317 MP’s Voted Against a Maternity Safety Bill - What About Gloucestershire??
On 7 September 2026, MPs had an opportunity to put clear maternity and neonatal safety requirements into law.
New Clause 6 to the Health Bill called for measures including one-to-one midwifery care during established labour, safe staffing and workforce planning, 24-hour consultant obstetric cover, dedicated midwifery leadership, neonatal workforce planning, protected training funding and annual reporting to Parliament.
It was defeated by 317 votes to 77.
At a time when maternity services across the country remain under immense pressure—and repeated investigations continue to identify failures in staffing, leadership, continuity and listening to women—we wanted to know how Gloucestershire’s MPs voted.
This matters locally. Families in Gloucestershire have already experienced the suspension of homebirth support, the loss and reduction of community birth options, fragmented care, staffing pressures and uncertainty about the future of local maternity services.
Gloucestershire Maternity Action Group (GMAG) has been working alongside women, families, maternity staff and national organisations to scrutinise local proposals and ensure that safer, workable alternatives are heard.
Below, we explain what the amendment called for, how each Gloucestershire MP voted, and how you can ask your own MP to account for their decision.
Dear [MP’s name],
I am writing as your constituent following the House of Commons vote on New Clause 6 to the Health Bill on 7 September 2026.
This amendment included requirements for:
• One-to-one midwifery care during established labour
• Safe maternity staffing and workforce planning
• 24-hour consultant obstetrician cover on labour wards
• A Director of Midwifery in every maternity service
• A dedicated neonatal workforce plan
• Ring-fenced funding for staff training and development
• Annual reporting to Parliament
The amendment was defeated by 317 votes to 77.
The official parliamentary record shows that you [voted against the amendment/did not record a vote].
Please could you explain why?
In particular, I would like to know:
Why did you [vote against/not vote on] measures intended to improve maternity and neonatal staffing, leadership, training and accountability?
Which parts of the amendment did you disagree with?
What alternative action do you believe the Government should take to ensure maternity services are safely staffed?
Will you support future proposals to place clear maternity staffing and safety requirements into law?
This decision is especially important to families in Gloucestershire. Our local maternity system is already experiencing serious challenges, including the suspension of homebirth support, reduced community birth options, staffing fragility, fragmented care and uncertainty surrounding the future shape of services.
Gloucestershire Maternity Action Group (GMAG) has been gathering evidence, listening to women and midwives, scrutinising the Trust’s plans and highlighting alternative ways of protecting safe, local and relational maternity care.
I would urge you to look at GMAG’s work and engage directly with the concerns being raised by women, families and maternity staff across Gloucestershire: [insert GMAG website or social-media link].
These are not abstract political questions. Decisions about staffing, continuity, training and accountability directly affect the safety and experiences of women, babies and staff.
I would appreciate a clear response addressing the questions above, rather than a general statement about the Government’s commitment to maternity services.
Yours sincerely,
[Your full name]
[Your address or postcode]