal of money over the long term, but as we have seen and heard, there seems to be a huge gap between strategy and practical implementation.

If we want to be serious about tackling this issue, we must move towards a truly proactive, community-led approach to road safety that is informed by statistics and not led by them. In such a model, rather than claiming that a centrally held database knows better, we trust the instincts, experiences and wishes of those who use the roads every day. Instead of waiting around until enough people have been hurt to merit an intervention, we proactively identify high-risk areas, and we act.

An excellent example of that approach in action can be seen in the Netherlands. Over the past decade, both Rotterdam and the Hague have been using an algorithm to determine the likelihood of crashes on their roads. The model considers a range of factors, including past crashes, traffic flow, the features of the road, and the presence of on-road parking. From that, it creates a risk rating for each road. Crucially, this rating informs, rather than leads, the local authorities’ decisions. Community experience and input are a key factor in the decision-making process. The ratings are combined with an analysis of the volumes and severity of complaints the authorities receive regarding specific roads. Out of this community-led, data-informed model, the local authorities choose to proactively intervene to protect their citizens.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. It is personal to me, as I lost my grandfather in a road traffic accident before I was even born, and my grandmother was left with disability. Shipley experienced 183 road casualties in 2023, one of which was fatal. My hon. Friend mentions vision zero. West Yorkshire has a vision zero partnership that seeks to eliminate all traffic fatalities and injuries by 2040. It brings together the combined authority with local authorities, emergency services and National Highways, as well as victim support and road safety campaigners—speaking to his point about community. Is there still a place—I suggest that there is—for these vision zero partnerships, alongside the community approaches that he is advocating?