Woman's Hour - Gaming industry, Unregistered children's care, Sheer fashion, Women's health

Episode Date: April 27, 2026

£30m is being invested in the games industry in the UK, mainly to help develop ideas for the next big games. But will this government funding benefit women, in an industry where just 16% of leadership roles in UK studios are held by women and women-founded studios receive less than 3% of total investment? Nuala McGovern is joined by Marie-Claire Isaaman, CEO of Women in Games, and Kirsty Ridgen, CEO of FuturLab studios and Deputy Chair of the UK Video Games Council.The use of illegal, unregistered children's homes in England has surged by more than 370% in five years, according to a new report, Hidden Children: An investigation into Unregistered Children’s Homes, published by Commonweal Housing and written by Public First. To discuss some of the reasons behind this, the implications and what can be done, Nuala is joined by Fraser McLean, Policy and Communications Manager for the charity Commonweal Housing and Rebekah Pierre, Deputy Director of the charity Article 39, who fight for children’s rights in England.Sheer fashion – that is clothing with a see-through element - is having a moment. Actors Nicole Kidman, Gwyneth Paltrow and Naomi Watts have all worn it recently. And all of these women are over 50. So, what’s the appeal? And is there judgement of women of a certain age wearing ‘invisible clothes?’ Nuala is joined by Deborah Joseph, former editor of Glamour magazine and Kassia St Clair, a cultural historian to talk about the latest trend for see-through materials.'Men's health to get 60% more new funding than women's' - that's a headline in the Times newspaper today, comparing the women's health strategy, published by government earlier this month with the men's health strategy that was launched last November. Rosie Taylor is an independent investigative journalist reporting on women's health in the UK who worked on this for the Times and she joins Nuala.

Hello, this is Newell McGovern, and you're listening to The Women's Hour podcast. Hello and welcome to the program. Well, we are following the money as it relates to women in a couple of our stories today. The Times has analysed new health funding and says men's health is getting a lot more than women's. We're going to hear what they found. Also, the government is putting approximately £30 million towards the UK's gaming industry, but with women so underrepresented in that workforce, how can they hope to get a fair shake at accessing some of that money?

And I'd like to know what's in your wardrobe that is see-through and are you still wearing it? Shear fabric is back on the catwalks and also on the high street. Maybe you wore sheer in the past. Is that item back in rotation? Or do you put an age limit on more revealing material? Well, I have a cream sheer shirt on today. But quite tame, it's with a black vest top.

on underneath. Once upon a time, perhaps that would have been just a bra, but thought that was maybe too much for 10 a.m. in the morning. How about you? You can text the program. The number is 844-on-4-844 on social media. We're at BBC Woman's Hour, or you can email us through our website. For a WhatsApp message or a voice note, the number is 0-3-700-100-44-4. Do you get in touch. We're going to talk all about it a little bit later. But I want to begin with this headline in the Times newspaper today. Men's health to get 60% more new funding than women's. The journalist Rosie Taylor, their health editor, Eleanor Hayward, compared the women's health strategy, published by the government earlier this month,

with the men's health strategy that was launched last November. Rosie Taylor is an independent investigative journalist reporting on women's health in the UK who worked on this for the Times. She joins me. Good morning. Good to have you with us, Rosie. Tell me a little bit about how you got to that headline statistic. 60% more new funding for the men's health strategy compared to the women's strategy. Good morning, Neela. Thanks for having me on. So it's an interesting one because when the women's health strategy, the renewed women's health strategy, I should say, because there was a version

of it done, released under the Conservatives in 2022. But earlier this month, Health Secretary West treating launched the renewed version and basically said that it needed to be renewed. and updated, because the previous strategy had, and he, I quote him on this, had nothing like the means to deliver lasting change. So from that, you would assume that this new strategy had more means, therefore basically more money, more funding and was going to be able to deliver the changes in promise. And there was loads of great rhetoric in there about recognising the problems that women have faced for so long, how we live more years than long, poor health, how research is decades behind in women's health compared to men's health.

And recognizing that women's faith medical misogyny and gaslighting were streetings words that he used every day when we're trying to access healthcare. And this new renewed women's health strategy was supposed to tackle that, which is great. I think all of those things we should be grateful in a way. We should be happy that the government has acknowledged that these are problems. But something just didn't add up for me in that there was. wasn't, didn't seem to be any headline figures coming out of it saying this is how we're going

to fund those changes. So I went back through the women's health strategy and just pulled out everything in there that was a new investment targeted at tackling issues facing women's health. And I did exactly the same with the men's health strategy. And what I found and worked on with my colleague Eleanor at the times is that the men's health strategy was committed eight million pounds of new funding, whereas the women's health strategy had been committed five million pounds for new funding. So essentially the men's health strategy was getting 60% more. So what are they spending that 5 million or 8 million on as you see at those pots? Well it's also interesting when you break down what that funding is actually for. So with the men's funding that 8 million pounds includes

it's 6.9 million pounds worth of new investment. Oh sorry, 6.6.6 million.6 million. million, but we, I care on it, 6.6 million of new investment in suicide and mental health schemes, so suicide prevention, mental health, specifically for men. And that's hugely important. We know that suicide is the biggest killer of men under 50. But there's nothing for mental health funding in the women's health strategy, for example, and despite the fact we know that suicide is also the biggest killer of new moms than the year after childbirth. And men are also getting various other bits of funding. There's a million pounds specifically targeted at ex-coal miners who might have lung diseases.

