Woman's Hour - Author and judge Nicola Williams, Abortion in the UK update, Police violence against women

Episode Date: March 14, 2023

Nicola Williams’ new novel Until Proven Innocent sees the return of Lee Mitchell, a young barrister from a working-class Caribbean background, who is strong-armed into defending a supposedly corrupt racist police officer charged with the death of a 15-year-old pastor's son. Nicola served for many years as a criminal barrister, one of the few black women in that job, and draws on her experience of the criminal justice system in her writing. She joins Nuala to discuss juggling being a part-time Crown Court judge with writing, and how she draws on her legal experience in her books.Complaints about police officers' treatment of women are highly unlikely to result in action, according to new police data for England and Wales. The National Police Chiefs' Council says nine in 10 complaints were dropped in the six months to March 2022. We hear from Maggie Blyth, the National Police Chiefs' Council lead for violence against women and girls, and Nuala speaks to Sir Peter Fahy, former Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police.The House of Commons recently approved the introduction of exclusion zones around abortion clinics, and now some experts are recommending that the mandatory authorisation of abortions by two doctors should be dropped. To find out more, Nuala McGovern is joined by Fiona de Londras, Professor of Legal Studies at the University of Birmingham, and Professor Kaye Wellings, co-author of a new London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine abortion study.Last year, an NHS Digital survey found that 31 per cent of 17 to 24-year-old women had depression and anxiety. What can be done to help them? A new Policy Centre for the Wellbeing of Young Women and Girls is being set up at a Cambridge University college. Dorothy Byrne is the president of all-female Murray Edwards College and the former head of news at Channel 4 Television. She joins Nuala to explain how and why she created this centre.

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2. And of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme. Peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, this is Nuala McGovern and you're listening to the Woman's Hour podcast. Welcome to Woman's Hour and good to have your company. Well, today we're going to take a look at new police data out for England and Wales from the National Police Chiefs' Council that shows complaints about police officers' treatment of women are highly unlikely to result in action. We're going to have more on that in a moment. And if you were with us yesterday, you'll know we spoke about abortion laws in the United States. Today, we're looking at the abortion

laws here in the UK, which are also facing changes that includes the introduction of so-called buffer zones, and also why some believe nurses and midwives should now be given more power in those processes. Today we also have the author and Crown Court Judge Nicola Williams. She will be with us in studio. Nicola wrote Without Prejudice. It's a courtroom thriller about barrister Lee Mitchell from a working-class Caribbean background as she forges a path through London's legal system. That book, however, was from 25 years ago. And now Lee is back in Nicola's new book. It's called Until Proven Innocent. We'll hear how Nicola's career informed Lee's character and also what it's like to bring Lee back after all that time. And I want to ask you about dressing up or dressing down. Cheltenham Horse

Racing Festival starts today, you might know, without the long-standing traditional formal dress code. So for more than 200 years, the event has seen crowds of spectators arriving to the race, whether it's wearing hats and high heels, for example. We always see those pictures, don't we? But now the Jockey Club, which runs Cheltenham, has scrapped formal dress codes at all its venues. And I think this is indicative of a more relaxed dress code that we see in many places.

But some bemoan the changes. Once upon a time, getting on a plane, going to the theatre, that was a dressed up affair. But now it's safe to say anything goes. And I'm wondering, how does it sit with you in places like that or maybe other places that were once, you know, a time to go and put the glad rags on, but ripped jeans are probably now more predictable or acceptable?

I don't know. Did the pandemic change our habits when it came to dressing up or dressing down? I want to hear from you. You can text the programme. The number is 84844. Text will be charged at your standard message rate.

On social media, we're at BBC Women's Hour. Or you can email us through your website. Or if you want to send a voice note or WhatsApp message, that number is 03700 100 444. Maybe you're listening to us still in your pyjamas. Maybe you're getting really dressed up to go out. Let us know. Now, as I mentioned at the top

of the programme, complaints about police officers' treatment of women are unlikely to result in action, even highly unlikely. That's according to new police data for England and also for Wales. The National Police Chiefs Council says nine in ten complaints

were dropped in the six months to March 2022. And according to the new figures, where cases were completed, no further action was taken against police officers and staff that were accused of violence against women and girls in nine out of ten complaints from the public and in seven out of ten internal reports from police against colleagues. Here's some of what Maggie Blythe, the National Police Chiefs Council lead for violence against women and girls, had to say. This was on the Today programme this morning.

We also are wanting to root out people like this within policing. So we and all chiefs are using accelerated hearings where they can now we know that where where that where those accelerated hearings are used 95 of them do lead to dismissal and we've also made submissions in the last few weeks to the home office to to look at making sure that uh where where an automatic dismissal route for any individual who receives a conviction for an offence, which would have barred them from entering the service in the first place. So really wanting to show in publishing this snapshot from last year that when we publish again next year, we will see some real changes.

