Woman's Hour - Global surrogacy, Karen Carney, Low-income & SEND, Talc trial

Episode Date: October 16, 2025

A major UK group litigation has been launched against Johnson & Johnson, involving approximately 3,000 claimants who allege they developed cancers due to asbestos-contaminated talc products. The company is accused of negligence and deceit. Johnson & Johnson deny the allegations. The BBC Health reporter, Chloe Hayward, joins Anita Rani to talk about what is known so far.Surrogacy and its impact is the subject of a new report by the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem. In 2023, the global surrogacy market was valued at nearly $15 billion and is projected to reach almost $100 billion in the next eight years. Here in the UK commercial surrogacy is illegal - surrogacy has to be altruistic, meaning only expenses are paid for and the motivation behind it is typically helping someone else. It is legal, however, to have a child in another country where the rules may differ. To discuss the ethics of the practice, Anita is joined by Reem Alsalem and Sarah Jones, CEO of Surrogacy UK.Karen Carney is one of the most capped female footballers for England. The former Lioness joins Anita to talk about how she is using Strictly to help her 'rebuild confidence' after being 'crushed' by the sexist abuse she faced as a football pundit and her vision to improve women’s sport.Children with special educational needs from low-income families are facing major inequalities in access to support, according to a new report out today from the Sutton Trust. Anita is joined by Charlotte O’Regan, Senior Schools Engagement Manager at the Sutton Trust, lead author of the report Double Disadvantage, to talk about its findings. Presenter: Anita Rani Producer: Rebecca Myatt

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. A new season of Love Me is here. Real stories of real, complicated relationships. It's not even like a gender. I mean, it's wrapped up in gender, but it's just a really deep self-hate. I think I cried almost every day. I just stole myself on the floor. He's coming on really straight.

It's like he's trying to date you all of a sudden. Yeah. And I do look like. my mother. Love me. Available now wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Nula McGovern and you're listening to The Woman's Hour podcast. While you're here, I wanted to let you know about the Woman's Hour Guide to Life, your toolkit for the juggle, the struggle and everything in between. Life is complicated and often incredibly busy. So whether you're fixing a problem at one of life's crossroads or just looking to shake things up

bit, this is the guide you'll need to help you survive and even thrive. Each episode brings together world-class experts with women sharing their honest, powerful stories, offering real insight and also practical tips that really work. From work and career to relationships and family issues, the focus is on helping you grow, also adapt and overcome life's curve walls. It's your companion, your life coach, it's your Woman's Hour Guide to Life. Join us only on BBC Sounds, but now, back to today's Woman's Hour. Good morning and welcome to the programme. The UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reim Al-Salem has released a new global report into surrogacy and has stated she sees similarities between

the system of prostitution and the system of surrogacy, that it's reducing human life a commodity. She insists the only viable solution is an international ban on so-called reproductive tourism. And as part of this dialogue about the ethics of surrogacy, we'll be hearing an alternative viewpoint to. Children with special educational needs from low-income families are facing major inequalities in their access to support. But why is this happening and what needs to change? Also, she captained the England women's football team and Canela Jive on the dance floor. Karen Carney will be here to talk football and of course strictly. And no spoilers, but if you've been watching Traitors, you will know that the actor Celia Imre farted. It just

slipped out. Welcome to the worst team building away day experience in history. What just happened? I just farted, Claudia. Sorry. I'm so sorry. It's nerves, but I always own up. I know. I always own up too. Just so brilliant.

So today, in solidarity for Celia's flatulence, do you own up to your farts? Have you got gaseer with age? Has something slipped out in yoga? Are you wild and windy and simply don't care? You can share your stories with me this morning and you can remain anonymous should you wish. Get in touch in the usual way about that

or anything else you hear on the program. The text number is 84844. You can email the program by going to our website or you can WhatsApp the program. It's 0300-100-444. And if you'd like to follow us on social media, it is at BBC Women's Hour. That text number 84844.

But first, a major UK group litigation has been launched against Johnson and Johnson involving approximately 3,000 claimants who allege they developed cancer due to asbestos contaminated talc products. The company is accused of negligence and deceit. Johnson and Johnson deny the allegations. The BBC health reporter Chloe Hayward joins us now to tell us more.

So, Chloe, what is this case really about? So as you say, this is a major legal action. It's been bought by KP Law and involves 3,000 claimants, as you said, who claim that Johnson & Johnson, they knowingly sold baby powder contaminated with asbestos that then gave them life-changing and life-ending illness. including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. So talc is a naturally occurring mineral that is mined in close proximity to asbestos deposits. The claim alleges that the asbestos minerals contaminate the talcate source,

but that even though the executives were aware of this risk, as early as in the 1960s, they didn't warn consumers, they didn't label the packaging, and they pushed for less sensitive testing methods just so they could get away with, so they could continue to sell the product. So hence the allegation of negligence. The claimants also accused Johnson Johnson of deceit. Now this claim alleges once the risk of contamination was known, the executives decided to continue to market the baby powder

as the pure and gentle product with a focus on that mother and baby market. So one mother that watched those adverts back in their 70s and 80s, she believed she was doing the best for her children when she used that tuck was Shavorn Ryan. I spoke to her last week and she believes the baby powder gave her stage four ovarian cancer. It's monstrous to continue. to market a product that is specifically aimed at the youngest babies, how monstrous is it, that you continue to market it and make profit out of this?

