Maternity Commissioner

Maya Ellis Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this debate. A huge thank you to Louise Thompson, Theo Clarke and the 150,000 people who signed this petition, for keeping maternity services on the agenda.

The petition before us is motivated by a very real and deeply painful issue: the loss of trust in maternity services following preventable harm and trauma. I welcome the passion behind this petition. However, I fear that maternity care may be too complex, too nuanced and too diverse to be well served by a single national maternity commissioner, and that focusing our energy on that risks allowing the Government to tick a box, when what would make the greatest difference is sustained, courageous investment in maternity services themselves, as many of my colleagues have highlighted.

Much of the current maternity debate understandably centres on trauma, risk and dissatisfaction. Those things matter, and I know others today have focused, and will focus, on how we reduce that. But when those become the only things we measure, we distort the entire system. I will therefore focus my comments today on women themselves, because how women experience birth is not a “nice to have”; it has profound consequences for mental health, family wellbeing and long-term outcomes. Around one in four women experiences perinatal mental health problems, costing the UK £8.1 billion annually when left untreated. That is true no matter what a birth is like.

I would like to put my hand up today and say that I am a bit fed up with people rolling their eyes at the concept of a birth plan, for example. Of course women know that things might not happen exactly as they had hoped; a woman’s birth plan is about being prepared for all eventualities, expressing her wishes and being empowered. Anyone who suggests otherwise is undermining the right of women to feel in control and prepared for this huge change in their lives.

I have had some beautifully powerful discussions with my colleagues over the past few months on the topic of giving birth. Some of them have felt looked down on for having a C-section, and some, like myself, have felt looked down on for wanting a home birth. The fact is that all those choices are completely valid. The problem is not someone’s birth choice; it is anyone judging them for it.

On that point, I want to gently address an elephant in the room. The concept that midwives have sought “the pursuit of normal birth at any cost” entered public policy following the Morecambe Bay investigation in 2015. It was never intended as a literal description of all midwifery practice, yet it became a powerful and damaging shorthand. The report described a “seriously dysfunctional” service, which was

“influenced by a small number of dominant individuals”,

where poor leadership, weak clinical skills and failures in basic risk assessment created a “lethal mix”. The problem was not support for physiological birth; it was unsafe practice and toxic culture.

However, over time, that nuance has been lost. Supporting physiological birth became conflated with recklessness. Midwifery philosophy was portrayed as being in opposition to safety, rather than working in partnership with it, as professional standards make very clear. The result has been a false binary in policy-thinking—safety versus choice, intervention versus physiology, or risk management versus women’s autonomy. That false binary still shapes decision making today, and it contributes to women feeling that birth is something done to them, rather than by them. If we continue talking in this way, I fear that we are making women’s bodies a political football. I believe that we and this Government are capable of better.

I have heard directly from senior clinicians that rising intervention rates are linked to older mothers or decreasing health standards, yet the data does not back that up. The average age of a birthing mother has risen by less than a year since 2014, and the percentage of women giving birth over 35 went up from 23% to just 25%. That small increase cannot explain a 45% increase in interventions over the same period. We have to move away from anecdote and ensure that we are using the data. If this debate becomes another iteration of that same binary, we risk repeating the very mistakes that brought us here. While I welcome the clear passion behind the ask for a maternity commissioner, I worry that it would not capture the nuance of opinion and experience in the birthing space.

There is so much more that I would love to say about how brilliant and resilient midwives are; about how brave every person who experiences and supports someone through childbirth is, even when we are expected to just crack on and deal with it; and about how great it is that our new women’s health strategy focuses on the importance of women being listened to. However, in the interest of time, I will finally focus on what we need from this Government.

If we are serious about improving outcomes, we already know where to look. Continuity of midwifery care is recommended by both the World Health Organisation and NICE, and it is associated with fewer pre-term births, lower rates of loss and significantly higher satisfaction from families. Randomised control trials show that those benefits apply to women at both lower and higher risk. Despite a national commitment to rolling out a continuity of carer model, progress stalled because there were not enough staff to deliver it safely. In 2022, NHS England formally removed the target date, citing “insufficient staffing”. Many qualified midwives have left the profession, but evidence suggests that a significant number would return if they were able to provide relationship-based, compassionate care, with time to do their jobs properly.

Let me conclude by speaking directly to Ministers. The question before us is not whether the Government recognise that maternity services are under strain—that has already been well established. The question is whether Ministers are prepared to act at the scale required. A maternity commissioner may feel tangible and responsive, but it does not avoid the hard truth: women’s experiences will not change without investment, workforce stability and systematic redesign.

As other colleagues have said, there are over 700 recommendations on maternity safety already in existence. If the Government are serious about restoring confidence in maternity services, I ask Ministers: will they publish a fully funded workforce plan for maternity, including midwifery, retention and return to practice? Will they commit to resourcing continuity of carer models, rather than quietly shelving them when staffing pressures bite? Will they address the £27 billion maternity negligence bill not through litigation management, but through prevention?

This Government must decide whether they want to preside over a system that simply manages failure, or whether they are willing to take the brave step of long-term investment to make the UK a place where women’s choices and bodily autonomy are respected, where safety is paramount, where joy and empowerment are not incidental but expected, and where professionals are supported to deliver humane, relationship-based care. We do not need another review, and I am not sure that we really need another title. We need staff, time, continuity, trust and investment. If we get that right, outcomes will improve, costs will fall, trust will return, and maternity care in this country can once again be something that we are all proud of.