Maggie Blyde there. Well, I spoke to the former chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir Peter Fahey, just before we started this programme. And I started by asking him what his reaction was to what Maggie was saying there. Yes, it's very strong leadership, absolutely. But I think Maggie Blyth is also alluding to some of the practical difficulties that police forces face. I think the public probably are not aware that in general, chief constables can't sack officers for gross misconduct it has to go in front of an independent panel chaired by an independent qc they may have noticed that for instance in the wayne cousins case the metropolitan police had to wait till he was convicted before

they could actually sack him and before that he was continuing to draw his salary so there's no question that chief constables are showing stronger leadership giving stronger messages devoting more resources to rooting out officers trying to build confidence of victims but at the same time as they've said they needs to be changed to changes to the police discipline system and that will undoubtedly involve some challenges in terms of the the that employment law applies to police forces, when actually policing is often very different to other forms of employment. So, I mean, how radical would those changes need to be?

I think they need to be very radical. But, you know, it is also not just about the process. It is about how it's perceived by the public. And to be fair, for many, many years, the police service and the Police Federation have been calling for a completely independent system of investigation of complaints against the police. We've now had three different iterations of different bodies set up by different governments to investigate complaints. But the fact is the vast majority of complaints are still investigated by individual police forces.

That needs to change. There needs to be a very clear and public route whereby victims can complain to an independent body, not to the police force that employs the officer that they wish to make allegations against. And at the same time, we need to look at the wider criminal justice system, because at the end of the day, the police service, when it's investigating its own own officers has to operate within the same rules of evidence and the same burden of proof as in the mainstream criminal justice system we know that the conviction rates for rape at the moment is less than two percent so in some ways you know the uh the results of the police complaints are actually higher than for, as I say, more general investigations. That needs to change. We know that about 40 percent of victims during the court process pull out and withdraw.

So absolutely, everybody in the system needs to try harder. But at the same time, we need to recognise that this needs fundamental change of the confidence of women is to be regained. And just trying harder within the existing system is probably not going to work so one is the independent panel as you talk about do you think there's a political will for that i think there could be as long as the politicians understand you know what what the system that the police have to operate in and show that determination to confront the wider criminal justice system. You know, because as I say, this is about a system which is there to serve women and to achieve them justice. I think there are also broader issues when, for instance, you look at the huge amount of resource which is deployed into counterterrorism,

which obviously is very serious, but you compare that to the amount that's put into violence against women. You look at the amount of effort that's put into the prevent programme to identify people who may have, you know, potentially dangerous political views and ideological views. We're not putting that same sort of resource and attention into things like precursor offences, young men who've got dangerous attitudes towards women. And all that is symbolic. When I was in policing, you know, we felt that if we could get more women into police forces, that would change the culture. There are some remarkable women in policing, some remarkable female chief constables. But we'd have to say that it hasn't achieved the fundamental change in culture that we thought. And therefore, more of the system and the structure needs to be addressed if that's going to come about. And women feel that they are getting the attention they deserve.

That's an interesting point, though, Peter. Why do you think that is? Why do you think women within that structure did not fundamentally change it? Because the systems they have to operate, you know, haven't changed, you know, the broader male dominated hierarchy, the fact that policing are still very traditional organisations, quasi-military organisations based on rank and position, but also that they work within a criminal justice system

and a court system that has not treated offences against women in the same way as many other crimes and hasn't recognised the awful experiences that many female victims go through and why so many female victims

are put off from using that system in the first place. That's not being confronted. And so while those female officers show great leadership and do a great job, they are still operating within a system that largely has not changed. What you're calling for, I think,

is quite different to what Maggie Blyth was calling for. We heard from her there talking about accelerated proceedings, automatic dismissal for some crimes. What about that path instead? Well, you can only do accelerated hearings in certain cases where somebody has been convicted, not for the generality of police discipline cases. And yes, you can have a very clear zero tolerance process. But again, you know, that can be challenged under employment law. So all that is important. And giving a very strong

signal is important. It's also about putting more resources. And that is difficult for policing. I face that as a chief constable using some of my best resources, some of my best investigators, some of the most intrusive techniques against my own officers when there was concern about their potential law-breaking or concerns about their integrity. So all those sorts of things are important, but I don't think it's going to bring around the sort of fundamental change which is required and the sort of fundamental reform of policing

that many bodies like the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Police Foundation have called for, because ultimately, you know, police forces are structured and often operate within a system that in many ways has not changed that much since the 1960s. And so has not kept up with, you know, the modern nature of the workforce, the modern nature of society. Thankfully, changing attitudes amongst women, changing attitudes towards relationships, and obviously the huge impact of social media, both in terms of how people conduct their relationships on social media and how some police officers have misused that, you know, to share the most obnoxious views and ideas.

So, you know, as I say, there's no question Maggie Blythe and others are showing great leadership. But I think they would recognise as well that there is need for more fundamental reform and change if we're really going to improve. So what would that look like? I mean, I hear the words fundamental change. I know you're talking about bringing it up to a police force that would be

in line with the society in 2023. But what do you do? Tear it apart to build it up again? I'm just trying to think in concrete. But what do you do? Tear it apart to build it up again? I'm just trying to think in concrete terms of what would it look like or how would it be implemented? Well, I would really point to the country that you came from, Ireland, which a few years ago had a fundamental review in policing and is putting in some fairly radical changes there. But it's certainly even fundamental things like, is policing a profession or not? Policing is still in turmoil, for instance, about whether police officers should have graduate level

training, despite the fact that's what teaching, social work, nursing have all gone through. You know, it is about whether things like the rank structure are really appropriate, where today it's much more about your expertise, not about, you know, the signs and symbols that you carry on your shoulders. It's having 51 police forces when most crimes are now occurring on the internet. You know, it's fundamental issues like that. And it's also fundamental issues, as I say, about the way that the court system operates and why so many females do not have any confidence in going into that system. So, you know, what needs to be done is fairly well mapped out. It's been recommended in many, many reports.