So what kind of evidence is being used to support these claims? So the claim is heavily relying on internal documents, some of which have been seen by the BBC by me, whereas one memo from 1973 that allegedly states that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder contains trace amounts of tremolite and actinolite that might be classified as as a spestos fibre. Now, Johnson & Johnson say that this letter was discussing how regulation might change and is saying it is being misrepresented in this allegation. Another document discusses a potential patent to remove espestos from talc.

It ends with the line, we may wish to keep the whole thing confidential rather than let the whole world know. Now, Johnson and Johnson strongly deny these allegations. They say this particular discussion was needed to stay confidential, because any new patent would be very valuable. There's also allegations that JNJ pushed regulators to accept less sensitive testing standards so that small amounts of asbestos wouldn't be detected in their talcum powder. This allowed the company to continue to claim the product was pure,

a claim that JNJ also refute, saying that their talc was tested to the highest of standards. So what's the wider impact of this case and how does it compare to what's happened in the US? So the case in the UK here will mirror extensive litigation that's happened in the US, where Johnson Johnson faced thousands of lawsuits over similar claims. In some cases, juries have awarded billions of dollars and damages, although we must note that Johnson Johnson have successfully appealed many of those cases. We must also note that what happens in the US isn't necessarily what's going to happen in the UK. The court system is very different, and so that doesn't dictate what's likely to happen here.

Johnson Johnson in the UK have also moved their consumer health division to a new company called Kenvoo, and they shared this statement with me. They say, we sympathise greatly with people living with cancer, and we understand that they and their families want answers, and that's why the facts are so important. It said the safety of the baby powder was backed by years of testing by independent and leading laboratories, universities and health authorities in the UK and around the world,

and it said Johnson & Johnson's baby powder was compliant with any required religious standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer. So in the UK, this case could become one of the largest product liability cases ever. And depending on the outcome, it could set a precedent not only for compensation, but for how companies are held accountable when it comes to safety concerns when they're raised. And what's your advice for women listening to this who might be concerned? Well, so this case centres around people that have used baby powder for extensively over several years.

So many of the claimants I spoke to said they'd use baby powder for over a decade for themselves as well as for their babies when they were born. But firstly, also, I must say that ovarian cancer is very rare. So if you use baby powder and these allegations become true, there is no dictation. and that is going to be the case. But if you have any common symptoms of ovarian cancer, the symptoms include persistent bloating, persistent pelvic or abdominal pain, feeling full quickly on inability to eat, and an increased or urgent need to pee.

So if you experience any of those symptoms frequently, so that's more than 12 times a month, they say, then it is important. Do go and see your doctor. Chloe, thank you for coming in to speak to us about that. There's Chloe Hayward, the BBC Health Reporter. That text number, once again, 84844. Now, she's been called one of the most influential voices in English football.

Karen Carney, captains the England women's football team, represented Team GB at the London Olympics and helped change the face of women's sport, not just on the pitch, but in the boardroom and in front of the camera. But it hasn't all been goals in glory. Karen has also faced horrendous misogynistic abuse online for simply doing her job. Well, today she joins us to talk about life after football, learning to dance on live television, in this year Strictly Come Dancing and why speaking out still matters. Morning. Good morning.

Welcome. How are you? How are you? How is your body with all the strictly training? That's my first question. I keep telling everyone I'm hungry. My belly's constantly rumbling all the time. So I've just had a banana to keep me going.

So I've got a bit of energy. But thanks for having me here. Oh, it's a pleasure to speak with you today. Well, thank you for taking time out from training. How does it compare to football training? It's harder. It's harder. I know I know because I've done football for so long

you know how to fix things if they go wrong or you know how to manage your adrenaline and I think the hardest thing for me is is that there was times in football where I probably could have given that little bit more I didn't realise at the time so I had a few regrets from football so my mantra going into Strictly is like

have no regrets like go for it but the so there's like one Karen that's like go for it like live your dream you run strictly go for it and then the other part is like okay but you've got to understand that you've got to be in hold and there's rules and it's Latin and it's ballroom and they've not really married together just yet

so it's really funny like I'm having the time of my life I love Saturdays and performing and doing it with Carlos and so you can see I'm just beaming it's such an honour like 15 people a year get to do it as you know and it's such a privilege to be on the show and I've been a fan of it for so long and I can't simply believe that I'm in it you are and you are incredible

I have this theory about sports people are going to strictly. You all do really well because you know how to train. You can set your mind to it. I was a rubbish trainer though in football. You asked my teammates, I was not a good trainer. But you can fit, you're very single-minded. So when you go in and you know that you've got a task at hand,

you know how to kind of just repeat and repeat and repeat. No? No, I don't think for me. I know how to repeat kicking a ball. I'm like, oh, that's just so natural. and that's my comfort blanket and I just do it like you know you only get like three and a half days

to learn a dance four days and there's nothing rhythmic about that and I don't know how it all comes together on a Saturday I genuinely don't but yeah I'm probably I didn't enjoy training as a footballer and I'd say the training room is like a positive challenge because you're learning something new you didn't enjoy it

football training no I just want to play games I don't want to do all the drills in that I just want to play so that's where it's funny and yeah but I don't think many players enjoy training

maybe you've interviewed a few people I haven't come across many that enjoy the training side of it but yeah strictly has been awesome I love dance macalos and I love as hard as it is I love learning a new dance and I genuinely every Monday wake up and go

