Woman's Hour - 03/12/2025

Episode Date: December 3, 2025

Women's voices and women's lives - topical conversations to inform, challenge and inspire.

Hello, this is Neula McGovern, and you're listening to The Woman's Hour podcast. Hello, and welcome to the program. Well, this morning, we can bring you an announcement from the CEO of the Women's Institute that she says she makes with sincere regret that will be in half an hour. Do stay with us for that. Also, today, we'll look at what the Justice Secretary's proposals for new juryless trials means for women who are victims and also for women who are accused of crimes. And we'll hear why there are calls for a national.

endometriosis registry to find out where there are gaps in the health service for those suffering from that condition. And I want to know, are you hosting this holiday season? Does that mean trying to make your home as nice and neat as possible? Table-scaping with an array of candles and cutlery? Well, apparently you can forget all that because scruffy hosting is in. Here's Laura Jackson's, she's an interiors guru, her description. Scruffy hosting is about prioritising a warm welcome over striving for perfection. It's opening your door before you've got everything spotless, letting friends come in even if they're bound to step on Lego

or spot the pile of laundry in the corner. Can you do it? Do you do it? Is this the answer to stress free socialising? Or no? Do you think make an effort, if people make an effort to come round? You can text the programme, the number is 84844 on social media where at BBC Women's Hour, or you can email us through our our website for a WhatsApp message or voice note, that number, 0300, 100444. Looking forward to hearing your messages. But let me begin with the Justice Secretary David Lammy. He has announced you may

have seen plans for sweeping range of reforms to criminal courts in England and Wales. The proposals include scrapping jury trials for cases where sentences are likely to be less than three years and for trials involving, and I quote, particularly technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences, unquote. So they will be kept only for the most serious offences that includes murder, robbery and rape. Magistrates will be given extra powers to hand down sentences of up to 18 months

instead of one year. And the government says the so-called swift courts will take 20% less time than a jury trial that's using a finding from Sir Brian Levinson's independent inquiry into the justice system. Mr. Lammy also says it will help work through the record backlog of almost 78,000, thousand cases that are waiting to reach trial. But there are fears that these proposed changes

will have a disproportionate impact on women, whether that is women as victims or women accused of a crime, and then particularly for women of colour. Well, joining me in the studio to discuss these reforms are Fiona Rutherford, Chief Executive of the Legal Reform Charity Justice. Good morning. We also have Barrister Emmettor, who is the co-chief of appeal. They are a law practice dedicated to challenging wrongful convictions. Good morning, Emma. Good morning. And on the line also, we have Val Castel,

Deputy National Chair of the Magistrates Association. Good morning, Val. Good morning. So let me begin, Fiona. Perhaps you could explain how the system currently works, like when someone accused of a crime would be in front of a magistrate like Val, or when would they be in front of a jury?

Yep. So at the moment, the law works in the way that if you commit what's called a summary only offence, that's a very low level offence, then your case has to be tried in the magistrates. There's no choice. If you're accused of what's called an either way offence, which is anything from theft through to burglary, through to death by dangerous driving, then you have a choice as a defendant as to whether or not you elect a Crown Court trial.

Equally, the prosecution can suggest that you should be tried in that way. And the magistrates also have a choice as to whether or not you stay in the magistrates court or go to the Crown Court. And finally, there's a third category of cases, which is called indictable only. Indictable only means you only go straight to the Crown Court. You do not stay in the magistrates. So the most serious of crimes? Correct.

So we've alluded briefly to the most serious. But let's talk a little bit more about what sort of offences, Fiona, are likely to be reclassified to judge only or magistrates only. It's that big middle bit of the caseload that I have the categories I just talked about. So it's the either-way offences are going to be affected. The indictable only, we understand from what we've heard so far, will go to a jury trial. Those are a small sliver of cases, the indictable-only offences.

It's the murders, homicide cases, rapes. These either-way offences really take up the bulk of the work in the Crown Court. But we are talking on women's air, so we want to talk about women specifically. Do we know with a case, for example, harassment or upskirting, what might happen in a trial like that. So those sorts of offences may well stay in the summary court depending on the exact type of the offence,

but some of the ones that are sitting in that either way offence category, particularly sexual assault, including serious sexual assault, may well go to the judge-only option. Have we got guidance from the Justice Secretary yet when it comes to sexual assault and the various levels? All we have at the moment is that if you're likely to get a three-year prison sentence and it's not clear how that's being defined. At the moment we have something called maximum sentences

and lots of the offences we've just talked about are way more than three years in terms of their maximum penalty. But we're not sure whether or not it's defined as to what is usually sentenced in a case, if you usually get three years in that case, that would mean you get a jury trial. It's still very unclear as to how that's going to be defined

and how those cases will be tried. And that is looking at women. as victims. Emma, instead you work on wrongful convictions. Do you have a sense whether women as defendants have a different outcome in a jury trial compared to being in front of a judge or a magistrate, for example? Yes, we do. So certainly my experience is that juries represent the best safeguard against bias. So we're talking. Why? Because a jury trial represents a trial in front of a panel of 12 people picked from the local community and they are most likely to represent the fairest outcome for the defendant. You're talking about minimising the risk of misogyny, minimizing the risk

of racial bias because they are bound to deliberate and talk through the issues and I think the Justice Secretary himself said that juries were a filter for prejudice and I think that's right. And that comes from a report that was published by David Lamey in 2017. Went on to say that women from ethnic minorities were more likely to be convicted by magistrates than white women. Val, I'd like to bring you in on this point. Do you worry that the reforms could perpetrate some of the perpetuate? I'm getting my perpetrates and my perpetuate mixed up, whether they may continue in the way that David Lamy has outlined in that report,

if in fact it goes to a magistrate's court? There's been quite a lot of water under the bridge since 2017 and magistrates are continually having extra training to guard against prejudice and bias. Everybody has unconscious bias. The thing is to recognise where you do have bias and acknowledge it and make sure that it's not actually a factor in decision-making. And magistrates are members of our community as well.