There are many other international examples. What we've lacked is the political will for that to actually happen. So that's what was going to be my next question. That sounds like that fundamental changes or a radical rethink. It sounds expensive. Well, it is expensive, but it is actually necessary because there's a huge amount of time and effort being wasted at the moment. You know, a huge amount of effort being put, for instance, into an investigation of crime on the Internet

with a less than 1% chance of victims getting any redress. You know, but I think it is more about the political will. And yes, this would take time. It needs strategic, long-term direction. And the trouble is, clearly, at the moment we're in a very short-term political culture, and even things like the fact that the local police and crime commissioners

are elected for a four-year period just makes it more difficult for the police service to have a long-term view of the change which is now necessary. Thanks very much to Sir Peter Fahey, former Chief Constable police service to have a long-term view of the change which is now necessary. Thanks very much to Sir Peter Fahey, former Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police. I was asking you at the top of the programme about whether you like to dress up or not, pegging it really to that news you might have seen from Cheltenham that they've got rid of the dress code, they've scrapped it. You don't have to wear high heels and a hat if you don't

want to. And lots of you are getting in touch. I think the Woman's Hour listener in general from these texts so far is a pretty dressed up person. OK, here's one. To be fair, I still dress up to go on a flight. Love to fly. And I think dressing up helps make the whole experience a little more exciting and a nod to glamorous times gone by. Somebody else. Anne, I'm not sure why the Jockey Club have relaxed the dress code.

There's so few occasions to glam up and I don't want to go everywhere looking like I'm heading to the supermarket. Another. I think it's a great shame that people don't dress up for the theatre and opera. It makes it more of an occasion.

Feels like a real treat, not just another day. I still dress up and really enjoy it. However, I don't want others to feel uncomfortable if they choose not to. 84844 if you want to chime in on that one.

Now, I want to turn to Crown Court Judge Nicola Williams. Her new novel, Until Proven Innocent, sees the return of Lee Mitchell, a young barrister from a working class to Caribbean background who is strong-armed into defending a supposedly corrupt and racist police officer who has been charged with the death of a

15-year-old pastor's son. Now, we met Lee Mitchell in Nicola's previous book, Without Prejudice. That was written 25 years ago, but rediscovered recently as part of Black Britain writing back series that was championed by the author Bernadine Evaristo. And Nicola served for many years as a criminal barrister,

one of the few black women in that particular role. And she's with me now in the studio to talk about her writing, her experience within the criminal justice system as well. Good morning. Welcome. Good morning, Nuala. I'm very happy to be here. Well, your protagonist is Lee Mitchell that I mentioned there. How closely is her character based on your experience? If I had a pound for every time someone asked me that question, I'm not surprised at all that you asked me that. She's based on me, but she isn't me. There are

definitely differences. A time will come and I'll write my autobiography, but it's not here yet. But it's certainly based on experiences either I have had or my colleagues have had. Okay, so neither of those are autobiographical as we look at those books. But let's talk about this because your first book, Without Prejudice, it was written 25 years ago. Why such a gap between that first and second book? I was still very much in private practice and combining a busy private practice where I did criminal defense but also a lot of civil work up and down the country with writing was something that sort of defeated me at the time and also to be honest I sort of lost a bit of faith in myself as a writer I don't know why looking back but I but I did and that's the reason why I didn't write for a very long time I think the other thing is I would say to any aspiring writer, if you've written a book, the temptation is to take a bit of a break immediately afterwards. Be careful about that, because I took a break for a couple of weeks, which turned into a couple of months, which turned into six months.

And then it's like starting an old car on a cold day. It's quite hard to get back into it. So it was a combination of all of those things. How interesting. And you don't know what it was of why you lost your faith. Do you know how you got it back? Yes, I think it just got to a point where I had an idea in my head that would not leave me alone for years. And then we had the first lockdown and I used to have a two hour commute into my office.

And I used my commuting time to look at a very old manuscript that I had and started back on that again. And that was what started me off. And renewed the faith. This 25 years has passed. We've both got older in those 25 years. Lee Mitchell has not. He's only aged by about two and a half to three years.

Exactly. And was that something you had to think about, whether to age her or not? No, I was very clear that I intend to write five books around Lee Mitchell between the ages of 30 to 40. Because a woman's life changes a lot between the ages of 30 to 40. You have to make some quite key decisions about your career, about your personal life, whether to start a family or not. And I wanted to examine those. So I was going to, I have aged 25 years, she has not. How hard was it, though, to get back into the characters? Because I should tell our listeners, there are some of the same characters that were in Without Prejudice are in Until Proven Innocent. proven innocent, that they, you know, whether it's the police officer, for example, Sergeant