I'm grateful to learn a new dance because I'm still in it and I know that means a lot to me yeah yeah you speak about wanting to use strictly to build your rebuild your confidence what did you mean by that I think you know being open and transparent the last you know five five or six years as my confidence has been really knocked and you know um just haven't been able to get out of that and I love this show and I love everyone that's a part of it you know and you know like everyone is amazing you know behind the scenes are so supportive and encouraging and I just thought if you're going to rip the band-aid off and really try and rebuild your confidence, which sounds bizarre by going on the biggest show in the country and totally doing things out your comfort zone.

But that was the only way I thought I could do it and it feels safe because of everyone involved in the show. And I'm doing it like walking down the stairs of the day doing the chacha, you know, was massively out my comfort zone and I was really proud of that for me and their elements of rebuilding my confidence, which I have to say through football has been shattered and crushed. and I just want to get that back

and show people I'm happy and smiling I'm living my best life and living my dream and I'm grateful to be part of this amazing show every week Yeah and you will always have Even when you finished it and you look back

Someone said this to me You're always going to have those 90 second videos That you did that That Shacha will always be there And you will have always done it Let's talk about when you hit some of those lows Because you said the online abuse You received as a football pundit changed you

Can you tell us what that period was like? It's hard to talk about it, if I'm honest, because it's really tough for me. Like I say, it was very, very difficult moments. It completely shattered my confidence. And, you know, it was really hard. It's hard for me to talk to you about it. Like I try and move forward and look towards the positive sides of things.

But it definitely changed who I was and who I was and who I am and I you know it's a challenge but one that I've never shied away from it I've always stepped forward and gone back and done it and tried to get better tried to keep improving tried to be a really good teammate to my fellow pundits

and try to enjoy the environment that everyone's created which has been great and just keep getting better and better and you know I can only be myself and I think I've learnt that to always impress my teammates which is my fellow pundits and know that I work hard and I love what I do for them. The rest I can't control anymore and I've really started to understand that.

How have you done that? Like I said, like I have dived more into the work. I'm obsessed with like the patterns of play. I'm obsessed with like the touch table or the touchscreen or the tactical side or the video clips. I go and bring them to punditry. I ask the team, can I show this clip? I want to talk about this clip and I fall in love with that and I focus on that and I try and be the best pundit I can by explaining why things happen. The other stuff I can't control, but I'm really happy and passionate about the visual side and the tactical side of the game

and trying to teach people something they didn't know. And the stuff you can't control is the stuff often that affects you the most because you described the sort of level of abuse that you received online, that you were crushed by the experience. Just intrigued to know two things. Just what it was about the level of experience. And we know because it's misogyny, sexism, you know, the stuff that the pylon that happened to you was horrendous.

And then how you work back from that dark place. Just how bad it got on how you sort of start working back from it. Yeah, I would say crushed. I would say heavy anxiety. I was on one of the best shows I dreamed about. And my mum said she was so proud of me when she heard the music because I matched the day and I had a panic attack. As I was doing a clip, I was out of vision, but I had a panic attack.

I couldn't breathe in the anxiety. and everything that had kind of came on top of me, came on top of me in that show. And I was so upset because I'd worked so hard to try and get on match the day for the first ever time. It's such an iconic show and the theme tune and everything that it meant to my mum, to my family, to me. And I just thought I wasn't my best version of myself.

However, what I would say is that things are there to challenge you, whether you like them or not. And I've seen this as a way to step forward, particularly in the punditry. Come on, Karen, get even better. stronger and even though I'm anxious and potentially have lost my confidence sometimes on air, I feel safe with my teammates next to me and if I can explain and fall in love with the tactics, I can really try and help the show and help the audience understand why things

happen. That takes a lot to be able to have that self-talk. Yeah, but I have amazing people around me and like I said, the people that I work for and my teammates, I call them my teammates, my colleagues I love them dearly and they care about me they're my teammates they're like they're ex footballers as well

I'm part of their team and they look after me and they always have and I want to be good back to them because how good they've been to me and by that is working really hard and being a good team player

are you still on social media? I'm on Instagram and I'm now on TikTok which is fun Come off the other stuff. Yeah, I think you just control what you can and that's what I can and I hope through strictly people see who I am

and see that I want to smile, I want to enjoy everything, I want to take positive step forwards and I will step out my comfort zone and I'm not going to be the best dancer but I'll give it my best shot and I'll go on every week with a smile and hopefully me and Carlos

produce things that people want to get up and dance when they're at home. I think that's the secret, the secret, though. I don't think you need to be the best answer. I think people can sense joy. And if you're enjoying it, which you obviously are, we're enjoying it. You've described your fellow strictly contestants as teammates as well. Yeah.

Are they, though? No, they are. For now. No, like, I don't see that, like, that glittable is like, it's an amazing thing, but only one person gets to do that. And for me, it's about being on the best show. and building that confidence. The people that are in the show

can't control that either. You want to be there for them, what they're feeling, you're feeling and you want to just be supportive as possible. And everyone's on a different journey. Everyone starts differently and ends differently. And you just got to respect that. And the mantra is, just be a good person.