There's 200,000 for a drug and alcohol intervention specifically targeted at older men, for example. Whereas in the women's strategy, there's five million pounds that is being distributed across all NHS trusts to help improve maternity care. but that basically worked out as about just over 40 grand per trust for the maternity department. So equivalent to essentially one midwife salary per trust. Was it earmarked for anything specifically? That's targeted at trying to roll out a new package of care aimed at saving mothers' lives.

Of some of the issues that we've raised on this program before. We know that's a huge issue. There's also a million pounds for period education in schools, which again, it's great that there's an acknowledgement that this is an issue that needs addressing. But £1 million doesn't go very far. That works out as less than £300 for every state secondary school

in the country in England, which, you know, if you're lucky, that's kind of two hours of workshops per school per year. So it's better than nothing, but is it a huge investment that is going to be fundamentally make massive differences in women's health?

I don't know. I think it's worth holding up a spotlight and questioning that. We did contact the Department of Health earlier this morning. We haven't had a statement back from them yet, but I know they did send a statement to the Times. This is from the Department of Health and Social Care that said the analysis is incorrect.

It's based on a false premise, totally false premise, which selectively omits important investment in both men and women's health. It not only ignores the broader landscape of record NHS investment, but also excludes new spending, including crucial funding, to tackle health issues faced by both sexes alongside targeted interventions in maternity services, domestic violence and cancers that affect men or women

that only affect men or women, so specific cancers. Improving health outcomes for both women and men is a priority for this government. We're proud to have published strategies for both. Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting response. I think it's very telling that although that response suggests

that we have selectively excluded important investment. It doesn't detail what that important investment is. I mean, we have certainly pulled out everything that is gender-specific, everything that is a new investment. There's lots of figures thrown around in both strategies that are, in many cases, old or existing investments into schemes that actually benefit both sexes, as they say, but we already know that women's healthcare is so behind.

So let's talk about some of those larger, numbers, the overall amounts for the men's and women's health strategies. We were talking about new figures there, just for everybody who's keeping up with us with these various numbers. You talk about 60% more new funding for men than women. We talked about the pots of 5 and 8 million women versus men. But on the larger point, men's strategy was allocated, according to the figures, is $79 million and the women's health strategy, $72 million?

Yeah, that's what we've found. So if you look at gender-specific investment, the men's health strategy, including new and existing funding, gets around $79 million and the women's get $72 million. So it's about 10% less for women. Sorry, go ahead, Rosie. Yeah, and I think the important point, point to make here is that obviously nobody is saying that investment in men's health isn't

important. It absolutely do need targeted investment in gender-specific health conditions. But we know that women's health is so far behind that even if men and women were getting equal investment, women's health would be behind. It wouldn't be an equitable situation. I understand. So you're saying it should be whatever percentage. I don't know if you've come up but that yet, but ahead of the investment in the men's health strategy when it comes to new funding. You know, you mention the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, West Streeting. He was on Women's Hour just the week before last. And he stressed to us his commitment to women's health.

He reiterated how much it mattered to him personally. He even spoke about personal experiences that he'd witnessed in his own family and how that had shaped his vision for change. Do you see elements of that wider strategy that will help combat medical misogyny now that they're acknowledging it, even though it's been a concern for so long? I'm just wondering how you're seeing the full picture because there's definitely more words like gaslighting, medical misogyny, said about women's health, which wasn't said previously, and how it kind of stacks up with actual figures? I mean, you think on the one hand, it is amazing step forward that we have a health secretary who is coming on women's summer and who is acknowledging that women have not been listened to and that they need to be, that there needs to be more investment in women's health. But it's difficult to tally that with the actual investment that has been made. And obviously, the NHS is stretched in all directions and choices have to be made about where that funding goes.

and that's a very difficult choice to make. But I think it's great that we are acknowledging that there is an issue that women's health is so far behind. The UK has one of the biggest gender health gaps in the developed world. And it's something that needs to be addressed. You know, I think it's great that Wes came on the program and acknowledged that.

But it has to be backed up by the funding to make changes. Otherwise, this is just going to be another strategy and maybe it will get renewed by a different government in a few more years' time. And still we won't have seen any of those changes because there just isn't the backing to make those changes happen. Journalist Rosie Taylor, joining me this morning, who with the Times Health editor, Eleanor Hayward, has done the analysis of funding when it comes to the women's health strategy

compared to the men's, that story in the Times newspaper today. Thanks so much. Now, I want to turn to gaming. The government hopes funding the youths, UK games industry to the tune of £30 million will mean that they'll soon have more British success stories like Grand Theft Auto

or Tomb Raider revving up the economy. But where do women figure when it comes to accessing some of that money to develop games? Well, women make nearly half of all gamers. I learned that a number of months ago here on Women's Hour. Yes, all those games, Sudoku, crossways, that's all

gaming. But they represent only about a quarter of the workforce. And there's very few that are in leadership positions. So what's standing in the way of a more level playing field when it comes particularly to accessing that cash? Let us meet my guess. I have Mary Claire is the man, CEO of Women in Games and Kirsty Rigden, CEO of Future Lab Studios and Department Chair of the UK Video Games Council. Good morning to both of you. Hi.