We're decision-making between three. of us rather than 12, but there are three of us. We do talk things through. We discuss extensively in the retiring room before we actually decide on a verdict. I mean, people have talked about magistrates, you know, you give up your time, volunteers, but perhaps there are many people that only come from certain walks of life and that the demographics at times do not reflect the people that are in front of them. Do you think that has an impact on the way women are sentenced? We are actually the most diverse sector of the judiciary and you know I've sat with fellow members on my bench I've sat with bank accountants I've sat with bus drivers I've sat with

people who aren't employed and are on benefits we are we cover a huge range and the magistracy is open to anybody from from all walks of life Fiona so I think it's great to hear that Val has the opportunity to sit with those, the sort of mixture that she's talked about, but we do know that the applicants to the magistracy are nearly 80% from professional backgrounds and only 3% from what's described on the stats as from manual or service jobs. The reality is that, as Val says, it's a volunteer activity, volunteer duty, I should say. And in terms of the volunteering, the constraints on people who are not retired or need to look after their children and do jobs, etc.

It makes it quite limiting still for there to be the diverse bench that I think we'd all want to see. Can I just add one, so socioeconomic in the magistracy is one lack of disparity, which we're, diversity, which I think is important to point out, but equally in the judiciary, which we already know from a gender perspective is not great about two-thirds of Crown Court judges are men, but we know equally that the socio-economic background there is equally less diverse. So we've got already a judicial diversity issue in terms of socio-economic background across the piece. But of course the reason that Mr. Lammy is introducing these proposals,

and we can talk about what it will take to actually make them come into being, is this long wait for justice at the moment, a backlog of 78,000. cases, and I believe he talked that it would be up to 100,000 in a couple of years' time. I mean, that could also be considered justice denied. I'll start with you, Val. Do you think that this will speed up the process for people who are waiting for a trial? I think it has to. The delays that we've got currently, that means that, you know, women are waiting years for trials to go.

So women as victims are very much impacted by these delays. And I think anything that can be done to reduce those delays has got to be beneficial. And we need to, you know, we need to consider all the options to speed justice up. And one of those options, you know, could very well be that magistrates can take more of the cases at the lower level to free up the Crown Court time for those at the higher level. And the 100,000, that will be by 2028. There was a government report that found in June that nearly one in five backlog cases, had been open for at least two years

were for sexual offences. Fiona, your thoughts on this? I mean, the first thing I'd say is that for jury trials, only three in five actually get to the jury on the first day. Three in five trials do not get to the jury on the first day. That's because they are not ready, they are not prepared, because at the last minute the prosecution decide to drop the case because the victim may have given up at that point

and because the defendant may in some instances plead guilty. But the victim giving up, for example, which we've talked about many times on this programme, that is often as a result of these delays that have taken place. So surely speeding them up might help the victim? It would, but the point I'm probably not clearly making is that three out of the five trials aren't even getting to the jury. The delays are happening before the jury.

Oh, I understand. I understand. Forgive me. No, I get what you're saying. So basically that the jury is not the issue, it's the case preparation. Exactly right. The efficiencies or the inefficiencies leading up to the jury trial is really what we need to address and this doesn't do that. Also, for those that are accused of crimes, they will want that trial to happen instead of being in limbo. I'm sure we're talking about women.

We know some of the issues they come up against, whether it's with caring for their other responsibilities that they have in their lives. Emma, don't you think it needs to be a faster process? I think certainly it's not acceptable to have huge backlogs, but I think it's important to stress that the juries aren't the cause of these delays. The cause of the delay has been chronic underfunding for years, and we're not convinced that these proposals are actually going to create the savings that are being suggested. Unless there is proper investment in the criminal court estate, unless there is proper investment in criminal court estate, unless there is proper investment in criminal. on legal aid to have more barristers, more solicitors being able to do legal aid work and have more judges and more court staff to operate the buildings. Having judge-only trials isn't going to reduce the delays for people.

And I think it's probably worth pointing out to the listeners actually that the safeguards are here to protect all parties, not just those who are sitting in the dock. But if you are a victim of crime and you've come forward, It could be a sexual assault. It could be something equally as serious nature. Do you want to have your case decided by a white male judge who's probably educated at an independent school

and has of a completely different class? Do you want that person to judge you? Or do you want to be judged by a jury? Well, I mean, Mani would say that justice should be blind and not the person who is sitting behind that desk. and, of course, Val is put across her points there as well. I do want to read a little bit from the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, David Lammy.