If someone's having a time of their life, you tell them, well done. If someone's struggling, you step up and you go, come on, you can do this. Because there's been times in the journey that I've had, it's been really good. And everyone's come up to me and said, well done and there's times where it's been really hard

and they've seen me in there like come on Kaz you can do this so why would we not be good teammates we're in this together turning to your work off the pitch and the dance for now you were asked by the conservative government in 2022 to lead a review into the future of women's football tell us about that yeah I mean yeah I still think I don't know how that happened but yeah I was asked to look into the future women's football so it was basically to do this big report I had a team behind me

which were incredible and we spoke to everyone in the women's game to understand where the game was currently at and we put forward recommendations. We put forward 10 and all of them were accepted and we've been slowly like ticking them off and making sure that the game hopefully is in a better place as we keep moving forward and the game is growing.

But the 10 recommendations in my mind were just about building solid foundations. If we can get the base right, anything else on top of it, then will be in a really strong position. It's really important that when you're setting something up, you have strong foundations. And that was my mindset throughout it. And it was also my mentality was to have it a blueprint for other sports as well

because other female sports, I'm sure, would be going through similar things. Maybe football was just a little bit further ahead in the journey, perhaps. Yeah. What were the most important recommendations? I think the minimum standards that a female athlete, female footballer, should have is the most important for me is that they you know the minimum standards if we don't have good minimum

standards how can they be the best footballer how can we then create the best product it's impossible we can't have people training at 8 o'clock 10 o'clock at night not eating drinking not having the right kit not having the right equipment you know you know having the menstrual support and everything that goes with it

the minimum standards the facilities these are really important factors I've not once gone into technical tactical but it's the minimum standards that we can make sure that these women have the best opportunity to step forward. You've talked about making women's support more sustainable and equitable. What concrete changes do you believe are needed in the infrastructure, in media coverage, in funding to turn the blueprint into real change?

That's a big question. I need to digest that again. Sorry. So, I mean, just what the biggest sort of places that you would want changes to happen in terms of, well, let's start with media coverage? What I want to see from it? Look, in anything, is to see it to be it. So obviously it's really important that we are able to see female athletes and female. I mean, we've had a great summer, haven't we, with the lionesses, red roses. We've had such a great window of women's sports.

Athletics has done really well. Everyone's been doing really well in women's sports. So that's really great that we can cricket. I went to the Women's 100 as well, which was really cool. We're starting to see it now. And obviously then that becomes a positive narrative, which we want. And that's really important to me, just that visibility and the right positive visibility.

And finally, Karen, if you could send a message to your younger self, that 17-year-old making her debut from England, what would you tell her now? Have fun. Have fun. And if I was to go back to my football career, play like no one's watching. And on Saturdays, dance like no one's watching. Just live in the moment, enjoy it.

Go for it, girl. And you're living your dream, whether it's to play for the lionesses, whether it's to be on strictly. I am living my dream and just to have the best time, Karen, don't worry about anything else. Great advice, great life advice. Karen Carney, thank you so much for coming and speak to me.

Actually, you want to stick around to hear some of these messages we're getting in about people admitting to farting in public. And obviously that never happened in the women's changing rooms, right? No comment. So someone here says, broke wind whilst pursuing the paint aisle at a well-known DIY store last night after eating a meal, including cabbage. was so bad I had to get away from it when I looked back down the aisle. Oh my god. A poor unsuspecting

man was walking straight into it. I felt shamed as he wafted his arms and thought of shouting an apology to him but couldn't do it. Someone else says whilst in Turkey on holiday with my fiance were having our one day poolside relaxing book reading when I absolutely let rip. It echoed around the pool area which was enclosed by walls. I said rather loudly Michael and then looked directly at him. So did everyone else. He took the blame. Oh. Well done, Michael. Thank you, Karen. Thank you. Now, have you caught up on this week's episode of The Woman's Hour Guide to Life?

It's all about money and juggling our finances. One of the pieces of advice is to build up a freedom fund by saving some money into it each month. You could use it for when you need to leave a job or even a relationship. To hear more from this episode of The Woman's Hour Guide to Life, just go to BBC Sounds, search for a Woman's Hour. And when you scroll down in the feed, you'll find the Guide to Life episode. And if there's a topic or an issue you want us to cover, then do get in touch in the usual way. A new season of Love Me is here. Real stories of real, complicated relationships.

It's not even like a gender. I mean, it's wrapped up in gender. But it's just a really deep self-hate. I think I cried almost every day. I just stole myself on the floor. It's coming on really straight. he's trying to date you all of the sudden. Yeah, and I do look like my mother. Love me. Available now wherever you get your podcasts. Now, to the topic of surrogacy. Ceregacy and its impact is the subject

of a new report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Riem Al-Salaam. And surrogacy is a big market globally. In 2023, the global surrogacy market was valued at nearly 15 billion. and is projected to reach almost $100 billion in the next eight years. Here in the UK, commercial surrogacy is illegal. It has to be altruistic, meaning only expenses are paid for, and the motivation behind it is typically helping someone else, such as a friend or family member, have a child. It is legal, however, to have a child in another country where the rules may differ.