Good to have you. But Mary Claire, let me start with the funding. Your thoughts on approximately 30 million sounds like a lot. Does it do enough? Well, it could do enough. Let's put it that way. It's great to see that level of investment. But you have to look at how it's designed to deliver. The games industry is one of the most successful parts of the creative economy, contributing over 7 billion annually sitting alongside film and TV as a major global export sector. However, unlike film and television, where diversity reporting, public funding, frameworks and targeted interventions are more established, the game sector has historically had less structured public intervention around inclusion and talent development. So this creates a gap, a high growth, high value industry that is not yet fully leveraging the breadth of available

talent. Now, you just mentioned some of these statistics, but, you know, this gap, which I call the funnel, looks like this, you know, 50% of players. are women and girls, approximately 25% of the workforce is female. Around 16% in leadership and at the most senior levels can be closer to 10%. And currently only 2 to 5% of investment goes to women-led studios. So girls are equally active players and present at entry level, but are progressively filtered out at each stage of the pipeline. Why do you think that, sorry to interrupt you, but why? Why do you? Why do you think that is? I'm just curious of like how it changes from 25 to 16 or 16 to 10 and, you know, only 2% of the funding.

Yeah, well, I mean, it's complicated. I'm trying to simplify, but it's complicated. I mean, women have actually built an entire language to describe these barriers, a sticky floor, the glass walls, the broken rung, the glass ceiling. and they describe moments and together reveal a pattern. So it starts in many places. You know, it starts when women enter and then as they move up. I think, obviously, historically, the industry has been male. And I think there is a sense that it's hanging on to its history. and it's not changing. And this includes these funding.

So, you know, the funding is, but I'm going to put it this way. But like BAFTA, for instance, has agreed systemic barriers and visibility gaps. So they've set a target of 50% membership. Things like this are things that are not really happening in the sector. It's interesting. I read the press release that came in relation to this particular funding. from the DCMS. And I think there were six men quoted

in the press release, two of them called Nick. And so I was thinking more Nicks than women in that particular press release. But Kirstie, let me bring you in here. I mean, the broken rung, that is actually a new term for me. But you are running a gaming company,

incredibly successful, deputy chair of the UK Video Games Council and industry-led advisory board informing the government. And I'm wondering, also, the UK Video Games Council, as we mentioned, and Future Lab, excuse me, the CEO of that studio. You have obviously managed to avoid that broken rung on the ladder.

And I'm wondering how you see this funding and some of the points that Mary Claire brings up of how it could be rectified. Is it a target like something like the BAFTAs have done? Personally, I don't really like targeted approaches. I hate feeling like a token and I would never want anyone else to feel like a token. So we're going to disagree on that.

What I think it does do, it opens up barriers to all types of people to be able to create different types of games. Because creating a game is expensive and you typically need someone external to give you the money in order to create the game. And they want to de-risk their investment. So the more you can show of a game, the more likely you are to get funding. So through giving smaller studios the opportunity to create something, it's levelling the playing field because so many different types of people will be able to create different prototypes

to a higher standard than they would perhaps be able to without this funding and then hopefully they'll have a better chance of being able to see this game's too much. Because the funding is going to be in three different levels, basically a smaller entry level and then going up depending how big the company is. But a lot of these companies that women are running

could be perhaps too small at times to even qualify. I'm just wondering how you see this. The smallest track is for new talent. So it's 20K. So I believe that anyone who meets the basic criteria for that can apply and get it. So there are three trenches of funding to help different companies at different stages in their life cycle.

So there is a smaller, track of 20K that anyone can apply for. Yes, and I imagine you have to be registered as a business before you can apply, pay-I-E, have a certain setup, I suppose, maybe not just the individual that is trying to do it. Mary Claire, any thoughts on that, on how the trenches of funding are and whether they help women, perhaps, as Kirsty says, if it's small, they may be in with a chance.

Well, in principle it's open, so I agree on that, But in practice, there are barriers. You need to be registered company. You need P-A-Y-E setup. You need to show growth plans. And often you need match funding as you go through these tiers. And I think the reality is most people don't start that way. They start freelancers, sold traders, very small teams, two or three people doing everything.

And, you know, if funding requires you to already operate like a formal business, I think that's where you're effectively excluding people before they've even had a chance to get started. You know, at the same time, I am going to go back to this. There are no specific gender targets or incentives and very limited data exist at the moment and who is actually receiving the funding. This is previous funding for the Games Fund. So in a sector where inequality is already well documented,

that raises a question of whether this growth is being distributed evenly or whether it's simply reinforcing the patterns we already see. I'd be curious, Kirstie, did you ever come up against discrimination trying to get funding or find it a little tougher. I know I've often heard from women-owned businesses in whatever industry that they find it harder to get investment. We got what was no previously, it was called the prototype fund. We got it four times.

It is not my lived experience that I have had an issue getting funding. I think part of the problem with the data is that there aren't so many women-led businesses and therefore naturally the percentage getting funding through. it is going to be smaller. But I mean, I would also argue women are very capable of setting up a business, of setting up P-A-Y-E. I mean, I don't feel like that is a barrier for them. What about that, Mariclair, kind of a symptom and a cause?

The fact there aren't that many women there to begin with, but that's... Well, I think there are. I mean, we have a very large network and community. We have ambassadors, 2,600 ambassadors in over 100 countries in the world. You know, I know that women are clever and talented and they can set up those things. But is that what you want to set up? And really, you want to try and test something. You know, I have been thinking about the BFI and TV funding.

So for early stage ideas and experimentation and new voices, By contrast, the Games Fund does primarily seem to be around business, readiness and commercial scaling. What I do feel is that if the games, if some of this funding was for more experimental work to allow people, to allow more voices, to allow more diverse voices to come in. And I think that would really, really help to, you know, because supporting it, experimentation created risks. That helps to unlock innovation and I think would broaden access to the sector. Let me throw that over to you, Kirsty. What about that?

