Woman's Hour - Breast and cervical cancers; Clara Ponsati; Imposteress Rabbit Breeder; Scenes with Girls

Episode Date: January 23, 2020

A new scanning technique that can identify aggressive tumours could help to transform the treatment of breast cancer. Dr Ferdia Gallagher, an academic radiologist at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge explains. Meanwhile, cervical cancer affects more than 3,000 women a year, but there is concern that progress has stalled in tackling the disease. Dr Julie Sharp is head of health and patient information at Cancer Research UK and she discusses what needs to happen. How much do your girlfriends mean to you? A new play at the Royal Court theatre explores the highs - and the lows - of female friendship. The playwright Miriam Battye and actor Rebekah Murrell join Jenni to discuss.In October 1726, newspapers began reporting a remarkable event: In the town of Godalming in Surrey, a woman named Mary Toft was giving birth to rabbits. Mary was examined by medics and the case drew the attention of the King, government and law courts. Historian Karen Harvey talks about her new book The Imposteress Rabbit Breeder.And, Clara Ponsati is a highly regarded economics professor at the University of St Andrews, but in 2017, she was the Catalan minister of Education when the independence referendum was held. The Spanish government declared the vote illegal and it wants Ponsati to return to Spain to face a charge of sedition. The BBC’s Niall Gallagher takes a look at who she is and what is likely to happen next.Presenter: Jenni Murray Producer: Ruth Watts

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, Jenny Murray welcoming you to the Women's Hour podcast for Thursday the 23rd of January. We've long assumed that sisterhood is something we all do well and our female friends are vital. A new play, Scenes with Girls, explores the good and the bad in friendships between women. The imposterous rabbit breather, the extraordinary story of the early 18th century Mary Toft, who claimed to have given birth to rabbits. And the case of Clara Ponsati, she's a former Catalan minister, now an academic in Scotland, who's accused of sedition for her part in the independence referendum.

Why is there support in Scotland for her resistance to extradition to Spain to face charges? Now, cancer has been very much in the news this week. In a moment, we'll discuss cervical cancer and the increase in women between 25 and 29. But we begin with breast cancer and a new scanning technique developed at Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge. The technique is designed to gauge how aggressive a breast tumour might be and help oncologists make decisions about how best to treat the disease. Dr. Ferdia Gallagher is an academic radiologist and joins us from Cambridge. Ferdia, tumours at the moment tend to be measured in millimetres. How does this new

test work? Good morning, Jenny, and thanks for the invitation to come on to speak to you. So yes, normally we measure tumours looking at size and size is something which happens relatively slowly over time so if a patient is on chemotherapy those changes take weeks sometimes months to occur and if the patient's on the right therapy that may be okay but if they're in the incorrect therapy clearly being on that for a long period of time before the size change demonstrates that, is not ideal. So we look for tests that might be more sensitive for early changes that show that they're responding to their therapy. Increasingly, we look at things like blood flow. But this test is looking at metabolism.

It's looking at the ability of the tumour to metabolise sugar in a sugar-like molecule. And the reason that's important is because we've known for nearly 100 years that cancer consumes very large amounts of sugar, much more than normal tissues, and tumours use that to grow, to invade. These are key features of most cancers. And cancer takes this sugar and produces a large amount of lactic acid or lactate. Now, you may be familiar with that on exercise when it builds up in the muscles and can be painful. And the technique that we've been developing, that we've been translating into patients over the last decade in Cambridge, allows us to look at that lactate.

How is this new test carried out? So the technique is called hyperpolarized carbon-13 MRI. It's a relatively new type of MRI, which, as I said, allows us to detect this lactate. We take a natural breakdown product of sugar, and it's called pyruvate. We put it into a strong magnetic field, and we cool it down to minus 272 degrees centigrade. That's one degree above absolute zero or one kelvin. And in those very extreme conditions, we see an increase of sensitivity for us to be able to detect it by 10,000 to even 100,000 fold. Can it be applied to all the different forms of breast cancer? So we've looked at a wide variety of breast cancers to show that in the more aggressive