Well, Ream Al-Salem joined me recently, and I asked her why she wanted to look at this topic. I look at trends or phenomena that I feel have not been completely unpacked or understood when it comes to the human rights implications. And for me, surrogacy stood out as one of such phenomenon in the sense that many countries are now adopting different policies towards it. It's being normalized in society. It's spreading.

but really we have not taken sufficiently a moment to reflect on, okay, what are the implications of this on the humans that are involved, whether it's the surrogate mothers, the surrogate children or children born through surrogacy or the commissioning parents or actually wider society? Most of it is actually commercial surrogacy. What are the main findings of your report? So the main findings is that surrogacy is actually, a form of violence against women and girls and also results in tremendous human rights violations

of women and girls. And also when it comes to the wider society, it actually reinforces patriarchal norms because it reinforces this notion that women's bodies, girls' bodies can be commodified, can be objectified, that women's and girls' sexual and reproductive functions can commercialized and are up for grab. And it further, frankly, dehumanizes there for women and children, including girls. And therefore, I look in particular in the report at all the forms of violence that it generates, whether it's psychological violence, whether it's economic violence, whether it's also forms of physical violence for those involved. We'll look at some of the specifics now because you're looking at countries around the world

and you cite that, for example, in the US, that surrogacy agencies are primarily involved in cross-border arrangements using surrogates from other countries. How much do you see that as a problem? It is a problem because, as I say in the report, first of all, we see a clear trend in who is the commissioning parents and who are the surrogate mothers. The commissioning parents are generally persons that are better off economically.

They are mostly also reside in rich countries. And the surrogate mothers, or those that even give their eggs, are of lower economic strata. They're often in need of additional income. And many of them are also residing in, let's say, economically disadvantaged places, poorer countries, countries where either the law is silent on the issue of surrogacy, therefore it's permitted in a way, or that even allow it. And this is the clear dynamic that we have. In the report, you talk about how surrogacy can devaluate women,

reducing them to solely their reproduction roles and perpetuate the idea that female biology is marketable. And you've seen terms like womb, guest house, an incubator developing their cells. Who are using these words? A lot of actors are using those words. I'll start off by the media. I think, as I say in my report, the media has played an important. important role in trying to normalize surrogacy and encourage societies and countries to support

and engage in it. The commissioning parents are also, they may not necessarily be entering into this with bad intentions. They might not be aware of all the negative consequences that commissioning children through surrogacy has on other humans, including the child. But obviously because there is the money issue involved, it's very clear that most of them then become either passive or active perpetrators of that violence because they pay for a service, they pay for a commodity, so to speak, because this is unfortunately what entertaining surrogacy arrangement does, it commodifies the children, and therefore they will see to it that they get what they want. And they are also exercising.

exercising a huge amount of control over the life of the surrogate mother and over the entire period that the surrogate mother is pregnant. And much of that is also put in these surrogacy contracts. And then, of course, you have the surrogacy clinics who are the intermediaries, who are basically the ones facilitating this arrangement, who get also, by the way, the majority of the money that surrogate parents get. The surrogate mother actually gets very little. of that percentage-wise, it ranges, as I say in my report, between 10 to 27%. But they are the ones who then will be actors of violence in their own right and sometimes often also aiding and abetting or directly responsible for the pressures and violence inflicted on surrogate

mothers and their children. And then I will just mention the last actor because that is very important, which are states, because states obviously have a responsibility towards women and children that are on their territory. So by even remaining silent on these abuses, by not putting in place legislations and laws that prevent such violence or that also do not support victims, because I describe surrogate mothers as victims and also the children, they are also therefore criminally responsible. I mean, many women enter into surrogacy willingly and not for personal gains. What do you say to them? From the evidence that we have, the majority actually do not enter into this willingly. And there are a lot of parallels, you know, between entering into

surrogacy arrangements and entering into prostitution. Because I think, first of all, most women who do this do this under some kind of pressures or coercion, which includes also financial pressures. So if they are single mothers, if they are poor and they are taking care of other family members, this may often provide the only way out, or one of the only ways out available to them, especially if the state does not provide support for women that are vulnerable. The other issue is, of course, that they might enter into it not being fully aware of all the consequences, including on them. And also, as I said, even the ones who do this, let's say, not for financial gains, they are often pressured or encouraged also by family members or by friends and they want to

also help others, you know. So there's this altruistic feeling that some of them have. Well, that's the CEO of Surrogacy UK has told us here at Women's Out that they think it's unfair to have surrogacy banned in the UK as within the country. it's based on altruism. How do you respond to that? I've addressed this issue actually in the report that this distinction between altruistic and commercial surrogacy is really an artificial and incorrect distinction because it's very, very difficult, in fact, to draw that line.