Do you think there's enough space or room for innovation and experimentation in those really early stages? I think that is the best time for experimentation. But do you think it's the structures are set up, like the infrastructure, I suppose, within the industry to allow that? Again, I can only talk from my lived experience, but I had the, that. I felt that. I mean, it was hard. It was really hard. Honestly, I think the biggest barrier to get in women's games is the perception of games amongst parents, teachers, the wider public. The government, I do think there is a perception that games are for children or they're made by men only and they are absolutely not. They are also made by perimenopause or women

of two, mothers of two. So I think this perception has to change. I think we have to show that anyone can make games. There's so many different types of careers within games and we should really be promoting them from primary school age and telling parents and teachers and politicians in the wider world those can be very well paid. It's highly skilled.

I have found it to be a very supportive community because everyone loves games and they just want people. to make more of them. I have to ask about your game. Lots of people will be very familiar with it. Power Wash Simulator. The original, which sold more than 17 million copies, the sequel release last year,

nominated for two BAFTA Games Awards. And it has, in simple terms, players, power clean items. What a stereotype. A woman created a game about cleaning. But its men are loving it too. Do you know what? It's all demographic.

because I think ultimately everyone is tired at some point in their life and it's really good for like mindfulness and just chilling out to. How did you come up with that? I'm just getting into the head of a games developer and I'm just wondering about that experimentation, like where, what the catalyst is for such an idea? I was power washing my patio. Oh, this is fun.

And then I was chatting to someone about it and they said, oh, there's an online community where people just post videos of themselves power washing. And so I got really into that and I found it. a real de-stressor. And I thought this would be a good game. And could you have ever imagined the success? I know I should probably say no. No, I want to know the truth.

I genuinely thought if this isn't successful, then I do not understand video games. And I'm very well prepared to admit that I didn't understand video games. But it turns out I did. And I don't have to reevaluate my life choices. Is there something Mary Clare to be learned from Kirsty's story? Oh, God, absolutely. I think it's a fantastic story.

Yeah, no, I think it's a fantastic story. And I think one of the things that it shows is that, you know, you can find something. You can have a great idea and then you can just really go for it and get it to work. And I think that, you know, the way that Kirstie's just described, you know, how she found the idea, I think it's really wonderful. Yeah, I think it's, it's, yeah, we're. women and anyone created in the industry can make these successes if they're supported, if they're fully supported. Okay, before I let just go, a quick pitch to the parents that are listening to let them know

that gaming is a way forward and a career for their girls. Mary Claire. Oh, God. That's a hard one. It's a hard one. Yeah, it is a career. It is a career for everyone. And that includes girls.

I mean, absolutely. The best games are going to be made by people with lots of different life experiences and lots of different interests. And I would also say you don't have to be what is considered an avid gamer. I'm not queuing up at midnight by the latest copy of anything. But just to enjoy play, understand people and like have a passion in like art or animation or programming or project management. There's so many or marketing intellectual property. law, there's so many different jobs in the games industry that people do not realize. It is not all boys programming. That is a small section of it. And like I say, it's well paid. You get to travel. You can wear what you want. And in my experience, everyone is very nice.

But I think I've had a good experience. And if you're doing something that you find really fun, power washing or whatever, it could be the next big thing. Bringing joy to people. Everyone loves to play. This is digital play. Kirstie Rigden, CEO of Future Lab Studios and Department Chair of the UK Video Games Council. Also, Marie Claire Isamann, a CEO of Women in Games.

Thanks so much to both of you. And if you love the chat about gaming, do listen back to our Women's Hour special on Women and Gaming. That was the 27th July 2025, which you can find on BBC Sounds. Now, one of the 59,000 people running the London Marathon yesterday was the BBC broadcaster. Rayworth. Her running journey only began just before she turned 40, but has now taken her all around the world, from Sydney to New York and the Sahara Desert, completing 20 marathons and 10 ultramarathons. What a woman. On Friday, she spoke to Anita about how she got started. My body is so much stronger than my mind lets me believe. And I think that is so true,

particular for women in their 40s and 50s. People like me now, I'm 57, I'm 58 in a couple of weeks. and I think we can all do so much more than we believe. And I still, to this day, I push myself a little bit more because I think you can. And I think it's my head often that tells me that I can't do it. Yeah. And my body actually can. What is it about your psychology that can just keep going and push you? I've learned that I can.

And it's a really empowering thing. I've got stronger and stronger in my 40s and 50s. And this is not, I am not a spectacular runner. I am nothing. I'm not a sort of Olympian or, you know, could have been, I literally am not. A lot of people could do what I'm doing. And I have just really slowly, step by step, bit by bit, I've chipped away at it.

And I've got stronger and stronger. And there is something incredibly empowering about feeling yourself getting stronger, not just physically, but also mentally, because learning to run long distances teaches you resilience. In a marathon, you have your highs, you have your deep loads, but you've got to get through it and get to the end. And I think it is, I just, I feel very empowered by it as a woman, almost 58. I'm stronger now than I've ever been. I'm probably, I'm definitely as fit as I was when I was 42. And I can run faster than I could when I was 42.

Well, that's interesting. Because your marathon times are getting faster. Is that right? They definitely got, I don't know what's going to happen in London. We'll find out. But they're definitely, they got faster over 10 years. So I started at 42. My fastest times were when I was in my,

early 50s. Brilliant. Amazing. What a sense of, like you say, particularly as we get older as women, to feel strong in your body and know that you can do that. It's also about, for me,

it's about future-proofing. And I want to stay strong so that when I'm in my 70s and 80s, I can get out of a chair. I can stride over the hills. I can go for long walks. I can maybe run. I hope I'm still running.

I've got friends who are in their 70s. There's a woman I train with now in the gym who's 83. Wonderful. With dumbbells and, you know, with sort of kettlebells and everything. And I think you just got to keep moving. I listened to that interview on Friday. I have to say, I'm an incredibly inspiring.