Lambert, or if it's Ray, some of these characters that we previously met, trying to get back into it, not just Lee's head, but everybody else as well. Well, I didn't find it that hard, which sounds like an awful lot of hubris. I don't mean it like that. I think because I'd lived with Lee and these characters for a long time, even though I wasn't writing about them. So once I'd worked out the plot that I wanted to write about, which is the flip side of that question that barristers always get asked, how can you represent someone that is an awful human being who's committed a horrible crime, and everyone else thinks that they're guilty, but maybe just maybe they didn't do it. And can you answer that question? No, you have to buy the book and read it. But you must

have come up against it in your own career. I've certainly had, I've certainly had people ask me that the first question, absolutely, they haven't really asked me the second one. But they've definitely asked me the first one. But have you had that, that, you know, somebody who's an awful person, but there is a potential they're innocent? Yes. If you do criminal defense, you will absolutely have come across that. And I was a barrister for a long time. I've done cases at all levels of our criminal justice system up to and including death penalty appeals from the Commonwealth. So I certainly know what that is like. Is it very clear cut in your head about what you take or what you don't take?

No, it isn't. But for criminal barristers, I mean, I've left private practice at the bar and I now sit as a recorder, a part-time judge. But certainly when I was at the bar, and I believe it's still the case now, you have the cab rank rule, which really means that if you are of a certain level of experience and ability to do a particular type of case, that if it comes up to you, you have to take it. Right. And knowing that in your job that you have to take it, that's just the requirement. does that get rid of any of the emotional questioning or turmoil i don't i personally i can only speak for myself i don't think it should actually i think if you have a barrister without emotion uh that means you

potentially have a barrister without compassion um and you need both of those things however you have to be able to um guard yourself against it a little bit. Otherwise, you wouldn't be effective. Let me go back as well. We're talking about this 25-year span that luckily for Lee was just two or three years. However, the backdrop I felt very much in both books, it's London, right? If you live in London or you've been to London, you'll start recognising a lot of the spots.

London is in a very different time 25 years later. It is, yes. So how did you, or I'm just wondering how you managed that between some of the characters not ageing, but of course the city does.

Well, I just thought it would be interesting, for example, to explore the whole issue of gentrification as a whole. It's almost like a separate side plot. And London is a big feature

of the book, almost like a character on its own. And the fact is that there are some areas. The book is broadly set in sort of Brixton and Peckham. And there were some parts of those areas 25 years ago that people didn't want to go and live in that were wrongly branded no-go areas. And as a proud South Londoner, I don't live in those areas, but I live in South London. I feel very strongly about that.

But now they're incredibly fancy. So it's interesting to see how that has developed. So I wanted to have a changing London, an evolving London, but some of the characters are still the same and some of the issues are still the same. Well, let's talk about that because I think definitely you'll immediately bump up against race and class and authority and hierarchies.

And how much do you feel that has changed between the two? Well, I could give you the diplomatic answer or I'll give you the real answer. No, I'll give you the real answer. OK. All right. In all of them. But I think, of course, I can't speak. All right. In all of them. I think there have been changes. Absolutely. From the time that I was called to the bar, to the time that I wrote Without Prejudice, and now in 2023, on the cusp of Until Proven Innocent coming out. When I think about my profession, the bar,

things definitely have changed. Absolutely. Have they completely changed? Have they completely eradicated race or class bias? Absolutely, they haven't. The fact that I've been, you said that I was one of the few black women barristers. Actually, there are quite a few black women barristers, but there are very few black women judges. And I think the fact that our judiciary is not as diverse as it could be is probably a testament to that.

Let me make it clear before anyone thinks I'm accusing judges of being racist. I am not. What I'm saying is that things have changed. Absolutely. But they could change a bit more. Slow change? think about the time that they came to this country, there was open and naked, no blacks, no Irish, no dogs kind of discrimination. You can't do that now. So if my mother is still alive, my father's passed, but my mum is still alive and she has some stories to tell. So if you think about what has happened over the last 60 odd years, yes, there has been change. Could there be more? Yes, there could be. And I want to, these are the kind of things I want to explore in my

books. But above all, I want them to be good old fashioned page turners. If you like legal thrillers, if you like crime dramas, that's what I want. Yes. I'm just remembering Lee's mother as well. Your mother must be incredibly proud of you. She is actually. She is. She actually got one of the first copies of my book. Yes. That is wonderful. I also want to let our listeners know that you have, without prejudice, your first book, Optioned. What does that feel like? It feels great, actually. It feels amazing. I want to see what comes out of that because I do know I have a friend who actually works in the business who wasn't involved in my option.

But I do know from her that these things take an awful long time to come to fruition. And it may be that I might write a whole other book before that comes to fruition. But it is absolutely wonderful that I will be able to see Lee fleshed out. Fleshed out. So it's going to be on the screen. So it's the screen rights really to Making Without Prejudice. And I was wondering, who would you like to play Lee Mitchell on that screen fleshed out? Oh, my goodness gracious. Wow. I wasn't expecting that question. Well, I think if Michelle Obama was 30 years younger, I would say her.

I think, yes, I would say I think she embodies a lot of that. But I can't think of anyone else at the moment. Don't worry, my listeners might. 8444. If you love a crime thriller and you've read Without Prejudice and Untold, Proven, Innocent is the next one in the series. So you mentioned five, is it you're going to have? So is number three already underway? I'm right near the end of number three.