And some surrogacy arrangements that on the surface could look like they are altruistic actually have financial compensation built into them. So it's actually quite a lot of money that is sort of portrayed as being just to cover the costs of being a surrogate. So as I say, it's a very artificial distinction. And I don't think it also stands the test. Because as you know, within the UK commercial surrogacy is banned and the family court has to authorise payments of more than reasonable expenses. So for example, maternity clothes, travel expenses and loss of earnings before they grant the parental.

order which transfers parenthood of the child. Why is that a problem? I believe I answered that question by saying that there's this artificial distinction between altruistic and commercial surrogacy. I don't think this is this really, you know, is valid distinction to inform policy. I know that the UK is looking at this and I've even addressed this issue in my report on my visit to the United States. Kingdom because, of course, they are also looking at changing the rules and becoming more permissible towards surrogacy. But my point has been, my recommendation to the UK has been that you should really also look at the consequences for the surrogate mothers and children

before you decide to liberalize and legalize basically all aspects of surrogacy. And I have, for the purposes of this report also spoken to British surrogate mothers and therefore their experiences have also informed this report. I mean, some of those mothers might be shocked to hear your words because you are very direct. You say that surrogacy arrangements can amount to or resemble slavery and also that commercial surrogacy, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of surrogacy cases globally,

constitutes the sale of children, which is a crime. What makes you use those terms? I've looked at the manifestations. I've relied on credible sources that involve, first of all, available credible research that is out there, credible reports of abuses that have been detected within surrogacy arrangements in a number of countries and that have been reported by the media. And third, also the testimonies of persons themselves. I have also spoken to a couple of surrogacy clinics or service providers. I've spoken to a few commissioning parents. I've looked at also the evidence and testimonies by surrogate mothers.

So I think I have tried to be as inclusive of all voices as possible. Having said that, my mandate is a human rights mandate. And so that needs to remain the reference. point. And that means that for all my reports, I take the facts, the manifestations, and I analyze what that means in terms of the law. And therefore, you see that these practices can constitute slavery, can constitute trafficking, particularly of children, and sometimes even of the surrogate mothers, and can also rise up to be psychological violence, economic, forms of violence and exploitation and other forms of physical violence. They also result in

serious health consequences for the mother and the child. And above all, they constitute a violation of the rights of the child, particularly centering the best interest of the child in all policies adopted that affect children. What are the recommendations you're putting forward? There's a couple of recommendations I make. The most important of which is that at the international level, the international community, particularly states, have to take steps to eradicate surrogacy and I say in all of its forms. You penalize the buying. So you penalize commissioning parents. You penalize, you criminalize also the role of the clinics and agencies. At the same time, I describe the surrogacy. mothers as victims. So they should be decriminalized in all circumstances. We should, therefore, given that they are victims, provide support strategies to them to exit the reliance on surrogacy as an income or as a way of living. And then also we have to carry out education campaigns on the harms that are inherent in the practice of surrogacy.

the illegality of commissioning and facilitating relevant arrangements. So interesting. Reim Al-Salem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, talking about global surrogacy. In the UK, surrogacy is legal. But if you make a surrogacy agreement, it cannot be enforced by the law. Listening to that interview and joining me now is Sarah Jones, CEO of Surrogacy UK, and not-for-profit, originally started by surrogates, supported by an external ethics committee. So well, Welcome, Sarah, to Woman's Hour. What's your initial response to that interview?

Well, it was expected. I've read the report, so I understood what was going to be said in that interview. And funnily enough, I do actually agree with quite a lot of it. I am opposed to commercial surrogacy, to cross-border surrogacy, and unethical surrogacy practices. what I am surprised by is that there's no nuance in that report. There's no recognition that surrogacy practices are on a spectrum. So there are some good surrogacy practices like what we do here in the UK and there are some really unethical practices which of course should be addressed

and tackled 100%. When I hear Ream say that I am a victim and a slave, I don't recognise that about myself. That's because you are a surrogate. I am a surrogate. I've been a surrogate five times. I've been involved in the surrogacy community for 23 years. So I know a significant amount of surrogates and tender parents and people born through surrogacy. So when Ream says I spoke to a couple of people, that's not enough. That is not enough. You are writing a report about us. You are victimising us as surrogates, but you're not speaking to us. And I find that I find that quite offensive, to be honest. It is a global analysis based on research in various different countries.

What about her findings that the rights of surrogate mothers and surrogate children are under threat by this practice? So I think absolutely in some countries, there needs to be a lot more regulation in a lot more countries. Even in places like the states, which is quite regulated, I have some issue with legally binding contracts in the states that dictate what surrogates can and can't do with their own body, again, something that we don't have in the UK. So I don't agree with banning an entire practice because of what some countries do, because then it harms the people, for example, in the UK, that are doing it ethically,

where women's rights are protected while surrogates retain their body autonomy. I don't believe that banning the practice will actually resolve anything. well explain what happens here in the UK because I think so for some people's thing they won't have I mean I mentioned that it's it's altruistic here but explain more yeah so surrogates in the UK they a have to volunteer there's legally no advertising allowed so you can't recruit surrogates they have to voluntarily come to surrogacy surrogates choose who they would like to help in the UK so in every other country that I know of intended parents choose the surrogate, whereas in the UK, surrogates choose who they would like to help. They have the

choice of who they would like to help. Surrogates retain their body autonomy. They retain all medical decisions for their own body. They give birth in the way that they want to. That is never under question in the UK. And surrogates also have to keep giving informed consent, especially for the legal process at the end. Surrogates have to consent to the intended parents being made legal parents. So to say that we're the victims, actually in the UK, surrogates have all of the power, all of the decision-making within surrogacy, which as a surrogate, I fully support. She did say, because I did ask her about, you know, the altruistic method that we have here in the UK, but she says it's an artificial distinction because there's compensation built in,