She did run the London Marathon in a time of 33635. Her fastest marathon in five years. So congratulations, Sophie. That's wonderful. And as I mentioned, it's Friday's interview. So you can find that on BBC Sounds if you would like to hear. hear the whole interview. Well done to everybody who ran. I did go down to see them yesterday morning. Very inspiring. Now, I talked about sheer fabrics. Here's a message that came in on sheer fabrics.

As a hopefully well-meaning man, supportive of feminism and equal rights, husband to a wonderful wife and father to a teenage girl, I'll admit I'm slightly bewildered about what the correct response is meant to be to shear. Admire, ignore, notice, but instantly pretend I haven't. I suspect many men are trying to strike the right balance, but it's not always obvious where that line sits. If fashion is changing how bodies are presented, how are the expectations of those observing, particularly men, changing to, question mark, from a well-meaning but mildly confused listener. Yeah, sheer fabric, see-through fabric. It's on the catwalks, it's on the high street.

We're going to talk about it a little bit later. If you've thoughts on it, if you're wearing it or not, or maybe we'd like to respond to that mildly confused listener, as he calls himself, please do. 8444 is one way to get in touch. Now, the use of illegal, unregistered children's homes in England has surged by more than 370% in five years. That's according to analysis above Ofsted data in a new report. The new report is called Hidden Children,

an investigation into unregistered children's homes. It's published by Commonwealth Housing. It's written by Public First. You might know that the Care Standards Act, of 2000 legally requires all children's homes to be registered with Ofsted, which is the regulatory body for it. But in the worst case scenarios, vulnerable children are being temporarily placed in caravans and Airbnbs at times when Ofsted inspected homes cannot be found. Private companies have been accused of charging local government's exorbitant fees, in some cases

£30,000 per week to look after children in unsuitable settings. Why is this happening? What are the implications and what can be done. I have two guests joining me. Fraser McLean, a policy and communications manager for the charity Common Wheel Housing. Good morning. Morning. Also with us, Rebecca Pierre, deputy director of the Children's Rights Charity Article 39. Good morning to you too, Rebecca. Good morning. Thank you for spotlighting this issue. Fraser, let me start with you. You commissioned and edited this report. You've been looking at it for quite a while. Maybe we could start with if you could explain the difference between regulated, unregulated and unregistered housing, so we can understand what you've found.

Yeah, no, absolutely. Well, thanks very much for having us on. So this report is about unregistered care settings, as you mentioned. So they are illegal because they're unregistered. There's no line of sight, no official oversight. I know that Rebecca's worked on the issue of unregulated homes. So there are some legal, allowed, unregulated care settings for 16 and 17-year-olds who might be moved out of a care home after their 16th birthday into,

supported housing, shared housing with adults. There is a debate that I know Rebecca's been a sort of vocal participant in that says that is actually inappropriate as well. But this report was really our desire to find out more about the hidden sector, the illegal sector. That have not been registered with Austin. So they're not getting inspections to see if they're appropriate. So tell me about the main findings that you found.

Yeah, well, so we've sort of calling them illegal care homes this whole time. but over the last few months, I think it's become pretty clear that they're not really homes, they're makeshift, as you say, they're makeshift settings. You know, they're care staff taking the kid to an Airbnb or a budget hotel room. It might be existing sort of supported housing that is then turned into a sort of, you know, child setting.

But it's not really for that. And there's a number of sort of drivers of this that have caused that increase. And just as we try to visualise the places where these children are, who would be looking after in those homes? Care staff, so they might be council staff, they might be hired care staff, they will be DBS checked. But, you know, one report we heard of was, you know, a very, very, very vulnerable young girl, you know, mid-teens, you know, two security guards with DBS checks in a hotel room. And you just sort of think, right, this is the kind of back-foot last-minute procurement of these settings that mean that you just, you're scrambling and the cost becomes astronomical as a result.

But the reason people are scrambling is because, There is no other place for that child to go. Right, or the other places the legal sector have waded up and said no. I mean, I think one of the findings was the children that often end up in these settings are on the acute end of the risk, very, very vulnerable kids, maybe very traumatized, quite complex cases. And there's a shortage of the kind of specialist provision that they would need. And there's a reluctance from the legal sector who have to take on liability, you know, to take on some of the most at-risk. They would rather have the vacancy than take on, you know, the child who keeps running away from the foster placement. Why?

Why do they say no? Well, they are – they take liability for their existing residence. So if they deem that this child might be a danger to themselves and others and they don't have maybe the staffing in place or the facilities, they are terrified of a damaging offstead review. They will have to weigh it up. And also, a lot of them are private providers that will have some sort of risk. threshold as well, right? But they can say no. They're not obligated. They're not obligated. And if the state wanted to obligate providers, it would have to do something like take on sort of shared liability,

but not be on site. And I think it's one issue. And I think one thing that's that's really important is, you know, a lot of these kids, instead of being in the real sort of specialist, you know, really good supported places they're in that, you know, might need a two or three to one staffing ratio, they end up in these, you know, very, very, very sort of improvised settings. The outcome for kids in care are pretty awful as well. There's a lot of homelessness risk when they age out, they're committing crime or end up with substance issues. They're very unsafe settings sometimes anyway.

The idea that the most traumatized, they're vulnerable or in a very sympathetic term, challenging cases, are in these settings is a great concern. I mean, it sounds like some of the most vulnerable could be the least supported. Yeah, in places, yes, because they need the most amount of provision or they need that sort of most support. And I think what the report shows is that there is a shortage of that provision

and that, you know, we didn't aim for local elections, but with a whole load of new councillors probably coming in in the next few weeks, I think local authorities are going to have to get to the grips with who their good providers are and what their challenges are very, very quickly. You know, I mentioned a figure at the top. I know it's made headlines as well, that it could cost 30,000 pounds a week to care for a child in an unsuitable setting.