types of breast cancer we see a larger amount of lactate and the less aggressive cancers we see lower levels of lactate but in the longer term we really see this being used mostly in patients who are undergoing chemotherapy either before or after surgery so that we can monitor whether they're on the right treatment. So how important are these findings? So we believe this is very important because it's the first time it's been demonstrated in breast cancer. We've shown for the first time that we can differentiate the more aggressive from the less aggressive cancers, the ones that are growing more rapidly, the ones that may require more aggressive treatment. In the longer term, we see us being able to use this in order to guide the oncologists as to whether they're on the right

treatment. So as I said at the outset, we're able to detect these metabolic changes much earlier than the size changes. So we're able to say to patients, we hope in the future, that yes, you're on the correct therapy, even though you may be suffering from side effects, please continue that therapy. Or alternatively, this is not the right therapy for you, and can we try something different and try it more rapidly, perhaps within a week of starting that initial therapy? And that to us is very key and very important. But those are the future tests, the tests that we're undergoing at the minute in Addenbrookes in order to evaluate that. What about the costs involved? How does it compare to current practice? So it costs about £3,000 for a scan, which is a considerable sum of money. However, it's novel, it's research, and therefore in time

we expect that value to come down significantly, so that it will be equivalent to a similar test that we perform in radiology, such as a PET test. I think it's really important... Sorry, what's a PET test? A PET, so the positron emission tomography, it's another way of looking at metabolism. Some of your patients who have had breast cancer may have experienced those in the past. And the cost of those tests in time are defrayed by the very expensive costs of drugs. So many of these drugs are £10,000 or greater in cost to administer to patients. And so if we're able to efficiently determine which patients get the right therapy, then that has cost implications for the NHS.

It's all about tailoring treatments, personalising treatment to the individual patient. So where do you go next with this? So our future studies are looking at treatment response. We hope to have some of those results very shortly. We are looking at other cancers, such as renal cancer, prostate cancer, and indeed indeed ovarian cancer. Ultimately we want to undertake some multi-centre trials and there's several sites in the UK that currently have the technology to do this that we want to do this with. Dr. Ferdie Gallagher, thank you very much indeed for joining us this morning and the very best of luck with it in the future. Now we move on to cervical cancer and it's likely that

cervical cancer may be eliminated in the future as a result of girls and as of this year boys all receiving the vaccine to prevent HPV infection known to be the main cause of the disease. The number of cervical cancers halved between the late 1980s and the 2000s, but it still affects more than 3,000 women each year. Cancer Research UK is worried that progress appears to have stalled somewhat, and they're particularly concerned about the group of women between the ages of 25 and 29, many of whom just missed the HPV vaccine. What's to be done to help protect this group? Well, Dr. Julie Sharp is Head of Health and Patient Information at the charity. Julie, how worried are you about this group? Because some

have had the vaccine, but some haven't. Well, in those that have had the vaccine, we're less worried because we are actually starting to see some positive effects. In those first girls that were vaccinated, they're now reaching screening age. And whilst it's too early to see a drop in cervical cancer incidence, we are seeing a reduction in both the presence of HPV and the presence of those abnormal cells that can turn into cancer. So we're expecting that progress to just increase in the future. But obviously, as you say, there's the population who are, you know, haven't benefited from vaccination. And we've seen an increase in incidents of the HPV virus. We've also seen a decline in people going for their screening appointments. So it's really important we get

the balance right because vaccination won't solve everything. We need to get that balance of people still going for screening whilst the vaccination is gradually introduced and that will lead to future improvements. Why are they not going for their screening? We ask people, we survey people regularly around cancer awareness, risk factors and their attitudes to screening. And there are a complex variety of reasons that people give. Some of the key ones are people being embarrassed by the nature of cervical screening. Some people are worried about pain and are worried about it

hurting. There are other sort of, in some cases, cultural factors or people just not thinking it's for them because they haven't got symptoms. So sometimes a misunderstanding of what screening is for. Also, there are obviously practical factors sometimes, just the difficulty of getting time off work, getting an appointment and actually getting that at the right time of the month when you have to have to have your cervical screen at a certain time. How big a problem is the fact that screening doesn't actually start until you're 25? The reason screening starts at 25 is that below that age whilst you could still develop cancer it's also much more common for women at that younger age to develop cell changes that are not pre-cancerous and they will get better by themselves. So it's at that age