It's proving to be a little bit longer though, so I think it might need a bit of editing. But yes, I want to write about that. And I think people might be wondering how you balance your career writing part time judge you mentioned. Well, with with difficulty, I think one of the things when I wrote Without Prejudice, I was in full time private practice. And I realised because of the gap between the two books that if I was going to write again, I couldn't work full time and do it. So I took the decision to sit part time as a judge. I have been approached about sitting full time, but I made the decision to sit part time so that I would have time to write.

Otherwise, it just wouldn't get done or it might take 10 years to do and I didn't want that to happen. So interesting. I'm asking my listeners on a different question, whether to dress up or dress down, going to Cheltenham or the opera, the theatre. Any thoughts on that? I am totally a dressing up woman.

I am very much heels, dresses, all that kind of stuff. Not wearing that today, but that is definitely... But lovely bright lipstick, as I say. Absolutely. That's definitely the way I roll. And a lovely outfit on as well. Thank you. So good to have you in.

Best of luck with finishing the third book. Yes. And of course... I think my editor would like that too. Probably listening. Until Proven Innocent is the new book that's out and Without Prejudice is the previous book, which we will probably see on a screen near us

sometime soon. Who should play? Lee Mitchell with the Caribbean background a South Londoner. You can throw your ideas true to that as well on 84844. Thanks very much. Right, I have to get to some of these dressing up or dressing down texts that have come in because there's so many.

Most women love dressing up, most men do not. There's one. Another from Michelle. I never leave the house without heels and lipstick. Standards will not drop on my watch. My husband and I always dress for dinner

on Sundays. If we've guests, we ask them to do the same or at least not wear T-shirts. Another, Sarah. I'm going to Cheltenham tomorrow and I think that spending hundreds of pounds

on an outfit plus a hat that I will probably only wear once a year. I think she means that that's not a good thing to do. I'll put on my best clothes. I've polished my boots and have dug out a trilby, purchased at Camden Market. And that will have to do. That sounds like an outfit, Sarah.

Wendy, I love to dress up. Most people now look as if they're off to the gym or the beach, whatever the occasion. OK, keep them coming. 84844. Or indeed, you can get in touch with us at BBC Woman's Hour or email us through our website. Now, you may have heard our item yesterday about five women who are suing the state of Texas, saying they were denied abortions despite risks to their lives. Now, this is following the US Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed access to abortion nationwide.

And it's a subject, of course, that divides opinions in all countries, not just in the United States. Here in the UK, there are some updates to bring you. The House of Commons last week approved the introduction of exclusion or buffer zones around abortion clinics. And a major new study of abortion care in England, Scotland and Wales, funded by the NHS, has recommended that the legal requirement for two doctors to sign off each termination should now be dropped. I spoke to Fiona D'Alandras, Professor of Legal Studies at the University of Birmingham,

who specialises in abortion and reproduction law, about these new buffer zones. And I started by asking her why they were being introduced now. So I think there are a couple of reasons. The first is that Northern Ireland has already moved to introduce buffer zones. And I think that that established that it was possible to introduce buffer zones. And there was a case before the UK Supreme Court seeking to assess whether or not buffer zones were permitted under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. And that confirmed that they were. So that

effectively settled the legal question about whether or not we could do this. It then became a political question about whether or not there was a willingness to introduce a measure of this kind. And I think it has become quite clear to people in recent years that access to abortion, both here and in other countries, is fragile, and that people experience many obstacles in accessing abortion so that measures that can be introduced to try to ensure people can avail of medical services that are legally available to them is now sort of politically I think something that there is a political support behind to remove these practical obstacles to access and here there was a kind of ready-made technique already tested in the court that political will could get behind to try to ensure effective

availability and physical access. Yes. And of course, there are some that would prefer more obstacles to abortions as well. And this is part of the debate, I suppose. But I did want to ask you, what actually is a buffer zone? How does it work? So an exclusion zone, sometimes called a buffer zone or a safe access zone, is a provision in the law that requires that any activity to intimidate, harass, dissuade, for example, or interfere with. People who are entering or exiting a location where abortion services are provided can only take place a prescribed amount of distance away from the entrance to that building. So the buffer zone that's to be introduced in England, for example, lays down a 150 metre exclusion around the building where abortions

are provided. And what is the debate about buffer zones? And talk us through what has changed of late. So in essence, the debate or the, let's say, the discomfort that people sometimes have with buffer zones is that they are an approach or an attempt to strike a balance between two competing sets of interests or rights. On the one hand, you have the interests and the rights of people who seek to be present outside of abortion clinics, sometimes to harass or intimidate, sometimes to undertake activities like praying or vigils, which they would claim are not intimidating to people accessing abortion. And on the other hand, you have the rights and interests

of people who work in places where abortion is provided and, of course, of people who are seeking to access services in those locations. The discomfort that is sometimes articulated about having buffer zones is that it is an interference with the right to protest or an interference with the right to expression. But the attempt in a buffer zone that we make in law is to try to have a proportionate balance between all of these sets of rights and interests in order to ensure people can express their deeply held views about abortion. But at the same time, people who are accessing abortion can do so undisturbed and interfered with by persons who hold those views.