How could that be? I think that in a way I'm almost glad at the sort of intense cost, because if councils were doing this to save money, it would be a really insidious development. I think that kind of incredible cost shows that councils just get desperate, and the providers know they can charge what they like, because the councillors already now basically acting unlawfully by being willing to place a child there.

So it's a 4-to-one staffing ratio. They're paying for an Airbnb on a nightly rate. And also a provider anecdotally, we heard that, you know, a provider can basically say, well, you know, this child we think is at risk of self-harm. So we need another staff member and then they can just add to the cost. And the council is terrified of placement breakdown because then they're back to square one. So you would be paying for every person who's involved in taking care of that child? Paying for the whole thing and there'll be profit taken home there as well.

And, you know, 20 grand a week is, what, a million quid a year? And that's not unusual. I think the children's commissioner, Rachel DeSuzer, has done really, really good data transparency stuff on this the last couple of years. I think in the last one that she did, which was maybe four or five months ago, I think it was 38 cases were per child per year over a million quid. Just some more details on that report that she published in January, found 669 children, were an unregistered home on one day in September 2025 that she pulled out that day and looked at it. Rebecca, let me bring you in here.

Were you surprised by what Fraser is saying? Not at all. We've been sounding the alarm for years. I mean, it's been a perfect storm of increased need. So we've seen childhood mental health skyrocket, especially since the pandemic. We've seen poverty, which we know increases the risk of children going into care. And so we've also seen what we call contextual safeguarding issues. So that's where even if, you know, parents are able to fully support children in the home. There are outside factors, organised criminal gangs, child sexual exploitation, digital risks and so on, which means risks are higher. And so within all of this, there's been a real soft-touch approach from the government. It begs belief that there's been no criminal convictions whatsoever in relation to these settings. When you say soft-touch, what do you mean? What we mean by that is the deterrents are simply not there. Ofsted has sent out warning letters, but only a very small percentage.

I believe it's about 6% of those were then responded to. And so, you know, you have these profiteers who are essentially making a mockery of local authorities. They have the monopoly and nothing's been done. We do have a number of statements in relation to this. And Ofsted spokesperson said too many children are being placed in unlawful settings where they're at risk of harm, the use of placements must stop. Ofsted is working hard to investigate unregistered children's homes and compel them to either register or close.

Another from the local government association that I want to read, it says no council wants to place a child in an unregistered setting. However, a lack of appropriate homes means that provision is sometimes not meeting the children's needs. The rising cost of placements also means that less funding is available for earlier support for children and families. councils need sufficient long-term funding to invest into family help, child protection, child in care and care lever services

while greater financial oversight of the largest providers is also needed to ensure that profits are invested into supporting children. Now there's a lot in those two statements but I suppose one thing strikes me and I'd be curious for your thoughts on this Rebecca. There's a difficult choice if today a child with complex needs presents

and there is no provider willing to take in that child in a registered setting or an offsted regulated placement. The child has to go somewhere or else, what is it, leave them to fend for themselves? I think that's a really well-worn argument and of course directors of children's services are in really difficult situations, but ultimately so are the children who need those settings.

And I'm speaking of someone with live, experience of a setting like this. And I can't tell you how intimidating those can be. I think it's really easy for leaders to, you know, sit on their high horse and give these platitudes. But ultimately, there need to be investing in homegrown provision that really meets those children's needs. I think a lot of the time, when we hear horrific stories like these, people kind of turn the other way and think, oh, that's the care sector it's expected. But if we were to think about, children of the same age and compare it to the education sector. You know, it would be unthinkable that society would allow teenagers in high school to be taught by teachers with

criminal convictions, to be taught in a classroom with other unsafe adults to be taught outside in a caravan with no checks. Of course, that would be horrific. But because it's care, you know, that there is that lack of care. Tell me a little bit more if you are able about your own experience if you're comfortable. I'm more than happy doing this and I think part of the reason is because it's so hidden and out of sight, I'm happy to bring that to light and make this less of a statistic. So I was placed in a hostel which was in the red light district of a very poor town up north with not a lot of kind of support for children and young people at all.

There were about 30 residents between the ages of 6.6. 16 and 25. So, you know, already you have girls who are in year 11 with men in their mid-20s who have just come out of prison who themselves are vulnerable. The very first thing that anyone said to me when I walked into the hostel was if you want any green, you know, where I am. So, you know, meaning if you want drugs, I'm down the corridor. So, you know, within minutes as a young person offered drugs. I was once in hospital for four days, seriously unwell, before any staff member even realized that I was gone. And that would just be unthinkable in a children's home that's regulated or foster placement. The other thing I will quickly say is I remember doing my A levels in the dark because, you know, there's no money to top up the electric meter, which again, it's Victorian, isn't it? And thank you for sharing that.