we start at 25 because before then it's felt to be too risky you'd be picking up cell changes that weren't actually necessarily going to lead to cancer. So it's a really tricky balance but obviously something that's continually reviewed and assessed to make sure we've got that right. Because we know it can happen before the age of 25. What symptoms should you be looking out for if you're thinking, something's wrong here, I need to have a test? That's right. And also whatever age you are, remembering that, and even if you have been screened or vaccinated,

remember it's still important to be aware of the signs and symptoms. And that can include abnormal kind of pain or pain in the pelvis, pain during intercourse. It can also include any unusual bleeding or discharge. And how willing are doctors to test if they're asked to do it when you haven't yet reached 25? I think, yeah, I don't really, yeah, I don't really know what, you know, what the situation is. But, you know, you go along to your GP, you say, I'm a little bit worried, I'm not 25 yet, but will you give me a screening test? Well, the doctor would still, if you had symptoms,

then the doctor obviously is still able to then, you know, make a referral and get you checked out. So it doesn't mean that you'll be ignored if you have a problem under that age. It's more that the routine screening programme, you know, isn't aimed at you. What's being done to encourage boys to take up the vaccine, which is going to happen this year? It's on offer for them. How do you get them to take it? Well, uptake in girls has been has been high. It's been very good up in the 80%. So we're hoping, you know, that there'll be similar

uptake in boys. And I think the main thing to remember is that by vaccinating boys, we're not only improving, you know, the situation for women by reducing prevalence of HPV in the population, there are also other cancers that affect both men and women, and men only, that are also linked to HPV. So it means in the future we're going to help to prevent a lot more cancers, not just cervical cancer. So it's just really understanding the wider benefits. Now, as far as that 25 to 29 age group is concerned, whereas we said some have had the vaccination and some haven't, what can you do for them to encourage them to check this out? Is it too 25 who missed out on the vaccination can still go and request it.

So that's a possibility. And then I think also in terms of once people get to the screening age, then it's important if people have got concerns or worries that they're actually getting those addressed. If they've got barriers that are stopping them from going, that they're getting answers to their questions or they're getting, for example, support in actually addressing some of those issues. Where should the NHS be focusing its resources now on cervical cancer? Well, we've had recent changes in the way the cervical screening is done. And that's the fact that we're now starting to test for HPV first and then test for abnormal cell changes. And that's both more effective for the person being tested, but it's also a better use of resource for the NHS. Obviously, as the vaccine is rolled out, we'll be able to look at the screening programme. And we still need screening at the moment because the vaccine

doesn't protect against all types of HPV. But we do believe in the future we might be able to modify and change screening. So maybe women will be screened less often and start screening later in life. And obviously that means those resources can then be moved into other areas because we know obviously workforce is such an important area for the NHS and one that they do need to get right. Dr Julie Sharp, thank you very much indeed for being with us this morning. Now, sisterhood has long been a watchword of the feminist movement,

and we've all talked about how important our friendships with women are. But are we always honest about those relationships? Can they be maybe a little more tricky than we like to think? Well, a new play which opened this week at the Royal Court Theatre in London is called Scenes with Girls. Lou and Tosh share a flat. Lou talks about sex with lots of boys, a lot,

at times to the irritation of Tosh. A third girl, Fran, appears from time to time and is proud to announce her engagement. There are some rather sniffy comments about her poor taste in clothes and longing for commitment as she leaves. Well, Rebecca Murrell plays Lou and Miriam Batty is the author. Miriam, what inspired this subject matter? I really just wanted to write something really honest about um female friendship um female friendships have kind of been the most um seismic and influential relationships I've had and sometimes I feel like they are somewhat pushed aside or considered not to be seismic in the way that they're written about and I wanted to write something that I felt was really honest and showed the complexity

and sometimes the really the real difficulty that can be found in female friendships. That was really what inspired it. What drew you to the part of Lou Rebecca? Well, I had worked at the court before and I absolutely loved the theatre and when I read the script for the first time, I was really struck by its formal inventiveness combined with um a kind of unnerving recognize like i recognized something in a in a sort of very familiar uh unfamiliar way which was which was um very unusual did you recognize yourself in lula i think well interestingly when i first read it,