And so this has been passed, so there will be no more challenges to it, because I would imagine those that are protesting against the clinics, for example, or against abortion would probably bring up a matter of free speech? I'm sure they would. As I said, the Supreme Court has established that it's possible to craft exclusion zones of this kind in a way that is proportionate. So that's the key thing to remember here. Of course, people have a right to protest and a right to expression. But those rights are not absolute, just as the right to privacy is not absolute. So what we're trying to do is to find a somewhere that balances all these competing interests in a way that is proportionate, so probably does interfere to

some extent with all of these rights, but in a way that can be kind of objectively justified against the overall values that we are trying to achieve. And that here is these values of people being able to access legally available health care and people being able to express their views about that legally available health care in a way that does not undermine that right to access. And I'm wondering, will that really stop the issue? Because I'm just thinking about they often become then a flashpoint in other countries for debate. Even if they are implemented, it sometimes doesn't stop people from going just outside that buffer zone to protest, for example. I think, of course, that's true. And I think we have to recognise that people who undertake these activities in these locations do so usually from a place of deep belief that either they are helping people or that they are preventing something that, in their view, is not acceptable. So I would certainly anticipate that people will continue to undertake these activities at the 150 metre barrier or zone. And I think that that is the balance that Parliament has decided it is appropriate to strike here.

So it's not going to, of course, resolve disputes that people have about abortion or to change anybody's mind about whether abortion should be available, more available or less available. But what the evidence suggests it will do is to at least create this relatively short portion of physical distance within which, for example, someone could park or get out of a taxi without being, let's say, encountering people who, even if they do not intend to be intimidating, whose presence is often received as stigmatising and intimidating and sometimes even threatening by people who are undertaking this procedure of ending their pregnancies. There are some that will go perhaps outside the exclusion zone, but that want to pray, for example. That is something that has been seen previously and was in headlines about one particular woman

who was praying outside of a clinic and was removed. Can you see that continuing, perhaps as a freedom of religion, for example? And I'm just wondering, somebody like that, do they have a recourse to try and fight exclusion or buffer zones? Certainly, and they would have both legal and political recourse. The likelihood of success of that recourse is a different question. But of course, they could challenge the buffer zones in court, very unlikely to succeed because the Supreme Court has already established that buffer zones are the same way as, you know, one builds political momentum

around anything in a representational democracy that is through their MPs. And, you know, I would not be surprised in the future if we saw attempts to amend this through parliamentary debate, as we have seen attempts to amend the Abortion Act. But I think the likelihood is this represents a pretty good political consensus around and a pretty solid political consensus around appropriate balancing and that it is unlikely that this will change

any time in the near future. Professor Fiona de Londres there. Well, joining me to talk about the new Shaping Abortion for Change report, I mentioned it earlier. It was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. So we have Kay Wellings,

Professor of Sexual and Reproductive Health Research and co-leader of that study. Kay, you're welcome to Woman's Hour. So this is the biggest study that's been done into abortion in the UK since the 1967 Abortion Act. How many women and healthcare staff did you speak to for it? And what was your main findings? So we carried out this study because of the rapidly changing landscape of abortion,

which has implication for health services and legislation. And we wanted to explore what the implications were and how best health services and the regulations might respond. So we interviewed nearly 800 healthcare professionals across the range, pharmacists, doctors, nurses, and so on. And we interviewed 48 women. We interviewed practitioners in three countries that had decriminalized abortion, Sweden, Canada and Australia. And we also held what we called a key stakeholder consultation with policymakers, practitioners and commissioners. So it was a rounded study. But the main finding that you think our listeners should know about? Well, the main findings that I'm here to talk about today, really,

are the views on whether the legislation currently fits the rapidly changing practice. And what did you find? OK, so I really have to just explain, first of all, what those changes are. So in the last 20 years, 20 years ago, most abortions were carried out surgically. And if I tell you that today, 90% are carried out by medical abortion, that's a woman takes two pills, two sets of medication at home with telemedical support. And the consultation takes place generally with, mostly with a nurse, sometimes with a midwife. So women are home managing their abortions for the most part. And now the fact that they're mostly supervised by nurses and midwives is out of kilter, really,

with what the law states. So the law, 55-year-old law, 1967 Abortion Act, states that two doctors must, two medical practitioners must sign off, certifying that the woman has met the grounds for abortion, specific grounds. It also states that the provision of the abortion, the abortion must be performed by medical practitioners and it must take place on NHS premises or premises which have been approved for the abortion to take place. So there's a mismatch now between what the regulations say and what is actually happening. So that in specific, specifically about the two doctor rule that they would need to sign off on a termination. What do you think, looking at your research,

what are you calling for instead of that? Well, this is research, so we're listening to the people we interviewed. And first of all, I mean, probably your listeners are thinking, I didn't know that. And in fact, 66% of the British populace don't know that two doctors have to sign an abortion to make it a to stop it being criminalised. And a third of staff in general practice didn't know. And a third of male health care professionals didn't know. So this is not widely known today. Those

who did know, and even those who didn't when we told them, were askance, really, that this should be the case. I mean, healthcare professionals said things like, you know, it's just not, it's just, it just shouldn't be happening in the 21st century. And women's responses were absolute disgrace, bizarre, and some of them a little less polite. They felt very much that nine out of ten doctors, for example, nine out of ten healthcare practitioners, believe that abortion should be treated as a healthcare matter, not a legal matter. So is there any advice on how to change that in the sense of nurses or midwives perhaps taking

that role or trying to actually change the structure as it is at the moment? Well, it would be quite an easy thing, really, for the law to be changed to permit those practitioners who are actually seeing and speaking to the woman who is having an abortion to actually sign. Because at the moment, what's happening just doesn't make sense. The nurses or midwives are taking information from the patient and then they're passing all the paperwork over to doctors who then sign.