And so you know what some of these children and young people are going through. But coming back to your phrase, I mean, what are you recommending? Yeah, it's a good question. I think, I mean, the children's commissioners admitted this herself. There's a transparency problem here, not least because, as Rebecca alluded to, there's a lot of nervousness in local authorities to report this stuff, to report that they are effectively acting unlawfully. So one thing we're asking for is real transparency on it.

maybe even over a sort of focused period of time. Is it an amnesty you're looking for? Not an amnesty. It's a mandatory reporting of every local authority and what they have to do and how long the placement lasts and why it happened. There in the report are some recommendations about the procurement of care,

especially in exceptional circumstances. You're not having to go through the sequence of getting a paper trail that shows that normal children's homes have rejected you when you know that this special case will require you to go and look for something a little bit more expensive but legal. sort of building out this shortage of specialist capacity as well, really important. And I think one last recommendation just because of what's coming next week

is that local candidates get to grips with this really, really quickly, know what the pressures are in their own borough, know what good providers they have and work with them to increase capacity. Messages coming in on this. I work for an out-of-hour social work team weekends and evenings. This report very accurately accurately reflects reality. Sometimes the care staff cannot speak English. The food is all takeaways.

There's no activities in educational facilities. Truly, it's a scandalous situation. I've been a social worker for 35 years. The costs are frequently 10,000 a week, and it's appalling care, often in caravans and nasty hotels. I was struck, Ray, and I don't know whether your recommendations gets into this, but some of the statements I was reading there, there are for-profit private companies involved in care.

But that is surprising to some. Yeah, well, adult social care as well. They dominate the sector. I mean, some of the biggest owners of care homes in this country, adult and child are private equity. So, you know. Does your report get into that? No, we've not.

And I don't have, I've not done enough, I think, to say that there's no place for that. But I think one thing that does need to happen is councils can't be subject to just private provision like this. They need to build out some of their own facilities, develop that institutional knowledge and how to do that. Before we go, Rebecca, a last word. I would say the advocacy is a huge part here.

Lots of children and young people are led into these settings and maybe fed the myth that, you know, you're finally going to be independent. I'm not given any instruction as to what the reality is that they're going to have to bend for themselves three meals a day, who they're going to be lived with, what support they will miss out up until the age of 25 if they're not granted, you know, care, state,

So we really need to be giving children information and empowering them. And the other thing that I would say is that we really need a crackdown on profiteering. It's absolutely not acceptable that in this day and age people venture capitalists are profiting of vulnerable children. And I don't obviously have a response for many of those involved in that particular aspect. But thank you for your thoughts, Rebecca Pierre, Deputy Director of the Children's Rights Charity Article 39 and Fraser McLean, policy and communications manager for the charity Common Wheel Housing. Thanks so much. Now, thank you for, I want to actually read one more statement. This is from the children's minister, Josh McAllister,

who said running an unregistered children's home is illegal and wrong. Anyone running a children's home or supported accommodation must be registered with Ofsted or face serious consequences. We're cracking down on the scourge of illegal homes through new laws that give Ofsted the power to issue unlimited fines and shut down illegal homes. Thanks for your messages coming in on 84844. We're going to turn to something completely different.

Looking at my guests, are they wearing any sheer clothing this morning? Shear fashion. Clothing that has a see-through element is having a moment. Fashionistas may have noticed that Nicole Kidman had a black lace on at the premiere of Margot's got money troubles last week. Gwynette Paltrow in that dress.

Seat-through, looked kind of as if naked panels all the way down the sides of her body on both sides from armpit to angle. Anne Cully even. She was at the Oscars last month. And then at New York Fashion Week, earlier this year, Naomi Watts wore a black satin slip dress. It had this sheer detail along the neckline. All of these women wear shock horror over 50.

So what is the appeal of this latest round of sheer fashion? And is there judgment of women of a certain age wearing invisible clothing? I'm joined by Cassia St. Clair, Cultural Historian. Good morning. Good morning. And also by Deborah Joseph, former editor of Glamour magazine. Good morning. Good morning.

Great to have both of you with us. Deborah, let me begin with you. Gwynapalro looked great, as she posed. I even saw her run in that dress. Why do you think she wore it? Well, I mean, if you're going to go on the red carpet and you may be promoting a film that you're doing or you're there for the Oscars,

of course you wanted to be seen, be beautiful, be talked about. So why wouldn't you wear a dress that is going to maybe raise gasps or get talked about? in all the magazines and all the newspapers as it was and she looked absolutely incredible. Anita Lisbo is a fashion commentator.

I don't know if you saw this comment that you had about Gwynett's dress. She says, this dress feels like when I wrap a gift and there's not quite enough paper. You know when you're left with that little gap, but on both sides? Yes. But gets people talking. I mean, what do you think, Cassia? Is it the reaction or an element of showing off strength and muscles that they've been to the gym?

I think there's so much going on here and it's really difficult to unpick because it feeds into so many different things. I think you're absolutely right that this is about, you know, attention. You know that if you're going to wear something sheer, it's going to grab headlines. And of course, if you're promoting something,

then that's good for what you're promoting. But also I think this can be, depending on context, a sign of pride in your body and your work. It can be interest in the fashion itself. So I think there's a lot going on here. And this has really long, you know, historical routes. we tend to think of this as kind of like a modern phenomenon. We're surprised by it every time it happens.

But it happens a lot. It's happened throughout history. I mean, I was only thinking back to the 90s personally, but give me a trip back further. How long? Has it been an interest in sheer fabrics? I mean, it's very potted history and it's spotty, of course, because of the historical record.

But, you know, you can see evidence that in ancient Egypt people were really interested in very, very, very fine, sheer textile, so fine that you could see the colour of someone's skin and the outline of their of their body through the fabric. You also see this, there's a very beautiful, fine muslin that was created in Bangladesh historically. And this was really popular. It's mentioned by Roman writers, including Petronius, who mentions it rather scathingly. He says that a bride may as well be clothed in a garment of the wind as this muslin dress.

But this is really popular. It's very fine. it's very sheer. It's a way of showing off the body and showing the movement of the body. And because it comes from a particular place and was so difficult to make, it was very expensive.