I kind of felt a separation between myself and Lou and I felt, oh, this will be really interesting as an actor to be able to step into a skin which is very real but feels very really not mine, just in terms of her behaviours and the way she speaks and stuff. But then as the process has gone on, I think that that space has definitely I felt the gap close and I think that's the point about this play is that

it's easy to come and kind of see these women and sort of look at them as items in a kind of petri dish that they're far away from you but actually they're all of us and I think that's the brilliance of the writing. Now she's the one who talks about sex a lot and gives numbers a lot. How common do you reckon it is to show off numbers and details of your sex life, even to a best friend? Well, I can only speak from personal experience. But I think that for me, I'm really glad that Miriam's just showed something I believe to be true about the female experience, which is that we're sexual beings as well. And I think that Lou's speaking about sex a lot.

I mean, it's interesting because it's her and Tosh, her best friend. They both see themselves as part of a whole. They've both rejected the kind of traditional narrative that is heteronormativity, which is settling down and finding the one, the 2.5 kids in the volvo right and so her talking about sex and going on all of these kind of sexual adventures it's it's kind of to her it's a way of rejecting the narrative uh that's how she does it so i think yeah i think in terms of her talking about her sex life to her best friend, what you actually see in the play, what they're talking about is sex, but what's

really happening in the subtext is two people validating each other's experiences. Lou, it's fine for you to go and behave how you want and have sex with who you want. And Tosh, it's fine for you to not want to have sex. That's absolutely fine. And they validate each other. Why did it feel so important to you,iam to write that aspect of it oh i think it's so important that it's not we aren't i've occasionally seen uh female characters be simplified as though they are oh there's somebody who has sex they are a sexually uh uh voracious character or they're a person or they're frigid or they don't have sex or they're unattractive or they're undesirable or they're somebody who kind of longs for commitment and longs for kind of yeah the 2.5 kids in the Volvo there's an idea that there's like a type there's

types of women and they're kind of all um butting up against each other and challenging each other and I sort of thought I wanted to show I think that that we're complicated and it's not just about the way that we're perceived by a potential desire or a man or a woman if that if that's your sexuality like it's not um that we're not simple and I just wanted to write something deeply complicated I have no answers and I just wanted to um basically open up a space to expose some of the conversations that we have, but also explore how the kind of expectations of the world come and seep into even a space that you think is really safe. You're not afraid to look at their, at times, irritation with each other.

And it really surprised me to watch that because it seems to me so often, you know, we've talked about sisterhood and how we're all good to each other and we're all kind to each other how brave did you think you were being to show that they might be irritated with each other or they might bitch about each other it's sort of interesting I don't think it's brave I just wanted to I just wanted to be really honest and I think it is really important and particularly like in plays that you you you show you showed some you try or like my aim and my dream is to show something that's true and I think that um I think that sometimes female friendships are shown as though they're soft and and kind of fun and simple and and kind of cute and and you can kind of put them

under this simplistic banner of like girl power and actually they're to really I think uh show the kind of the kind of wonderful curious potential of a friendship and the life-affirming nature of a friendship which I think is the most I think they are the most essential and important relationships we will have in our lives that's my opinion you have to show every facet of them you can't just show them to be it's not just I don't want to write a play where women are just nice and cute and supportive of each other and active listen I want to show that there's that we're kind of all really trying to be good we're trying to be good women we're trying to be good feminists and I want to show the truth of of how when people really I want to show the truth of the complication of that.

And I think that in doing that, you show people to be human. Rebecca, both you and Tosh are very relaxed. You're wearing flop-at-home clothes, no make-up. But you're very critical of Fran's lack of taste when she comes in. You're really quite nasty about her. Why? Why? Why? Yeah. Well, I think, I don't want to give spoilers.

I think that what's really interesting about the play is, well, as an actor, it's very interesting to step into somebody who is as complicated as Lou. And yes, is mean. And people are mean sometimes. And she doesn't like Fran because to her Fran represents a person who has never had a problem in her life a person who has never had to think about somebody for whom life is simple because that is just the way it has always

been and whether that is correct or not that is not how Lou's life has been and she I think feels some resentment over that and she's only 24 years old and that is a different I mean I remember being 24 and it it's a turning point in your life you know I think that this play really stages a moment of mutual becoming where all of these women have have left the person they once were and aren't quite sure who they're about to become. But if this play was staged two years earlier or two years later, it would look completely different. And I don't know whether they would even know each other in the same way.