He said these reforms are bold and it will take time to turn the tide on the rising backlog, but these measures are necessary to tackle the emergency in our courts. We're putting victims before tradition, for tradition's sake and fairness before those who want to gain the system. On top of today's court reforms, victims will be better supported, to your point, Emma, through the process with a half a billion pound investment in vital support services.

This will see 550 million pounds. go directly into specialit services that offer practical and emotional support to victims and witnesses. So there is that investment coming. It's unclear what that investment is going to be in, though. It's vague and it's unclear at this stage exactly what support is going to be there.

Certainly if you're a black or Asian defendant, your choice would not be to be tried in this new sort of Crown Court bench division by a judge only. perhaps it's worth stating back to Val's point earlier about the magistrate being the most diverse sort of tribunal that we have. The Leveson proposals, although we didn't agree with them,

did suggest that a judge sitting with two magistrates would be that the best way to tackle these either way cases and that's obviously something the government has abandoned because they simply can't recruit the volunteer is necessary. That's interesting. I just throw that over to you, Val. What do you think about that, even though they haven't followed up and at the government, a judge with two magistrates, for example? It was something that we were fully prepared to take on if we were asked to. We would, in many ways, we'd welcome that because actually the work that we currently do in the Crown Courts,

we sit on appeals with a judge and two magistrates. And we think that that's a very fair system to take it a stage further than the magistrates courts. But, you know, whatever we're asked to do, we'll carry it out responsibly into the best of our ability. If that is something the government decides they want us to do, we will welcome it. But it is a government decision. We know, as mentioned by Mr. Lammy as well, that magistrates currently deal with between 90 and 95% of all criminal cases. Is there the capacity to take on even more? And what about the fact that these will be tougher cases?

What they will be, so answer your last point first, what they'll be in most situations is, yes, slightly tougher versions of the cases we're already seeing. So most of the either way offences, we have already been dealing with the less serious types of them. So it would just be slightly increasing the seriousness of the offences we're used to dealing with. And I think our training will be perfectly adequate to cope with that.

When it comes to our ability to actually handle the extra work, at present, we would be slightly struggling in some areas. Some areas we've got more than enough magistrates to do the work. Some areas were a bit short. There is recruitment in process at the moment and there will need to be more so that we're actually equipped to do more work as we go. forward. And that process has already started because it's been fairly obvious for a while now that something has got to change and the chances were very high that that was going to be more work in the magistrates courts one way or the other. And when you say it was very obvious, can you give me an example of that? Just because of the delays increasing. So, you know,

as you've said, nearly 80,000 cases already backlog in the Crown Court trials being listed for, I believe, 1996. We have some delays in the magistrates courts, but we're talking about probably six-month delay rather than several years' delays. So we do need, you know, we need increases in efficiency as well. There are things that need to be done in the magistrates courts to improve processes, increase staff,

increase the probation service, because we run very heavily on them when it comes to sentencing. There are extra things that need doing, but the magistrates, say, I think, will be there, and will be equipped to help. And I kind of throwing out this word magistrate as well. We've talked a little bit about them. But a listener got in touch found says,

how much training do magistrates have? I looked online. There's little info on how many hours or days. Does training take in addition to the 13 days sitting? Do your decisions get checked over? 13 days per year doesn't seem like a lot to get a lot of experience. Okay. So training, there's an initial training of four days to go through.

and then there's annual training after that, some of which we do in person, some of which we do some online training. And that is on top of the 13 days is the minimum requirement for sittings, and some of us do a great deal more than that. I think my sitting levels last year I did probably 50, 40 to 50 days, something like that. Some of us who are slightly more scarce resources, we have have extra scales, extra training, things like youth work, then we're sometimes called on to do more than that. Emma, these are proposals. It will still have to go through Parliament.

Do you expect it to happen? That's correct. So because these proposals suggest taking away a key fundamental part of our democracy, there will need to be an act of parliament to get these through. That may take place sometime in the New Year. year possibly but I think it's important that anyone that's concerned about losing this democratic right should write to their MP and tell them that they are equally concerned about it as a wheel and of course that is your characterization of it as I mentioned David Lammy has put

forward his proposals Fiona yeah I mean the in relation to you mentioned about victims and the impact on women the investment has to be welcomed that's being talked about but of course investing in one thing that doesn't plug into a system that's working is not much good to anybody. I thought it might be useful just to say one thing about a rape survivor story that I heard last week, just specifically in relation to jury trials. She was attacked by multiple people, waited over three years for her trial to take place, and eventually the trial ended in acquittals of all of the defendants. She was asked very clearly, would she have preferred there to be a juryless trial, there to be a judge?

loan trial and she emphatically said no. It's because she felt that the trust in the jury system was too important and because she didn't blame them for the delays because clearly the inefficiencies were prior to the trial starting as opposed to the trial itself. Coming from somebody and I appreciate that rape trials are not on the list of cases that will be trial. Exactly. Or that will be dealt with by a judge alone. They will still go to a jury. But I use it as an example because that's coming from somebody who probably has the hardest job in terms of describing to a room full of people precisely what happened to her during her horrific assault

and if she still comes away in that scenario and says she still thinks a jury is the right place for her trial to be. That says a lot to me. I just see another listener getting in touch a lack of court space and sittings. If these things are not addressed, the situation will not improve. Many courts have been closed. Thanks for your comments coming in. Thanks very much to Fiona Rutherford. Also to Val Castell and Emma Torr.