And the doctors haven't seen the woman or met her. So that does seem, as one woman said, bizarre. So that wouldn't take a major effort, really, to amend the law in that small respect. Some of course don't believe that abortion should be just a medical matter and I'm wondering if doctors were taken out of the process could that be a danger in some cases to the women? Well doctors would not be taken out of the out of the process where their intervention was needed. Obviously, 10% of abortions are still performed by surgery, but even there, some of those abortions up to 14 weeks are carried out by vacuum aspiration, that's where there's suction of the contents of the womb. And those can be done by nurses and are done by nurses in cases of miscarriage. So it would be a small proportion of doctors who would be carrying out surgical abortion, but an important proportion.

I think it's really important to say that what we learned as a major finding of the research was that women wanted choice. They really wanted to have some autonomy and some say in which method of abortion they had. And some women prefer surgical abortion. They like to be out of the picture. They like to be just not present when the abortion is taking place. So it's extremely important that doctors are still in the picture. It's just that for the most part, I should think even doctors themselves would be quite pleased to have that responsibility taken away.

And it would make the whole process much more streamlined. Yes, which some people may want and some may not. You did mention the fact that many people don't know abortion is a criminal offence. It is only a criminal offence when it happens outside certain parameters, I should say. You did present your findings to Parliament last week. And abortion, of course, always divides opinion. What are the next steps that you are planning? Well, we present the evidence.

It seems likely, research or no research, that we will, in this country, in Britain, follow the example of other countries and eventually decriminalise abortion, have it treated like other healthcare issues. We'll probably join Australia, Canada, Sweden, Northern Ireland even. And that is a different debate, of course, whether abortion is decriminalised,

which I'm sure we will get to at some point. It is, yes. But to answer your question, what can take place now is that the law might be amended to take account of the findings insofar as nurses may sign, nurses may be able to prescribe abortion pills, they're not currently able to, and they may be permitted to carry out the surgical abortion, which is vacuum aspiration. Thank you so much for joining us, Professor Kay Wellings. And in case you missed it yesterday on the programme,

we did speak about the changes in abortion laws that could be happening in the States, including the five Texas women who are suing their state. And you can listen back to that on BBC Sounds. It is the programme for the 13th of March. Thanks to all of you that are getting in touch. Some of the Dress Down gang of listeners are texting in at 84844. Let me see. As an opera casting director of 50 years experience, I've regularly been required by my employers to dress

up. I now relish the ability to attend performances in my everyday clothes without having to dress up. Another listener. If dressing up includes wearing shoes I can run in, a hat that keeps me warm or the sun off my face and clothes that don't need ironing, then fine, I might do it. Fiona in Huddersfield, getting in touch. I'm disabled and haven't been able to wear heels for 20 years. I've spent a lot of the past two decades

feeling underdressed and out of place in dressy settings. I'm delighted to find comfy shoes and clothes have become more acceptable everywhere. Keep them coming. 844-DressUp, DressDown. Cheltenham has ditched their dress code. Do you think it's a good thing? There in the opera, theatre, airports, planes.

Let me know. Now, let me turn to an NHS digital survey. This was done last year. It found that 31% of 17 to 24-year-old women had depression and anxiety. So what can be done to help them? Well, a new policy centre for the wellbeing of young women and girls

has been set up at Cambridge University College. Dorothy Byrne is the president of the all-female Murray Edwards College. You might also know her as the former head of news at Channel 4 Television and she joins me now. Hello, good morning. Good morning, thank you for having me on. Well, a policy centre, so what does that mean exactly? What does it do? Well, I think the first thing that we do is we highlight the specific problems and issues that girls and young women have using our unique position as a women's college. Because I have to say, although I was the head of news at Channel 4 for years, I myself did not know about the very high level of significant problems of mental illness among girls and women and I if I didn't know I think most people don't know to be frank and so I think debate and

discussion and highlighting the issues but also doing further research. What we see is that girls are twice as likely as boys to be unhappy and young women are three times as likely as men to suffer from a common mental health disorder, 26% of them. So we have to face the fact that girls and young women have specific problems and that they are two to three times worse than the level of anxiety, depression and stress that boys and men are suffering. So that's why you are talking about it through a young women and girls lens specifically. But, you know, I would imagine that there are lots of people already looking at these issues that you mentioned and also figuring out how to tackle them. Why do you need one more centre?

Because actually, that's not quite the case. The problems that girls and young women suffer tend to be all treated as different issues. So you will, even when you're reading the paper, on one page you might read about the terrible effects of violent pornography, on the next page about eating disorders, on the next page about exam stress. And I think I myself hadn't realised that what you have to do is put all these problems together. And when you do it, you see why it is that there is such an increase in stress among girls, because they are being bombarded by all these problems. It's extraordinary that between 28 and 2018, the percentage of young women suffering from anxiety

increased from eight to 30%. I mean, this is a public health emergency really. And a number of charities are saying we actually need one policy from the government looking at all the issues affecting young women's mental health. We can't see them as separate problems.