Miriam, there's no sexual attraction between the women, but would you say Tosh and Lou actually love each other? It's a great question. I'm so interested in this love and what it means. I think we kind of sometimes, I mean, I've always been troubled my entire life by the idea that romantic, amorous love is prioritised. That's just something I've always found to be quite baffling. And I do sometimes wish there was more space for different kinds of love to be

accepted as maybe the most life-affirmingming love that you could have I sometimes wonder if there should be more space for people who I mean I'm always interested in writing characters like women because I'm always interested in writing women who maybe feel themselves to be difficult to love um or haven't felt that they've yeah who aren't maybe like Fran's character who aren't somebody who's just walked into a relate or seemingly walked into a relationship that has been accommodating to her. So I'm kind of interested in that. Miriam, Batty, Rebecca, Mireille, well done, both of you. Thank you very much indeed for being with us.

Scenes with Girls, by the way, is on at the Royal Court until the 22nd of February. And during the next month, we're going to be exploring the significance of female friendship and we would like to hear from you who are the women that have stayed in your life through marriage heartbreak old age or maybe you're a young woman and it's your friends who you rely on during your adolescence either way we want your stories you can get in touch on twitter or of course through the woman's our website now still to come in today's programme, the case of Clara Ponsati, now an academic in Scotland.

She's accused of sedition for her part in Catalan's independence referendum. Why is there sympathy for her in Scotland as she fights to avoid extradition to Spain? And the serial, of course, episode four, of a small town murder.

Now in October 1726 an extraordinary story hit the newspapers. In the town of Godalming in Surrey a woman called Mary Toft was giving birth to rabbits. She was examined by doctors, the case drew the attention of the king, the government and the law courts. And Karen Harvey is the author of The Imposterous Rabbit Breeder. Karen, what did the newspaper say about this case in 1726? Well, hello, Jenny. It's great to be here. So the first newspaper account of the case was published in October, October the 22nd 1726 and it was a very short story. It said that a woman actually near Guildford had with two other pregnant women,

all three were pregnant, had chased some rabbits, hadn't been able to catch them and then one of those women had since given birth to parts of a dissected rabbit, is what the newspaper reported. And then a few weeks later, on the 14th of November, there was a much longer article which gave many more details. And this said that actually this woman, who still wasn't named, had given birth to a perfect rabbit. And then this article went on to describe the several other rabbits that she'd given birth to. In the end, it said she'd given birth to 14 rabbits. What do you think had really happened? Well, I mean, in some ways, you know, there were some real live births of rabbits here. It's a very complicated case. So I think it's important to say right from the start that

women cannot gestate rabbits. So clearly we're dealing with something that wasn't real in that sense. But there are many sources which describe in great detail the animal parts, the parts of dissected rabbits that actually were removed from Mary Toft's body over a period of several weeks in late September, October and early November 1726. So there was a real process that was going on. What was actually happening around that process and why that process was actually taking place is a much thornier issue actually and a difficult question to answer. So why do we think Mary Toft did it and a group of women around her take an active part in it? Yeah, I think the most obvious answer would be, I think, that they did this for money.

So in the early 18th century, it wasn't unusual for people to display themselves or other people's bodies if they were curious or unusual or, you know, extraordinary. And people would pay to go and see these extraordinary bodies. So, you know, it's possible that they were doing it for money, that they thought that people would come and pay to see a rabbit breeder. In actual fact, I'm not very convinced by that explanation because in none of the historical documents is there evidence of any money ever changing hands. So if that's what they were trying to do, it was a resounding failure. I think that the explanations are much murkier and probably much more complex. And I think there are a couple really. You

mentioned that the women in her family and in the neighbourhood are closely packed around her for most of the hoax and that's really important and it's one of the reasons I was drawn to the case actually. It's very much a case that's all about those women and all about female friendships and relationships and I think relationships that are going wrong. So three of the most incredible documents that survive about this case are the statements that were taken down when Mary Toft herself was interrogated later on. but also rather senior women from the local town, from Godalming, who were essentially forcing her to go through with this really quite gruesome process. You know, Mary Toft at the time of the case, she'd lost one child already. She had a toddler, James.