Good to have a discussion. We'll continue following it. Endometriosis, one person says so many gaps in endometriosis care starting with there not been enough research to understand the cause, ask any woman dealing with the condition and the gaps would be very clear.

It just wouldn't be like this if it were a male condition. Women's pain is not taken seriously or with enough compassion 84844 if you would like to get in touch. Now, why am I talking about that? It's because a new petition has been launched calling for a national endometriosis registry to track and audit data on diagnosis, treatment and surgery outcomes.

It's spearheaded by Jessica Smith, who like an estimated 1.5 million women in the UK, suffers with endometriosis, a condition which occurs when the tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows in other places such as the ovaries and the fallopian tubes. It can cause chronic pelvic pain, fatigue, heavy menstrual bleeding, pain during sex, painful urination and bowel movements, and also reduced fertility. it can seriously impact women's lives. On average, it takes close to nine years from the first GP appointment to receiving a diagnosis.

Campaigners say the level of care is a postcode lottery with long wait lists and that by streamlining this information, some of the gaps in care could be eliminated. Well, let's meet Jessica Smith. Good morning, Jessica. Good to have you with us. And you're joined along with the President of the Royal College of Gynaecologists and obstetricians, Professor Rani Thakar, you're very welcome as well, Rani.

Thank you. Let me start with you, Jessica, because you've been experiencing painful periods, I understand, for 13 years before your diagnosis of endometriosis. What was it like trying to get care during that time? So, yeah, I started my periods at 12 years old. And like everyone in my family, I had heavy and painful periods. unfortunately because everyone had the same experience we thought it was just normal and we just got

bad luck i'd complained multiple times over the years to my doctors about these periods and they just said you know bad luck get on with it some people have it like this and it wasn't until my mid-20s i actually heard about endometriosis on this show actually i believe when i was at work and you listed the symptoms and i said i have that that's exactly what i've been suffering with this whole time. And that's when I went to the doctors and said, what about this endometriosis? And they agreed. They agreed. And you've had a number of surgeries. But I know you feel you have not been cared for or followed up with in the way that you feel you should have been. And that your life now is difficult because of your endometriosis. Would you like to tell us

a little more? Yeah. So I was struggling, you know, from 12 to mid-20s with the people. periods each month. But it wasn't until I was about 24 in 2017. I collapsed one day out blue with a ruptured ovarian cyst and I went to the doctors and they diagnosed me them with PCOS. But the pain never went away. I had this awful period of pelvic pain which wasn't connected to my period. It was every day constant. And I went from someone who was working long hours. I was going to go to the gym, socializing, doing whatever you do at 25. to becoming disabled in the space of about six months. So it was during these months.

It was about six months where I was struggling and we were trying to get answers. I had the diagnosis of PCOS, but they couldn't say why I had this pain. And then it's not until I heard it on the radio and it clicked. So I took in a list of symptoms and said, this is what I got.

The year later, I had my first surgery and I thought, great, that's it. I can get back to normal life. unfortunately as it goes with a lot of people about six to twelve months later I'm feeling the same way and I've since had two more surgeries so I had another one in 2021 where I was diagnosed with severe endometriosis had so much of it they ran out of time and by then I was using a walking stick I'd had to quit my job a couple of times and I went back again into work thinking right surely this time

round let's do it and it happened again and And I just got more ill over time to the point I was in a wheelchair last year. I couldn't even use my phone because I had these nerve issues affecting my whole body. It's such a debilitating case when I was reading about your condition. And I know people experience it in different ways, but yours is very much on an hour to hour and daily basis. So you're calling for a national endometriosis register to gather information to improve care for, those living with the condition. Why do you think this is the way to improve care? Yeah. So it actually came about recently when I was trying to figure out what to do next with my

own care. I was looking for research to back up what the doctors were saying. And there was nothing out there. There is very little information out there. Even the NHS website is extremely sparse. It's missing a lot of information or if it's there, it's very hidden and not easily available. So that's when I discovered that Australia has the equivalent of a national endoregistry. And it just made sense to track how we're doing after surgery, how we're doing after treatments. I feel very much like for all guinea pigs. I can't tell you how many treatments I've tried, how many painklers, how many birth controls. I don't even get follow-up care after surgeries. I had a robotic surgery last year, which is when they use those big robotic arms

and they sit in the corner and it's like a video game. I've had 10 minutes on the phone with an endo nurse since then. They've not asked me, you know, how I'm doing afterwards. So they're spending so much money each year on endometiosis care. Why they're not tracking it? It doesn't make sense. So you're looking for more a trajectory or a narrative on exactly what happens to women when they go through the system, getting treatment and also what happens afterwards.

Let me bring Rani in here. These registries, they exist in the UK for some conditions, I understand, cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis. Do you think that Jessica's plan for a registry for endometriosis could work? I'd like to start really by sincerely apologising to Jessica for her experience. And clearly we need to do better. Different countries take different approaches. But what is important is that women in the UK are just waiting for too long for diagnosis and treatment.

And this is why we as a college, RCOG, is calling for the government to use the upcoming women's health strategy to refresh, to prioritize tackling the crisis of gynecology waiting lists and address the structural and systemic issues that are driving these long delays and ensure that women get timely diagnosis and treatment. So there is a wider issue. It's a systemic issue that we need to overcome. Yes, but what about a register? A register, so different countries will have different countries will have different approaches. A register is something that we think is a good idea, but there are wider issues as well.