so money does exchange hands. Yeah, I mean, I mean, it's, I think that, me not being not being out of pocket by being a surrogate is very different from me making profit from being a surrogate so my intended parents buying me maternity clothes is not the same as me being paid for it so anything that I pay out I get back and I think that's fair because we don't want people to be financially disadvantaged from being a surrogate you know pregnancy does cost there are lots of expenses involved in pregnancy where in your own pregnancy, you do absorb them into your own budget. You know, you pop things in your Tesco shop. Whereas for surrogacy, somebody else is popping those in their Tesco shop. It doesn't

mean that that's a payment. And it's sort of, I think saying that women can't do something without a financial incentive is really quite sad. Like I'm more critical of the person that assumes that a woman can't do something just for doing something good, rather than being paid for it. You know, I, I'm surrounded by women that are doing this for altruistic motivations. Yeah, you said you'd done it yourself five times. So what was your experience? So my experience has been so positive. My surrogate babies range in age from 21 to 5. and I continue relationships with all of the families. I am an important part of those family's lives.

My family are an important part of those family lives. So we're not removed from the process. Like we are still in those children's lives as someone extremely important to them. They all know who I am, what role I played in their birth, and they feel loved by me. Do you believe that those who are willingly participate in surrogacy are as well informed about what could lie ahead

as they should be? I think, I don't think so 100% of the time. I certainly felt more informed about going on my surrogacy journey than I did when I first got pregnant with my own child. Like nobody explained any implications

of being pregnant or what that meant when I was pregnant with my own child. So actually to have to go through implications counselling, with a counsellor for a surrogacy process. I was much more informed going through surrogacy than I ever was with my own children, but it can always be better. More information, more education, more opportunity to inform people of the realities of surrogacy is always a positive step. What are your thoughts on countries where surrogacy is permitted

not only for altruistic reasons, but also commercially, such as USA, Russia, Colombia, Ukraine, and Georgia, and that's in contrast to where it's banned, places like India, Thailand, Nepal and Cambodia. So, as I said before, I am opposed to commercial surrogacy because I believe that even commercial surrogates who have the right motivations, when I've spoken to them and I've spoken to lots of surrogates from lots of countries, say, but if I wasn't being paid, I probably wouldn't do it. So there is a financial motivation there, and we have to appreciate that coercion can come in the form of financial incentive. So I support surrogates that are choosing to do it, that want to do it,

not that need to do it. And I think that's where the distinction should lie. The special rapporteur, she's calling for an eradication of surrogacy, where clinics and agencies are criminalised, surrogate mothers are decriminalised, and commissioning parents are penalised. How likely is that to happen? I don't think it is likely to happen, to be honest. not actually for UK surrogacy, which is quite small and we're quite ethical with our surrogacy,

but for people that are making a lot of money out of surrogacy, like US agencies, for example, I don't think they're going to ban it. They're a much more commercialised country, a much more litigious country, whereas in the UK, I think what will happen if you ban any sort of practice is that it would just happen under the table. You know, and that doesn't respect the rights of the child, essentially. And we'll make a lot more problematic for the women involved. Surrogacy UK, you've actively been campaigning for reform of the UK surrogacy law since 2014. So finally, what would you like to see happen?

I think I would like more mandatory checks. So at the moment, checks aren't mandatory for anybody undertaking surrogacy. and that is a real safeguarding risk, as far as I'm concerned. The new law reforms call for these checks to be mandatory for everybody going through surrogacy. At the moment, the checks happen through the court process once a child has been born, and that is way too late for those checks to happen. Those checks should happen before conception, because at the moment the courts have to act in the best interest of the child when that child's here.

Let's have a bit of forward planning. let's do those checks before a child is even conceived. That has got to be in the best interest of the child moving forward. That and the surrogacy register so that children, people born through surrogacy, have access to their own information. I think that's really, really important. So things that safeguard women and children should absolutely be passed through and go through the legal reform in the UK.

Sarah Jones, CEO of surrogacy UK, thank you so much for joining me to talk about that this morning. Thank you. Now, children with special educational needs from low-income families are facing major inequalities in their access to support, according to a new report out today from the Social Mobility Charity, the Sutton Trust. They're less likely to secure an education, health and care plan, a legal document in England that outlines their needs or gain a special school place and have lower outcomes at key stage four compared to those sender. pupils from better off backgrounds. Well, I'm joined by the report's lead author, Charlotte O'Regan, senior schools engagement manager at the Sutton Trust. Charlotte, thank you for coming in to talk to me about this. Why did you give this report the title, Double Disadvantage? So first of all, thank you so much for having me this morning. So I think lots of people in the education circles understand

that children form lower income families face a disadvantage in their education. That's well established. That has been for decades. What it hasn't been talked about, yet, was that that disadvantage layers onto other things that are going on in children's lives. And those children with Send, they're already facing a lot of barriers and lots of challenges to access the education they need. And what we've now seen is that there is socio-economic disparities within that group as well. So they're facing the disadvantage of their low-income and the potential challenges that brings, as well as having to navigate that Send system. I'm just going to remind everybody that Send is the term used in England. In Scotland,

the system is called assisted support needs, ASN. In Wales, it's additional learning needs, ALN. And in Northern Ireland, it's known as the SEN register, the special education needs register. So you polled 4,000 parents across England, of whom about 1,200 had at least one child with SEND or suspected SEND. So what did you learn about these children? Yes, so we learn a lot.