And so wearing it was an indication of power and wealth. And you see this cropping up again and again. So status as well, here's a commenter. I've always been obsessed with sheer fabric and had an amazing organza, fully sheer turquoise dress that I wore to Coachella 10 years ago in my early 30s. I must have given it to the charity shop

at some point since then, but I regret it all the time and I'm always trying to find that or a similar dress. I'd happily wear sheer fabric now but with a slip or vest underneath. As I mentioned, I kind of did that myself this morning.

Cream sheer but with a black vest underneath. But what about this, Deborah? That it kind of goes in rotation. I think I probably can remember it twice just in my fashion history of being in the wardrobe. This is the third time round. I mean, totally.

for me it's about 90s fashion. There's been a huge revival and I remember being an 18 year old in the Hacienda in Manchester and the cool outfit to wear was a long black see-through skirt with little hot pants underneath. I don't know if the sheer fabric on top made it more modest. I've no idea but that's all I wanted and all the girls that were cool were wearing it and I remember going to Afflex Palace to buy that skirt and I regret it to this day. I wish I could give it to my own daughters and now of course they're wanting to wear sheer fabrics. I've got 13 year old. She wanted to wear a lace top from Brandy Melville and I wouldn't let her buy it actually because I was worried that it would attract the wrong attention age 13. So, you know, the conversation around age, it's not just about women over 50, it's for women of all ages that we think is it appropriate, is the context appropriate?

And she was very annoyed with me for a long time about that one. How interesting. Also, I'm sure if she sees a photograph if there was even such a thing as a camera in a nightclub at that stage. Thankfully, that wasn't. Tell me about it. But what about, and coming back to Gwynedd,

like I literally, I saw her running because she had to go in, I imagine, for an award or something, and she was able to move. And I was wondering, what fabric might they be using to kind of keep everything in place so that your modesty is intact

even though you look naked on both sides? Any ideas? I mean, we were having a little bit discussion about this before because we were looking at another example worn by Nicole Kidman and we were trying to figure out exactly what it was.

And we thought it might be something very sheer, possibly knitted, because then that gives you more movement. But equally, it could be something like a shift on like a woven, a very fine woven fabric. It's really difficult to know without getting in there and putting your hands on it, which I don't think Winif Paltrow would allow quite rightly. It's all extraordinary as well. It had like leather panelling on it, didn't like. Yes, Dinoco.

Yes, that one was beautiful. Here's more messages coming in. I think that women should wear what they want, whatever makes them feel good. Here's another on sheer fabric. I'm not wearing anything like that. People want to see more on my skin than it's dinner and a cocktail first. One more. I've always been upset.

Oh yeah, with sheer fabric, we talked about that one from Coachella. But what is it, do you think, that attracts some of my listeners to sheer fabric? Like, why is it not a certain material or the stitching or, I don't know, the craftsmanship, for example? It's kind of, it's the opposite of all that. Well, not necessarily, because you can get sheer fabric. that really show off the detailing. So, you know, lace, for example. That's true, yeah.

You know, it's all about the detail and the texture and the design and the specific motifs often. And yet, you know, it's revealing the skin underneath. And in the example that we were talking about, that Nicole Kidman wore, you know, it's the sheer fabric is a contrast to the specific decoration. And so you do get that kind of, that contrast feeling. But I think for a lot of people, it's about fun.

It's about grabbing attention. and I think that there's a power to that if you, particularly maybe if you are older and you can have that sense of like grabbing the attention in the room, I think there is a power to that. What do you think, Deborah, about, we had one gentleman who got in touch earlier saying he wasn't sure what to do as a man,

whether to look or not look when it was sheer, there's another one here on revealing clothing. My husband has the same problem. Our children's female friends in their 20s often turn up most of the body left of the imagination. Like the king, he sticks to keeping his eyes on their eyes. Me too, actually. But I suppose this has always been the way.

It just goes through various phases. Perhaps only now we have older women also taking part in sheer fabrics. Well, I think the advice to any man would be probably keep your eyes to yourself, whether it's sheer fabric or not. So, yeah, I think that sheer fabrics, if a woman is wearing a completely transparent skirt with a little G-string, which is what I saw a woman wearing last week, She was at her 20s at a party I went to, and she looked stunning. I didn't stop looking at her bottom all night.

I couldn't help it. But presumably she felt comfortable with that because she was wearing that G-string. And as a woman, I think my gaze is a little bit more comfortable than from being a male gaze. But I think there's many ways to wear sheer fabrics where you do feel more modest, whether it's hot pants, or if it's slip underneath or, you know, quite a big pants. I think there's different ways of doing it if you want to wear sheer fabrics. it doesn't necessarily attract men looking at your, not covering your modesty. And Cher is a big range.

You can go from sort of very, really sort of almost opaque to see through. Cassia Sinclair, Deborah Joseph, thank you both so much. Do join us again tomorrow on Woman's Hour. Sammy Alpin, the nurse who spends her time creating colourful artworks will be with us. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. Hello, I'm Tyler West and I'm Alfie Watts. And this is The Detour.

the official companion podcast to race across the world. This is the post-episode checkpoint where you'll hear the latest chat around each episode from us and our race superfan special guests. Plus, I'll be joined each week by a resident travel expert, Alfie. That's you, ma'am. I'll be revealing my optimal way to travel through each leg,

including visits to all of those unmissable detours along the way. And we'll also have some not seen anywhere else exclusive content at the end of every episode. I cannot wait. The detour will land straight after each episode of Race Across the World you can watch on iPlayer or listen on sounds where you'll also find extra bonus content. We'll see you then.