So there are lots of gynecological conditions, and what we need to do is get better funding, ensure that the government uses the upcoming women's health strategy refresh to prioritize tackling the crisis of gynecology waiting risks. Endometriosis is just one part of it. It's an important issue. And just listening to Jessica, you can see how serious and long-term condition this can be, which has a devastating impact on women's daily life. The Department of Health and Social Care, they did give us a statement. They said, Demetriosis is a painful and debilitating condition. Women deserve timely diagnosis and care.

The government is determined to improve endometrious care and this year we've made two new treatments available for severe endometriosis as well as investing 80 million pounds to give GPs faster access to specialist advice. Clinical guidance has also been updated, they say, to speed up diagnosis and treatment through our 10-year health plan. We're cutting waiting times for gynecological services. But do you understand the delay, Rani, and why somebody like Jessica has gone through so many hoops but still without a solution?

Absolutely. So one of the problems is that we know that endometriosis can be quite difficult to diagnose. As you mentioned earlier, it takes about nine years from first seeing a doctor to getting a diagnosis. And part of the problem is that the symptoms vary widely between women and often. overlap for many conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, pelvic inflammatory disease, which is perhaps the reason why Jessica was diagnosed with PCOS or polycystic ovary disease and actually had endometriosis. But the big problem is the long gynecology waiting list, which also have a role to play here. So we know that we have three quarters of a million

women across the UK who are currently waiting for non-cancer gynecological care. And endometeosis comes under that. So that is for you, you feel like the key issue is, we're talking about backlogs this morning in the justice system, but also you feel a backlog within the NHS. Generally speaking, you're absolutely right. And we are calling on the UK government to go further and faster to tackle those waiting lists.

And then we will get women's health right. Let me turn back to you, Jessica. You have a petition. It's just before I came on air, I saw it about 5.5,000 signatures. The goal? It's just to improve healthcare and reduce postcode inequality. The government says that they want to improve care, but how can they improve it if they're not tracking what's working? But you need to get to 10,000 signatures before the government will... Yes, ideally, although we do have some MP backing already. I'm meeting with some in the... new year so it's positive and did you get any um feedback yet on whether a register or it might happen so i did actually write to west streeting and his team um the response was a little bit disappointing they redirected me to their youtube channel the nshs website um they didn't mention the petition

unfortunately um they did touch on the fact there is a backlog and i think this is one of the things the registry could sort of solve is there's this backlog and we're spending about £16 billion a year on the NHS in the private sector to catch up in total. So if we tracked what is working more efficiently and we're not just treating us

like guinea pigs and just shooting in the dark, maybe we'd spend less money and not waste so much resource. Jessica Smith, thank you for joining us. Your petition is up on the Parliament's website at the moment. Rani Thakar, thank you also for joining us this morning as we talk about, as I mentioned, so many backlogs.

Lots of you getting in touch as well on something a little lighter, scruffy hosting. I'm going to be talking about that a little bit later in the programme. No, no, no, to leave in the mess for the guests to see. Too many areas of life are being sacrificed on the altar of relax and go with the flow. Tidy up before guests, please. Also, making an effort shows a level of respect to your guests,

surely, and shows your children a lesson in going the extra mile on special occasions. anonymous from Leeds 84844 if you'd like to get in touch Now, if you haven't already I strongly recommend checking out the latest episode of CBB's Parenting Download. It's the podcast that unpacks the stories that have got parents really talking

from viral trends and dilemmas to the news stories lighting up your group chats. This week Katie Thistleton and Governor B discussed the mental health of dads the emotional struggles they can face in the first few years of their child's life and the barriers that men can face when they need help. Joining them to share personal experiences and offer advice is the rapper

and mental health advocate, Professor Green. I think we can be quite detached from self. That's an effort that I make with my son to aid him in developing a sense of self way before he's my age. I've had to expedite it in order to model the behaviour that I want to give him example by.

And it's really tough because you hear it in language use, and you see it and how boys are treated and the presumptions that are made and they quite quickly become little terrors or naughty and I just find that that language is really dangerous and there's this idea that we're tough because we have a physical strength which is visible

but that goes hand in hand with a fragility that is not visible. Professor Green there. There's also some great support from perinatal mental health expert Dr Jill Domini. You can find the podcast on BBC Sounds. Don't forget to hit subscribe. You can also watch it on iPlayer

just search CBB's Parenting Download. Now, in the past few minutes, the Women's Institute has announced a big change. From next April, it will no longer offer membership to transgender women. The UK Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that the legal definition of a woman can only be based on biological sex. And this announcement comes the day after it was announced transgender girls can no longer join the Girl Guides, Brownies or Rainbows. The Women's Institute says its decision comes with the utmost regret. We'll hear from them in just a moment. But first, let's have a reminder of the background to the story

with the BBC's political correspondent Phil Sim. Phil, good to have you with us. This case began in Scotland. Can you talk us through how the issue came before the Supreme Court? Yeah, sure. I mean, somehow it was seven years ago now first came into the Scottish courts. I mean, it was a fairly low-key piece of Holyrood's Scottish Parliament legislation about 50-50 representation on public sector boards.