So we know from government data that children eligible for free school meals are more likely to have SEND in the first place. but what we really started to unpicking the data is that they are less likely to access support. So from the data, we saw that children for more affluent homes are more likely to access an EHCP. They are more likely to gain a special school place. They are more likely to be satisfied with the support.

Their school is receiving, they are more likely to feel like they belong in their school. So kind of every kind of way we looked at it, more affluent children are having a more positive experience through the SEND system. The EHCP, so this is about getting to, you've got to get to a tribune, before you can get one.

So explain more about the system. Yeah, so not always a tribunal. So you apply, they assess whether they want to, there's a kind of a pre-assessment where they check whether they think you do need to be assessed and then they assess. So we were finding pretty even numbers of families were getting through that first stage.

So there wasn't a big discrepancy there. When there was a discrepancy, it was when the local authority turned around and said no, families then have the right to go to a tribunal and appeal that. And that's where we saw some of the discrepancy starting to appear, more affluent families. were more likely to use the tribunal system,

despite the fact that overwhelmingly parents are successful when they use a tribunal system. So interesting disparity there. Also another one that leapt out of me is about special schools. 12% of parents whose children are in special school have spent over £5,000 on their EHCP compared to 1% of those in mainstream schools. So what do those figures actually evidence?

I think what it shows us is, first of all, the system is overwhelmed. And the demand for these places, which are so positively thought of means that parents are being forced to use every tool in their kit to get a place in that school. And it shows us that when they can pay for a send consultant, when they can pay for private diagnosis,

that increases their chances of getting that place. And you can't blame the parents wanting to do that. Absolutely. This is not about villainising parents. Every single parent out there will do whatever they can to support their child. The issue is we shouldn't be in that situation in the first place. We asked the Department for Education for their response and Georgia Gold said that's the Minister for,

school standards. This report lays bare how badly children with send have been let down and denied the opportunities and support they deserve our mission is to break down barriers to opportunity so every child, not just the privileged few, can achieve and thrive. I've met parents who've had to fight every step of the way and will not stand by whilst they continue to face a system that's failed them so far too far too long. That's why we're building a system with improved training for teachers, 740 million pounds to help create more specialist school places and earlier intervention for speech and language needs, reassuring parents that support will be available for as routine at the earliest stage.

How stark are the educational outcomes for send children at key stage four compared to others? Yeah, I mean, if we look at the children that have an EHCP, for those children that have free school meals and have an EHCP, only 7% of them secured what we kind of consider as the base standard in education, so they've got a foreign English and a four in maths. So that's less than one in 10 children. If you look at the more affluent part of that cohort, it's about 17%. So arguably, that is also not good enough,

but less than one in ten children getting what they need to access. It makes you wonder, why is the on us on families and parents? Yeah, and I think actually we've all got a role to play here. So schools have a responsibility, and they are doing their best to meet that responsibility to provide a really good, strong teaching base. Parents know their children best, and I don't think any parent would shy away from that.

We want to advocate for our children. The issue we've got here is the schools are not well-resourced enough. The parents are navigating a system that, quite frankly, even I find really complicated and overwhelming, the government have a responsibility to make that system accessible to everyone so that it's not prohibitive. So the reviews coming up, what would you like to see come out of this? So I think, first of all, an acknowledgement of this discrepancy that lower income children are struggling. That's got to be crucial. I think there needs to be consideration on how they increase capacity at mainstream, for which there is a desire for families to be there. And they need to simplify the system as well.

O'Regan, thank you very much for coming in to speak to me about this. It's a topic we come back to time and time again here on Woman's Hour. So thank you for that. I am going to end the programme with some of your messages coming in in solidarity for Celia Emery, who farted on traitors last night. It's not a spoiler. Susie says, I teach yoga. One of the reasons ladies don't come to try yoga is the fear of farting.

I declare it's okay or even good to fart at the beginning of every class. And another one here saying, our black Labrador, Olive gets blamed when I fart. Poor Olive. That's all for me. Do join me tomorrow for more Women's Hour. I'm going to be joined in the studio by Tilda Swinton. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. Hello there. I'm John Kaye.

And I just wanted to tell you there's an update in my true crime investigation, Fairy Meadow, which tells the story of a little girl called Cheryl Grimmer. She vanished from Fairy Meadow Beach in Australia more than 50 years ago. Our podcast from BBC Radio 4 has had hundreds of emails from listeners. including potential witnesses who think they might have important information. So in our new episode, I hear their stories and find out what response they've had from police. And we catch up with Cheryl's family as they step up their campaign for justice.

Subscribe to Fairy Meadow on BBC Sounds. A new season of Love Me is here. Real stories of real, complicated relationships. It's not even like a joke. I mean, it's wrapped up in gender, but it's just a really deep self-hate. I think I cried almost every day. I just stole myself on the floor. He's coming on really straight.

It's like he's trying to date you all of the sudden. Yeah, and I do look like my mother. Love me. Available now wherever you get your podcasts.