She just had a miscarriage, she reports. So, you know, she's not necessarily fulfilling her reproductive role very well. So there's a possibility that somehow she's being exploited or even punished for this. But what suggested to you that there was actually a political motive for it? Yeah, so that's the other explanation. So I think it's really important to understand what rabbits meant at this time. So rabbits were a symbol of elite privilege. They were almost always still owned by the local landowner. So if you took a rabbit off the land, that was theft. It was poaching. It was taking the property of the local landowner. And crucially, Mary Toft by these women to say, you know, we don't need you. We can actually generate our own. It's chaotic.

How was the hoax finally revealed? Well, Mary Toft is taken to London. She's taken to London at the instruction of King George I in late November. And at that point, she's installed in what's called a bagno in what's now Leicester Square. And at that moment, of course, she's lifted out of all the networks, the support networks that have been enabling the hoax. And what that means is they can't smuggle in rabbits

through the back door anymore. And in fact, they ask the porter of the bagno if he wouldn't mind bringing a couple of rabbits in through the back door. And he's the one who blows the whistle. So at that point, a justice of the peace is brought in and a prosecution is started against her. But there's a Hogarth sketch of Mary surrounded by rabbits who look very healthy and very fine. But as you said, the reality was absolutely gruesome. How much must she have suffered when they were doing all this?

Well, I think she suffered considerably. I mean, you're right, those fluffy rabbits in the foreground of William Hogarth's engraving are entirely fictitious. These were dissected animal parts that were placed in her body and taken out again over a period of many weeks. She must have become very poorly. I think she's lucky not to have died. And reports from the end of the hoax when she's in prison actually describe how ill she is. So yeah, I think she was very, very lucky to survive. One of the things that, one of the themes that comes out of those three statements that she gave before Christmas in 1726 is pain. You know, she's constantly describing how much she's been hurting. And I think those, though there are elements in those stories that she tells about the hoax, which are fantastical and fictitious,

I believe those parts of those statements. You know, they're very, if you read them, they're very moving. And I think entirely genuine. And what happened to her in the end? So she was incarcerated in the Westminster House of Correction. She was actually in prison for four months while she awaited trial at the quarter sessions. But the prosecution collapsed. Essentially, she'd been accused of fraud and imposture, and they really couldn't make anything stick.

So she's released at the start of April, and she goes back to relative obscurity. But we know that this hoax lives on with her because in the burial entry for her around the time of her death, she's described as Mary Toft, widow, the imposteress, rabbit breeder. So we know that still when she dies in 1763, that's how she's being remembered in Godalming. Once it was all revealed and the newspapers picked up the hoax, how much sympathy was there for her? Virtually none, virtually none.

I mean, there had been sympathy with her initially, but pretty quickly the tide turns against her. And it's very interesting. Initially she's accused of giving birth to monsters and she in fact claims that she had a monstrous birth the rabbit but as soon as it's revealed and it appears that she's pulled the wool over the eyes of all these elite and well-trained doctors actually she's the one who's turned into the monster in the press she's completely demonized Karen Harvey fascinating story thank you very much indeed for being with us. And the

book is called The Imposterous Rabbit Breeder. Thank you. In 2017, Clara Ponsati was the Catalan Minister for Education and had an active role in preparations for the independence referendum, which Spain had declared was illegal. Well, she's now back in St Andrews, where she's professor of economics. She's been accused of sedition for her part in the referendum, and the Spanish government is trying to bring her back to Spain on a European arrest warrant to face charges. She was asked for her response in November.