making sure there was gender balance on public boards. And that legislation had included trans people in those quotas. And that was challenged by this group called Four Women's Scotland. The case kind of bouts around through the courts for years. It kind of snowballed until it ended up in the UK Supreme Court and, you know, with a ruling which was about the proper interpretation of this UK-wide equality law. So at the heart of this is the Equality Act, 2010 legislation which provides protections against discrimination to groups. on the basis of characteristics like sex, age, race, and indeed gender reassignment, the question was whether trans people who had been through the gender recognition process,

do they count as women under that definition of sex in the law? So do they have sex-based rights as women? And what would that mean for access to things like single-sex services and spaces, things like changing rooms, hospital wards, domestic abuse, support services, that kind of thing? So in this case, the Scottish Government was arguing that the Gender Recognition Act, which set up the gender recognition process in 2004, said that when you get this certificate, that counts as a change of sex for all purposes.

And basically that would mean that you then count as you required sex across the board. But the judges unanimously and pretty emphatically sided with four women Scotland. They said it's important that the law kind of makes sense in a way that organisations and people can actually implement it on the ground. It's not just for lawyers to understand. They said, you know, it makes sense for sex to be defecive. find inequality's law as meaning biological sex.

So, you know, they said that trans people still have protection, you know, against discrimination under the characteristic of gender reassignment. They have other protections in law too. It remains illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis that they are transgender. But someone born biologically male who gets a gender recognition certificate saying they're a woman cannot then, you know, claim discrimination protections as a woman. And that's basically where this case has ended up. And then the reaction to that ruling?

Well, the judges said that the ruling shouldn't be a victory for one group in society over and other, but there were huge celebrations from four women Scotland. They literally opened a bottle of champagne outside the court. They saw it as a big win. They say it provides more guarantees for women and girls to those single-sex services and space unquestioned access for women. But I think there's been growing frustration on their part that things haven't been changing as quickly as they'd like since then. And obviously there was disappointment to the ruling from trans campaigners. They say, you know, they're a marginalised minority group.

They were very worried about what the implications could be for them, how their lives could be affected, you know, will they end up being excluded from spaces? I think on all sides they're very interesting in the practical outcomes of what happens next. Will there be, do we know, subsequent changes to the law? Well, I mean, in a way, the law has kind of changed.

I mean, it's a slightly philosophical point. But, I mean, because obviously, you've got the letter of the law as kind of drafted and agreed by Parliament. But then there's the interpretation of the law. as educated by the courts and the application of the law in real life on the ground. And because the interpretation has changed from what many organisations took it to be, that has to change the application of the law. Ultimately, politicians could change the letter of the law any time they like.

But if the UK government didn't like what they were saying, they could use, they got a huge majority, they could rewrite the Equality Act. But I just don't think there is the political appetite right now to wade into this debate. So I think it's very unlikely that they're going to meddle with what the law is now, what the court has decided that it is. So you don't expect any legal challenges to the Supreme Court ruling? Well, that's a different kind of question because there are, you know, there's been a lot of interest in the ruling, obviously. There are quite a few different legal cases going on.

So the big thing that comes next, basically, is that there is to be guidance from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, right? They are this kind of guardians of the Equality Act, and they have been drafting this new guidance, which will underline the practical application of the law. And they came up with an interim update at one point, which said, if you have single, sex services or spaces. Those have to be provided on the basis of biological sex. But that has already been challenged in court by the Good Law Project. They say it's legally flawed. They say it could exclude

trans people from using services they've used for years. So there's already a legal case about that. And we're waiting for the finalised version of the statutory guidance to be signed off. It's been sent to the UK government but they have not yet

put it to Parliament to be signed off. It's been three months. there's speculation that maybe they want to see the outcome of this initial legal challenge but also maybe they want to do consultations of things that could kick the whole thing into the long grass and that just then creates a bit of confusion going forward

when organisations are trying to comply with the law because as I say the interpretation of the law has changed and organisations have to comply with the Equality Act so I think everyone is waiting very keenly to see what the regulators say. So the legal challenges may be come more to the forefront in the future you mentioned the Equality and Human Rights Commission

there. They are the E H or C, because we will hear that acronym used in our next interview. Phil Sim, thank you very much. And I want to turn to Melissa Green, who is the chief executive of the National Federation of the Women's Institutes, which is the largest voluntary women's organisation in the UK, founded in 1915. Melissa explained to me how they came to this decision. So the WI is announcing today with sincere regret that from April next year,

we will no longer be able to provide access to our membership for transgender women. And that's after 40 years of fellowship and sisterhood with those women, unfortunately the legal position as it stands means that we can no longer offer that. We've spoken with our council who represent our members. We've been exploring this for years. We don't shy away from difficult topics. But since April, we've really focused on this policy because since the Supreme Court ruling,

there's a requirement on all organisations to do so. So we've worked with our membership through our council to explore the issues, to explore the legal options and then to make our decision about where we stand. And this is the only option that is available to you? It absolutely is. And our council were very clear. The majority of them wish to remain transinclusive, but that legal option wasn't open to us. I can see you're sitting opposite me here. You talk about profound regret and it shows in your face.

