Donna Ockenden made Leeds maternity inquiry chair after families force U-turn
A U-turn by Health Secretary Wes Streeting has installed donna ockenden as chair of the independent review into repeated maternity failures at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, a move families have long demanded after allegations that scores of babies and two mothers died in care.
What is not being told about the appointment and the inquiry’s scope?
Health Secretary Wes Streeting appointed Donna Ockenden following months of campaigning by bereaved and harmed families who repeatedly urged her to lead the review. Questions remain about how quickly the review will deliver answers and how families’ trust in official responses will be restored. The government has agreed the review will examine harms over a 15-year period between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2025 and will operate on an opt-out basis, meaning cases in that period will be included unless families choose otherwise.
What Donna Ockenden’s appointment changes — and what it won’t fix
Verified facts: Wes Streeting first announced the independent inquiry into maternity services at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in October. He later signalled that Ockenden would not chair the Leeds review, then reversed that position after multiple meetings with campaigning families and MPs. Donna Ockenden is a senior midwife currently leading a large maternity review in Nottingham that has considered the care of more than 2, 400 families and has examined about 2, 500 cases. She previously conducted the independent investigation into maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust. The Care Quality Commission downgraded the maternity units at Leeds General Infirmary and St James’s University Hospital to inadequate in June 2025. Families and individuals directly affected, including Amarjit Matharoo, have said they are grateful for the appointment and that it begins to restore trust in how the review will be run.
Analysis: The appointment places an investigator with prior large-scale review experience at the centre of an inquiry that must reconcile individual case reviews with system-wide scrutiny of governance and culture. Ockenden’s simultaneous responsibility for an extensive Nottingham review creates a workload constraint that the Health Secretary initially cited when he declined her appointment; the subsequent change of course signals that family trust was judged to outweigh scheduling concerns. The opt-out approach could broaden participation, but it will also increase the number of cases to review and extend the timeline for any overarching findings.
Evidence, stakeholders and the path to accountability
Verified facts: An investigation published in January 2025 revealed that the deaths of at least 56 babies and two mothers at the Leeds trust over the past five years may have been preventable. Families, including those who lost children at Leeds General Infirmary, pressed ministers and MPs to ensure a chair they trusted would lead the review; some families met Wes Streeting in lengthy sessions to press their case. The announced review will examine not only the quality of care but also governance, accountability and the handling of concerns raised by women, families and staff. Officials have indicated that the trust will receive monthly recommendations as the review progresses.
Stakeholder positions: Bereaved and harmed families have consistently insisted that only Donna Ockenden has their confidence to lead the review; several named family representatives have welcomed her appointment and framed it as a step toward rebuilding trust. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has expressed that he is ‘delighted’ to appoint someone trusted by affected families. Donna Ockenden has stated she will prioritise listening to families and staff and ensuring lessons are learned and changes made in a timely way. The review’s remit to probe governance and the trust’s response to concerns creates a path for formal recommendations and potential structural reform of maternity services at the trust.
Accountability conclusion and necessary next steps (analysis): The decision to appoint Donna Ockenden responds to persistent family advocacy and aligns leadership of the Leeds review with a figure experienced in major maternity investigations. That alignment increases the review’s credibility with the families most affected but does not shortcut the practical challenges ahead: the review’s broad time frame and opt-out approach will produce a large caseload, making rapid, comprehensive conclusions unlikely. To satisfy the demand for transparency and timely action, the review should publish clear terms of reference and a timetable for interim recommendations; officials should ensure monthly recommendations issued to Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust are tracked against demonstrated changes in practice and governance. Families have been explicit that victims must be central to the process; delivering that will require concrete mechanisms for engagement, regular public updates on recommendations, and a commitment to implement change where governance failures are identified.
The appointment of donna ockenden marks a crucial shift in the Leeds inquiry: it is the outcome families sought, but the effectiveness of the review will depend on its speed, scope and the degree to which its monthly recommendations drive measurable reform at the trust.