Well, I'm not looking forward to it, but I'm ready. We're prepared. We know that this is a political prosecution and that we will be defending my case against it very strongly. I feel, you know, a very intense feeling of outrage and injustice. A referendum is not a crime. A guilty verdict to the Catalan leaders is a guilty verdict to the Catalan people that went to the polls on the referendum day. So everybody will feel the verdict in their own soul. When you face a situation of clear injustice, civil disobedience becomes an obligation. At this point, all I can do is just keep on the fight. It's much greater than myself. Well, Ponsatis' lawyers are fighting her extradition,

saying she will not face a fair trial in Spain, and there is increasing sympathy for her case in Scotland. Niall O'Gallagher is the BBC journalist who's been covering the story and joins us from Glasgow. Niall, you reported on the Catalan independence referendum. What was her role in it? Well, Jane, she was Education Minister, and that meant that she had an absolutely key role because one of the practical difficulties of holding a referendum on independence when the courts and the central government have said that it's not legal is where are you going to hold the vote where the polling station is going to be here and in Spain it's normally schools that are used as polling stations and so as education minister Clara Ponseti had to ensure that the schools would be available to be used as polling stations. Now

on that day she and I were in different parts of Barcelona. The schools were kept open over the weekend by people literally sleeping in to ensure that on the Sunday morning when the polls opened they would be able to hold the referendum and I remember very clearly at the end of that referendum day having been standing outside a school in the Raval district of central Barcelona being ushered in with my cameraman and then a great barricade being put in front of the door to prevent the police coming in and taking the ballot boxes. Of course they did do that successfully in many other locations throughout Catalonia. And what most people will remember from that day is the violent force which the police used in an attempt to suppress the vote. Clara Ponseti, very shortly after the

subsequent declaration of independence, which happened on the 27th of October 2017, she left Catalonia and has never gone back. She went first of all to Belgium with the then Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, and then returned to her teaching post in North East Scotland when I first met her. She is a highly respected professor of economics at St Andrews. What do we know about what sort of woman she is? Well, I've interviewed her a number of times. I met her, as I said, when she returned to St Andrews.

You're quite right, she's a senior academic. She's the chair of economics at Scotland's oldest university and travels around the country and indeed around the world under normal circumstances, lecturing and presenting papers on economics. I don't know her personally, but having interviewed her several times, she comes over as someone of very forceful conviction. The situation that she's gone through doesn't seem in any way to have diminished her belief in the necessity of Catalan independence and indeed her outrage at what's happened since that referendum in 2017. She's an unlikely revolutionary, though. She's not tall. She's 62.

She has short white hair. And as you heard in that interview, which I conducted at her home in Fife, she's quite a softly spoken person. But don't be fooled by that. She's someone who is a very sharp mind and a very fierce conviction, I think. Now, there's a procedural hearing today

and Spain has tried to extradite her before. On what grounds do the Spanish want her back? Well, the charge is sedition. And so they say that as a member of the government in 2017, that Clara Ponseti was part of an illegal attempt to achieve independence in Catalonia. We know that nine others are in prison. The highest ranking is Uriol Jonqueras, who was the vice president in the then Catalan government. He's serving 13 years in jail. I've reported previously on Radio 4 about the case of the Catalan former Speaker of Parliament,

Carme Forcadell, who is serving 11 years in prison for her part in allowing votes to go ahead in the Catalan parliament on this. Now, she arrived at court just as Women's Hour was getting on air about 40 minutes ago in Edinburgh to her usual crowd of supporters waving Catalan and Scottish flags. She's really become a hero here in Scotland among certain supporters of Scottish independence who sympathise with her personally and with the wider Catalan cause. Spain argues that she should return to face the charge of sedition. But in order to do that, in order to

have her sent back, they need to demonstrate what's called co-criminality. They need basically to establish that the acts of which she's accused would be considered criminal had she committed them here in Scotland. What has First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said about all this? Because, you know, given the Scots and the Catalans share an interest in independence, what has the First Minister had to say? It's very interesting. I mean, Nicola Sturgeon has described Clara Ponsety

as a credit to Scotland. She tweeted her support when the original arrest warrant was withdrawn. At the same time, though, Nicola Sturgeon will say correctly that it is not a matter for her as First Minister. It's a matter, the extradition process is a matter in which politicians, at least British politicians, will play no part. We do expect, though, today to see a provisional witness list from the defence

who are going to try and call the current Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, and the former Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, as witnesses. I don't think they'll be likely to accept those invitations. Something else which could happen, though, which makes this particularly interesting today, Jenny, is that I'm waiting to have this confirmed, but it looks like we're going to hear very soon whether or not Clara Ponseti becomes an MEP on the 1st of February. And that's because when the UK leaves the European Union, Spain gets five extra seats. And that happens with immediate effect. It

doesn't happen at the end of the year, as many other things connected to Brexit do. And Clara Ponsety stood as a candidate at the last European election. Therefore, when we do the mathematics, it looks like she's next on the list. Now, that's crucially important because other courts elsewhere in Europe who are looking at the case of Catalan politicians have said that as members of the European Parliament, people like Carles Puigdemont, for example, enjoy immunity from prosecution and therefore might not be able to be extradited.