Tell me a little bit more about making that decision and that decision process for you personally. It's a difficult decision because there's legal aspects here, there's social aspects, but ultimately the WI is a women's organisation. We're a campaigning organisation, we're an educational organisation, but it's based on friendship and deeply rooted connections. And some of our transgender members have been with us for four decades. They've been part of our family. You talk about it as a difficult decision for you and for the WI,

but there are many biological women who will see this as good news, enabling them to gather as a single-sex group in an organisation that has the word women in the name? Absolutely, and it's a difficult decision because our members, we're 175,000 women. We will have 175,000 views on everything. And our job is always to find a point, not of consensus, but a point where we feel that it's comfortable for the organisation. So it's difficult because some of our members will feel very strongly on both sides of this. and we have many members who will hold gender critical views and it needs to be a safe and respectful space for them

as it does for our transgender members. Back in 2023, there was a petition from some WI members calling for a pause in admitting trans members saying that the WI had been de facto forced to accept men. How much has that dominated the WI in recent years and did that conversation factor into your decision? that you're announcing today? It would possibly surprise listeners that this hasn't been a conversation

that has dominated our internal debate. It has not. It is not. So since April, we've had 67 unique pieces of correspondence about this. We're 175,000. And many of those were from outside our organisation. So we've got groups on either side of this debate who feel incredibly passionately and strongly.

And we try to provide a space where those views can be aired, but they haven't led our thinking on this. But coming back to the announcement that trans women will not be admitted as members. You will instead, however, have new sisterhood groups. Can you explain what they are exactly? We're launching in April a national network of sisterhood groups to develop that friendship and support for transgender women that we've offered for 40 years. It is with regret we can't offer full membership to our organisation.

But we feel 40 years of sisterhood with those women is something that we need to continue to respect and maintain. We will open these sisterhood groups alongside WIs who wish to offer a trans-inclusive space. But with these sisterhood groups that trans women, transgender members may be able to join, some might say, you know, you're offloading the difficult part of this decision to local groups,

often grassroots volunteers and could create fractures within the WI, even if they are offshoots, with potential chaos. I can't control how people will view this from the outside, but I have every confidence in our fantastic membership that we will work through this as we have worked through so many difficult issues since 1915.

This gives our WI's level of autonomy to decide that it respects the views of those who are gender-critical, but it also allows an opportunity for those who are so proudly trans-inclusive to maintain those links with a community that we know, particularly since April, have become even more isolated. You don't think that it could be confusing for people to understand what the organisation is now if membership is not allowed to transgender, but they are allowed be members of a grassroots offshoot?

RWIs now, they will have member-only activities, but any given WI will also run all manner of different activities and events outside of their meetings where they open that up to a wider audience. That includes men, that includes non-members. So this is a fairly well-trodden path for us and I don't think that creates confusion. I do want to also turn to your website.

Until today, it said, welcoming transgender women to the WI builds on our ambitions and enriches our membership to ensure we are a place for all women to celebrate who they are and influence positive change in their communities. You've said trans women remain welcome. However, your membership rules now exclude them.

So many trans women may not feel at all welcome in your organisation. How do you intend to deal with this apart from the sisterhood groups? So we intend to be clear that whilst the law restricts membership, it's our firm organisational belief that transgender women are women. and it's our commitment to make sure that we continue to demonstrate that. We're a registered charity. We can't break the law, but we can express our continued sisterhood to transgender women through those groups. What do you think your decision, your ruling, will mean to individual trans women?

I think it will be sadness because it's removing something that was so incredibly important to them. The WI has been the only place where they found acceptance in their lives, and they don't want to talk about being transgender women. They want to be accepted as women and be able to relax and do things in their community and play a part in society. And they don't have those opportunities elsewhere. Have you also spoken to women who celebrate your decision?

Yes, so we've spoken to women of all views on this and none. There are extreme views on both sides of this debate. Publicly, I think that's become toxic and has allowed little space for discussion. but ours is an organisation that has worked through a lot of social change in 110 years and we have evolved and adapted and listened. The joy, the beauty of the WI is that we have so many different views and we can hold them and we can treat each other with mutual respect.

So going forward, trans women will be excluded from membership within the WI. But how are you going to police that? One of the things we're really encouraging is the EHRC to publish their guidance. Guidance on how to police? On how to implement the Equality Act in this respect. It's not the role of the HRC to tell us the law or indeed how we must interpret it for our organisation. But the HRC's guidance will be absolutely crucial

for our organisation and every organisation to ensure we get this right. You know, I think Lord Hodg was clear in the Supreme Court ruling. It's not a victory of one side over another. You know, the rights of those who are gender-critical, the rights of those who are transgender, all of those rights are still protected. the Equality Act. But that guidance will really help us to understand how do we implement this

in practice in a voluntary context as well. But you must have had conversations already about potential paths for that. For example, will it be demanding to see original birth certificates rather than one issued after a gender recognition certificate? I'd just like some specifics. Yeah, of course. We have explored this whole issue in huge depth, including taking legal advice on this. And the recurring theme is it needs to be proportionate to the setting. We don't yet know whether we will be required to ask for any written evidence, but our understanding is that we also need to balance the rights of individuals not to be asked to share personal data that's not relevant to a setting. We need to know whether it would be legal to require a birth certificate.

