Their cowardice is an insult to the Nottingham families.
In the aftermath of Britain's largest maternity scandal investigation, a reckoning is unfolding not only over the clinical failures that harmed hundreds of babies and mothers at Nottingham University Hospitals, but over the silence of the very leaders who might have explained how those failures took root. Former health secretary Wes Streeting has called that silence cowardice, and is pressing Parliament to compel testimony from senior NHS staff who declined to cooperate with the Ockenden review. The episode raises a question as old as institutions themselves: when those entrusted with care refuse to account for its collapse, what mechanisms remain to restore the trust that was broken?
- Of 66 senior NHS staff approached by the Ockenden review, 31 refused to be interviewed, leaving critical gaps in understanding how systemic failures led to the deaths or harm of at least 260 babies.
- Wes Streeting has written to Parliament's health committee demanding these absent leaders be summoned, calling their non-cooperation an insult to bereaved families and suggesting contempt charges may be the only language they understand.
- Bereaved fathers and mothers are torn — they share Streeting's fury, but fear that a parliamentary hearing could contaminate an active police investigation into the trust and let senior figures escape with vague, unsworn testimony.
- Families are instead calling for a statutory public inquiry, where barristers can question witnesses under formal rules of evidence, arguing that anything less will allow leaders to speak without truly being held to account.
- The government has announced new legislation compelling NHS staff to participate in future maternity reviews or face up to two years in prison, framing it as a direct response to a documented culture of institutional silence.
Wes Streeting, who left the role of health secretary in May, has written to the chair of Parliament's health and social care select committee demanding that senior NHS leaders be called to explain why they refused to cooperate with the Ockenden review — a four-year investigation into maternity care at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust that became the largest of its kind in the service's history. In his letter, seen by the BBC, Streeting described their silence as "cowardice" and an insult to families whose children died or were harmed under their watch.
The Ockenden review approached 66 senior staff members at the trust. Only 35 agreed to be interviewed. Donna Ockenden, who led the inquiry, acknowledged that those who declined left significant holes in the investigation's understanding of what went wrong. The human scale of what was left unexplained is immense: the review found that different care might have changed the outcome for 260 babies who died or suffered harm, and around 2,500 families contributed their experiences to the process.
Two families have become central voices in the aftermath. Jack Hawkins, a consultant doctor at the trust, lost his daughter Harriet to a stillbirth in 2016 after repeated delays in intervention. Ockenden found her death was compounded by a systemic cover-up. Gary and Sarah Andrews lost their daughter Wynter in 2019, just 23 minutes after a Caesarean section; an inquest found she might have survived had staff acted on clear warning signs. Both families said the word "cowardice" captured their sense of betrayal — but both also urged caution about parliamentary hearings, warning that loose, unsworn testimony could undermine an ongoing police investigation into the trust.
What the families want instead is a statutory public inquiry, where witnesses face barristers under formal rules of evidence. "Otherwise," Jack Hawkins said, "they are going to come up and say things that don't really advance the argument." The trust's current chief executive told the BBC that senior executives still employed there did engage with the review, but the damage to institutional trust has already accumulated across years.
The government has responded with new legislation that would compel NHS staff — past and present — to participate in future maternity reviews or face up to two years in prison. It is a structural answer to what officials called a culture of silence. But as Streeting's letter and the families' careful warnings both make clear, the question of whether any mechanism — parliamentary summons, statutory inquiry, police investigation, or new criminal powers — can deliver the accountability that bereaved families are owed remains, for now, unanswered.
Wes Streeting, who stepped down as health secretary in May, has written to the chair of Parliament's health and social care select committee demanding that senior NHS leaders be summoned to explain why they refused to cooperate with the largest maternity scandal investigation in the service's history. In a letter seen by the BBC, Streeting called their silence "cowardice" and "an insult" to the families whose children died or were harmed under their watch.
The Ockenden review, which examined maternity care at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, spent four years documenting systemic failures that led to avoidable harm for hundreds of babies and mothers. Donna Ockenden, who led the inquiry, approached 66 senior staff members at the trust. Only 35 agreed to be interviewed. The gaps left by those who declined to participate, Ockenden acknowledged, created holes in the investigation's understanding of what went wrong and why. Streeting wants Parliament to use its power to compel these absent voices to testify, and he suggested that the threat of contempt charges might be necessary to force accountability from those in positions of power.