But it is quite hard to get your head around. I understand, as you mentioned, those stories that you see each day in the papers, for example. But it is quite hard to get your head around. I understand, as you mentioned, those stories that you see each day in the papers, for example. But I'm wondering, like, where do you draw the line on what is affecting women and girls? And how do you find a solution for it

if you're thinking of it as a societal problem instead of an individual issue, for example? Well, I think you put your finger on it there how can these issues just be individual problems of the girls and young women when they've increased so exponentially and i think what you have to do is look at each issue and look at the solutions that are available for that issue.

For example, when you see this as a public health issue, you would see the potential need to take into account these problems when looking at sex education in schools and the fact that sex education in most schools doesn't even touch on the dangers of pornography or when looking but let me just stop there for a second because mandatory sex education was introduced three years ago which for secondary education pupils includes teaching that pornography presents a distorted picture of sex. How far or what are you thinking about or what would it look like in what you're imagining instead of perhaps what's in pornography, because I think just mentioning it isn't enough. I think we have to tackle the fact that four-fifths of young people have now said that they've watched

violent pornography, and more than half of young people say that girls expect or enjoy physical aggression and sex. I think we have to have much better sex education. And that is definitely something that we have discussed here at the Policy Centre with some of our own college alumni who are teaching sex education and say they have not been given the training and the materials to do it effectively. Yes, just to go back to what is happening, it requires pupils to know that specifically sexual explicit material, for example, pornography presents a distorted picture of sexual behaviours,

can damage the way people see themselves in relation to others and negatively affect how they behave towards sexual partners. Because you're not going to be, Dorothy, I think, able to stop the pornography that is out there or people accessing it. Well, I think that is one of the other things that we should be looking at.

I think that the online safety bill that's coming up, I think you can look at what we need to do to tackle big porn. It's gone on for far too long that people have said you can't do anything about it. And actually, that is one of the things that we are talking about at the Policy Centre. We had a meeting on big porn last week, at which we did go through with experts from various organisations, some of the things that can be done to tackle big porn. My point is, we can't just sit here and go, oh dear, the mental health problems of young women are getting worse and worse and worse, and we can't just sit here and go, oh dear, the mental health problems of young women are getting worse and worse and worse and we can't do anything about it. We need to bring all the issues together and decide that we're going to try to tackle them. Dorothy Byrne is the president of the all-female Murray Edwards College and setting up the Policy Centre for the Wellbeing of Young Women and Girls.

Thank you so much for joining us on Woman's Hour. Now, I want to let you know that we will be tomorrow talking about the origins of empire and the British arrival in India in the 17th century, shaped by the women in the Mughal Harem. Tomorrow, the historian Nandini Das will be here with us to tell us some of the stories of the female key players. But I want to, before I go, take a couple of minutes because so many of you have got in touch

about dressing up or dressing down. Who knew you felt so strongly about it, but you do. So I started talking about this because Cheltenham have decided to ditch the dress code, OK? So, you know, we're used to seeing those pictures on the front of the paper of everybody, whether it's the men in the top hats or the women in the feathered caps,

feathered hats and high heels. We've kind of got used to them. But you don't have to if you don't want to anymore, so says the Jockey Club. But we've expanded it. What about in airports, in theatres, in opera? I don't know, a night out. Here we go.

Siobhan in Ipswich. Your supermarket. Ray, your supermarket correspondent. I always dress fabulously and make supermarket shopping a fashion event. I get loads of comments from strangers and regular staff, all really positive, mostly from women, but also from men. Long live the full circle skirt and paper taffeta petticoat lipstick and high heels. You will know Siobhan when you see her. I like to dress up and I don't mind those who choose not to, but I resent people who go to the theatre or opera in scruffy t-shirts and joggers or even baggy shorts. A shout out for the t-shirt, says another Rob. Designs these days can be spectacular and beautiful. Even a plain black

can be smarter than a scruffy shirt and tie. Good point. I would definitely not attend any function where they would demand women wear high heels and a hat. Ridiculously old-fashioned and misogynistic. Who decides what clothes are socially acceptable? I'm just putting it out to the listeners. Another one. I think dress codes

were changing long before COVID. My husband used to wear a suit and tie for work but years ago it changed to smart casual, that term. It did cause a small issue. Changing his clothes changed his mindset. So now he often cooks dinner to unwind and take off his business head. Oh, that's a win, I think.

Keep them coming, 84844. I love reading them. I will see you again tomorrow at the same time. Thanks for listening to Woman's Hour that's all for today's Woman's Hour join us again next time

Hello I'm Nao and I am so pleased to be back for series 2 of the Music and Meditation podcast when I'm lying down

my eyes are closed and my hands on my heart that's kind of who I am I feel like I could speak to you all day it's always a good sign

if you're curious about meditation and how it can help you, then this is the podcast for you. Allow your body to relax. Notice your breath in this moment. Tune into my series, the music and meditation podcast on BBC Sounds. Hit subscribe now to get new episodes as soon as they're released. And I don't know if you just listen to that every single day, every morning. There's no way your life couldn't change. No, of course.

I'm Sarah Treleaven, and for over a year, I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered. There was somebody out there who was faking pregnancies. I started like warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth.

How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story, settle in. Available now.