And so that is something that can make this position even more complicated here in Scotland. What's the potential political fallout of this? In Catalonia, it's of huge interest. There's still a great deal of anger and a great deal of division in Catalonia over not just the question of independence, but over the way in which the Spanish authorities have prosecuted this as a legal problem rather than

a political one. Here in Scotland, less direct political fallout, but there is absolutely a sense in the base of the SNP among the campaigning supporters of Scottish independence that the First Minister and the rest of the Scottish National Party leadership should be very direct and open and loud and vocal in their support for the Catalan cause. Nicola Sturgeon's been more moderate in her tone than some of her supporters would like, but actually when you compare what she's said to other European leaders, I think she's one of the best friends that they've got. Very briefly, Niall, how is it likely to end? No one knows. The presumption normally

would be that Spain is another European country, our legal systems trust one another. But at the same time, the sheriff just before Christmas said, how can you send her back for sedition when we in Scotland no longer have the offence of sedition? Well, today the Crown will argue that that's because it amounts to the law of treason. So the Spanish law legal teams are relying on a law in Scotland that goes back to the year 1350 in order to prosecute this case. I was talking to Niall O'Gallagher. On cervical cancer and the resources that need to be provided for testing and also for vaccination,

Emily Clarkson sent on Twitter, even though I know how important it is, I've been putting off booking my first cervical smear test for ages. After listening to your interview, it's given me a kick up the backside to just do it. So yes, I've booked mine. Have you booked yours? And Kevin Delaney replied to Emily's tweet with his own experience. Well done on getting it booked. My sister died of cervical cancer at 45 because she didn't keep her screenings up to date. When she was diagnosed, it was stage four. She had to have surgery, radiotherapy, chemo and was bedridden for the last five months of her life, so please keep going. On the play Scenes with Girls, Elizabeth said in an email,

I was moved today by your feature on sisterhood and female friendship with the playwright Miriam Batty and the actor Rebecca Murrell. Just before Christmas, my mother passed away and had it not been for the love of my friends and more particularly my best friend Jenny, I'm not sure I would have the strength to write this now. Since the first day of year nine, Jenny has been my greatest supporter and has never once let me down or lost faith in me, even when I'd lost it in myself. We have very much grown up together and that gives two people a very special bond, more particularly when it comes to friendship, as you have chosen that person to welcome into your life. Whether it's standing beside me as I delivered a maid of honour speech at her wedding or holding my hand as I gave

a eulogy for my mother at her funeral. I know Jenny will always be by my side as I will stand by hers. And Helen May said on Twitter, I met my best friends at 11 and we're now 45. We've lived through everything together. When my mum died suddenly a few years ago, they shared my grief and held me up. One friend flew from New Zealand to be by my side. I loved them so, so much and could never, ever be without them. Now do join Jane for tomorrow's programme when she'll be asking how much do you spend on shopping in a week? Because Lorna Cooper will be joining her. She's found a way to spend

only £20 on food for a family of six. And The Trial of the Well of Loneliness is a new Radio 4 play that tells the story of the obscenity trial in 1928 that led to the ban of Radcliffe Hall's novel about love between women. Shelley Silas is the writer of the play, and she'll explain why it was banned. So that's Woman's Hour with Jane tomorrow from me for today. Bye-bye. BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Anna Delvey was due to inherit $67 million. I'm so excited about what the future holds.

She secured huge investments for a project in New York. She was very confident in her words. And yet, it was all a lie. She's a con artist. Join journalist Vicky Baker as she delves into a real-life scandal. We'll mix drama with documentary to tell the story of Anna Delvey's rise and fall.

Fake Heiress, a new six-part podcast on BBC Sounds. I was watching this whole thing happen thinking it can't be true. Download the free app to listen. 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's 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.