The human toll beneath this bureaucratic dispute is staggering. About 2,500 families and more than 800 current and former staff members contributed to the review. Yet the senior executives who shaped the culture and decisions of the trust largely stayed silent. The Ockenden report found that different care might have changed the outcome for 260 babies who died or suffered harm. One case exemplifies the pattern: Harriet Hawkins was stillborn in April 2016 after repeated delays in intervention. Her father, Jack Hawkins, worked as a consultant doctor at the trust. Ockenden found his daughter's death was "compounded by a systemic cover-up and investigations designed to mislead." Another family, Gary and Sarah Andrews, lost their daughter Wynter 23 minutes after a Caesarean section in 2019. An inquest found she might have survived if staff had acted on multiple warning signs of distress.
Yet even as Streeting pushes for parliamentary action, the families most affected are expressing caution. Jack Hawkins, the whistleblower whose own daughter died, said he understood Streeting's anger but worried that a select committee hearing could interfere with an ongoing police investigation into the trust. He called instead for a statutory public inquiry, where witnesses could be questioned by barristers in a courtroom setting with formal rules of evidence. "These senior NHS leaders need to be questioned in court by a barrister with witnesses, with evidence," Hawkins said. "Otherwise, they are going to come up and say things that don't really advance the argument."
Gary Andrews, whose daughter Wynter died, agreed that the word "cowardice" captured the families' sense of betrayal. "Eight hundred staff came forward, but the leaders didn't," he said. His wife Sarah added that accountability was all they had ever asked for. Both families echoed the call for a statutory inquiry and warned that nothing should jeopardize the police investigation.
The trust's current chief executive, Anthony May, told the BBC that senior executives who are still employed there did engage with the review. But the damage to trust—both institutional and personal—has already been done. The government has responded by announcing new powers to compel NHS staff, past and present, to participate in future maternity reviews or face up to two years in prison. The Department of Health and Social Care framed this as a response to "a culture of silence," noting that while over 800 staff gave evidence, many described being silenced by senior clinicians and hospital bosses when they tried to raise concerns about patient safety.
What emerges is a picture of institutional failure layered upon institutional failure. The first failure was clinical—the missed opportunities, the delayed interventions, the systemic problems that harmed families. The second was investigative—the refusal of senior leaders to participate in an inquiry meant to understand what happened. And now comes a third: the question of whether parliamentary hearings or a statutory inquiry, police investigation or new legal powers, can actually deliver the accountability that bereaved families are demanding. Streeting's letter is a demand for transparency. The families' caution is a reminder that transparency alone may not be enough.
Citações Notáveis
These senior NHS leaders need to be questioned in court by a barrister with witnesses, with evidence. Otherwise, they are going to come up and say things that don't really advance the argument.— Jack Hawkins, whistleblower and father of stillborn daughter Harriet
Eight hundred staff came forward, but the leaders didn't. To say cowardice really sums up the sense of feeling from Nottingham families.— Gary Andrews, whose daughter Wynter died after missed warning signs
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that 31 senior staff members refused to talk to Ockenden? Couldn't the review still piece together what happened?
The gaps matter because these were the people making decisions. They shaped the culture, set the standards, decided how complaints were handled. Without their accounts, you're left guessing at intent and understanding. Ockenden herself said there were gaps in knowledge because of it.
But Streeting is calling for Parliament to summon them. Jack Hawkins seems worried that could backfire. What's his concern?
He's worried about the police investigation. If Parliament hauls these people in and they testify, it could compromise a criminal inquiry that's already underway. He wants a proper statutory inquiry instead—one with legal teeth, where a barrister can cross-examine them in court.
So the families don't trust Parliament to handle this?
Not exactly. They trust Parliament less than they trust a formal legal process. A select committee is political. A statutory inquiry is judicial. The families want evidence tested under oath, with consequences for lying, not just uncomfortable questions.
What does Streeting actually want to happen?
He wants those 31 people to explain themselves. He's angry that they hid. He thinks the threat of contempt of Parliament might force them to show up and answer for their silence during the original review.
And if they do show up?
Then the families get to hear directly why these leaders chose not to cooperate. But Jack Hawkins is right that it might not advance much—they could give evasive answers without the legal framework of a court. The real question is whether any of this actually changes anything for the next family.