So would it be fair to say, Melissa, that there is no plan at the moment at the WI on how to enforce the policy of no membership for trans women? That's never the way of the WI, so we've always got planned, but there's no point me exploring those now because I have no idea what the HRC guidance will require of us. And just as we've made this decision to remain compliant as an organisation, that will be the same with that guidance. And you'll know some other organisations are waiting and watching before making an announcement like the WI has waiting for that guidance that you mention.

Why did the WI decide to take this decision now? It's a good question. Having worked on this for months with our members, with others outside our organisation, with legal advisors, once the legal situation became clear, it felt fair to all our members of all views and none on this issue to be clear with them. We've done so much comprehensive work on this around developing our position, our policy, the options for how we will implement. it felt right to share that with our members and also my organisations never shied away from taking the lead

and if we're clear, we want to be clear with everybody else I think that's respectful, it's fair. So once we knew the legal situation, once we had the policy and we knew how that would operate for us, we knew we had to share it with our members and also share it with wider society. We could have waited for the HRC guidance

but I think society needs organisations such as my own to lead. And this is a difficult topic, isn't it? It's a difficult topic for women's listeners. It's a difficult topic for society. And we would like to play our part in leading through that strongly, confidently. Melissa Green, the chief executive of the National Federation of Women's Institutes from next April, the WI will no longer offer membership to transgender women.

Thanks also to our political correspondent, Phil Sim, who we spoke to before Melissa. I want to turn into hosting around this season. Do you like everything to be perfect for holiday dinner party hosting? The spotless house, the elaborate menu, the Instagram-worthy table setting. But what if we told you that the secret to a great dinner party is not perfection? It's scruffy hosting. A trend apparently transforming the way we gather together and can make for stress-free dinner parties. More attainable?

Maybe a one-pot dinner, mismatch cutlery, toys under the table, children running around, perhaps even screaming. Helen Thorne, comedian, podcast from one half off the scummy mummies, joins me for a few minutes. Is it a trend? Is it going to catch on, Helen, and welcome? I mean, I'm glad it's a trend now. I've been doing it forever. As says one of our listeners, I've been scruffy hosting for the last 45 years, teacher, mum, Vicker, no time to clear up but have an open and welcoming home that way. Exactly. And I would say, always choose.

joy over perfection, you know, choose having a good time, choose good company. If your friends judge you for having a messy house, get rid of the friends. Don't get rid of the mess. You know, embrace it. And I think, especially at this time of year, moms are flat out. There's a lot on. We're limping towards the end of the year. You know, just have food that's easy, friends that are warm and enjoy it. You know, use paper plates if you need to. I think life is just so chaotic at the moment and I think just enjoy the connection and sometimes people don't have dinner parties because I think oh gosh I don't have time to clean up and do the perfect thing but now more than ever it's really important to have those connections with friends and do a bit of as I like to call

hiding don't tidy just hide things put it in a box put it in the boot of the car you know you can shove the mess to the end of one table I remember we used to have this sofa when I was a kid that when guests would come and it would lift up and you could throw everything in under the sofa. You know what I mean? You'd actually lift up the seat bit and until the guest came the next time then you'd remember where you put stuff. Lots of messages coming in. Here's one. I'm only using my energy and inviting people over who don't judge. We must stop holding ourselves to impossible standards of perfection. Do you have a memorable scruffy dinner that you have been to? Absolutely. I have a group of friends. We just take it in turns and that's, you know, we all just bring a bit of food and it's just

about having a good laugh, and we're all sort of either single parents or parents with teenagers. We're all feeling a bit menopausal as well. So just having that time to connect over food, I think is really important. And we're not saying have a dirty house. It's just, you know, obviously give things a little bit of a wipe. You know, we don't live in a pig pen. But I think it's those where my friends come to my house and go, Helen, you make me feel so much better about my messy house. I'm like, you are welcome, Gemma. This is a public service. So maybe you don't want to go to this house. I wouldn't do Scruffy hosting, even if it was just me here.

I live in a spotless house and make the beds with hospital corners, regardless of who can see it. It's how I roll. Once the guests are here, I try and ignore it all getting in a mess. And I don't start cleaning up until they've gone, even though that makes me itch. Thankfully, I don't care in the slightest if I'm a guest in somebody else's Scruffy home. It's all about people having a good time. Absolutely. And you've got to just do you.

If you like opulent, you know, table decorations and being neat, that's great. But I get a bit eyewitchy and I start shouting about children 15 minutes before the guests arrive. And I don't need the stress. I just want the joy. And I think one of the things being about a single parent is like I've reframed Christmas. And one year we just said, let's just have our three favourite foods. So on the Christmas table was roast chicken, skittles and chopped up cucumber. And we all had a lovely time.

We had a great time. And the children ate all of the food. That is great. One more. It sounds wonderful. I'd rather see friends and family than avoid seeing them because I haven't got my house in order. I'm totally in favour of lowering the expectation levels in this regard.

It's a home, not a showhouse. Thanks very much for joining us, Helen. Good to speak to you. Jacinda Ardurne is on tomorrow. Joining Kylie Pentelow, do join us for that, a conversation, the second elected leader in history to give birth while in office. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time.

I'm Sharie Val, and I've been investigating fraud for decades. Now I'm shining light on the secret techniques criminals use to steal your money. With insight from guest experts and the real people involved in these scams so you can see the fraudsters coming before it's too late. That's the new series of scam secrets. Listen now on BBC Sounds.