Woman's Hour - Killed Women campaign, Anti-ageing products and young girls, France birth rate

Episode Date: March 26, 2024

Killed Women is a group formed of relatives of women who were murdered in domestic abuse situations. They are campaigning to get the minimum sentence for domestic homicide raised, so it’s the same as if the victim was killed on the street. Julie Devey, a member of Killed Women whose daughter Poppy was stabbed to death in bed, joins Nuala McGovern alongside Clare Ward KC, who led last year’s independent review into Domestic Homicide Sentencing. When and if a woman chooses to have children is becoming one of the defining issues of our time. It's an issue of great concern to Emmanuel Macron, the President of France - where there were 1.8 births for every woman last year. He's announced plans to incentivise people to have more children including reforming parental leave and free fertility checks for everyone at the age of 25. To discuss this Nuala is joined by Stefania Marassa, Associate Professor of Economics at Cergy Paris University and Sarah Harper, Professor of Gerontology at the University of Oxford.Last week, a chain of pharmacies in Sweden banned the sale of anti-aging skincare products to customers under 15. The measures come amid a growing trend of young girls’ interest in high-end skincare products, after seeing them used by influencers on YouTube and TikTok. Nuala speaks to Monika Magnusson, The CEO of Apotek Hjärtat, the company which introduced the age restriction, and Abby Robbins, a mother from the UK, who has first-hand experience of this trend. In the second part of our series Breaking The Cycle the SHiFT guide Eva has received a crisis call from one of the young people she works with. Though she's worried about him she's pleased that he reached out, it shows he is beginning to trust her. Jo Morris reports from SHiFT in Greater Manchester. It's a new approach to supporting teenagers at risk of getting into serious trouble. Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Lottie Garton

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

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, this is Nuala McGovern and you're listening to the Woman's Hour podcast. France will only be stronger if it revives the birth rate. So says its president, Emmanuel Macron. But although there are generous tax breaks for parents and more incentives to be introduced with his latest plans, it still has an ignited baby fever among the population. So what is stopping French women having children? And I also want to know from you, if you are or were able to have children,

what factored into your decision to stop when you did, whether that was after one, two or many more? And what, if anything, would propel you to go again as we talk about declining birth rates in the UK, in France and around the world? You can text the programme. The number is 84844 on social media. We're at BBC Women's Hour. Or you can email us through our website.

And if you'd like to add your voice with a voice note or a WhatsApp message, that number is 03700 100 444. Also today, has your daughter or perhaps a young girl in your life asked for anti-aging products? This has become a thing on TikTok and other social media platforms with kids as young as 10 slapping on serums and other products in extensive skincare regimes. Well, we're going to speak to the Swedish pharmacy that has banned the sale of anti-aging skincare to children. So that's coming up.

Also, our next in our series of Breaking the Cycle, which talks about helping young people that are at risk. But first, you may have heard today that families of three people that were killed in the Nottingham attacks have called for homicide laws to be changed. That's following a review into the case where the murderer has claimed diminished responsibility. So that is ongoing. But today on Woman's Hour, we want to look at another aspect of the laws around homicide, so-called domestic homicide.

So where a victim is killed in a home, is a crime that carries a minimum sentence of 15 years. The same form of attack on the street carries a minimum sentence of 25 years. We do know that each year in the UK, around 90 people, mostly women, are killed by their current or former partner. Killed Women is a campaign group of relatives who have lost a woman in their family to either domestic homicide or murder after domestic abuse.

And they are calling for the domestic homicide minimum sentence to be raised so that it would be at the same as that of a homicide that was carried out on the street. A little earlier this morning, I got to speak to Julie Devy. Her daughter Poppy was stabbed to death with a kitchen knife by her boyfriend, Joe Atkins, in their flat in 2018. Also on the line was Clare Ward-Casey,

who conducted an independent review into the domestic homicide sentencing last year. And I started by asking Julie to tell us what happened to her daughter Poppy and I should warn you the descriptions are quite graphic from the start. She had been in a relationship for just over three years with a boyfriend they were sharing a flat and then she just decided that the time come to a close the relationship and decided decided to end it she'd got a new flat lined up to move into um but in the interim they decided to stay in their shared flat until she moved out um she

was due to move into a new flat on the 17th of december but on the 14th of december in the in the very early hours of that friday morning morning um Joe Atkinson came back from her his Christmas party and decided that uh she wasn't going to leave he went into the kitchen and he chose a knife from the knife block knife that would do the job that he intended to do went back to her bedroom and began his vicious attack she had 23 stab wounds um 49 knife wounds 100 injuries all together she tried to get out of the flat but he pulled her down turned her over sat on her and continued his vicious assault um and it wasn't till several hours later after speaking to his father that he he called an ambulance, which obviously she had been she'd been dead for some hours at that point. I'm so sorry for your loss. And that is a horrific and devastating loss that it is.

And the reason you're here and telling us that story is because you have been campaigning to change what is called the minimum sentencing tariff um why did you start this campaign tell us a little bit about your thinking well just before the sentencing we were told that um the sentence will be based on the weapon already being at the scene of the crime and in my my head then, I was thinking, well, he had to go to another room. He had to go and choose it. He had to move through the flat and use it. So in my head, it wasn't at the scene. But afterwards, I found out that actually at the scene means the same house or the same flat completely. And I started doing my own sort of research into statistics

and found that obviously what was happening was these domestic homicides generally take place in the home, generally using weapons in the home, including hands being used, strangulation. And we were getting this 10 year disparity as a starting point. And I just felt that it was completely insulting to my daughter and now moving forwards obviously any woman that's killed in this way immediately the the loss of her life her life being taken is seen as worth 10 years less than someone who is killed out on the street you can have one stab wound wound out in the park on the street by stranger and the starting tariff is 25 years now judges obviously can move it up and down from that point as they can with the 15 years but what you find is that gap is

never made up between the 15 and the 25 years and it's just diminishing the lives of those women that are lost in these way and often overkill is used um which is more force and is needed to kill somebody and they are you know as i as i said with poppy's murder um a lot more force than is needed to kill somebody. And they are, you know, as I said with Poppy's murder, a lot more force is used than is needed to kill people. And it's just vile. These are vile individuals that are not being sentenced in the way that they should be. What sentence did he get?

He got 15 years, 310 days. Let me bring in Clare Ward, Casey. Clare, you're hearing Julie's story. I'm sure you're familiar with it. But why is there that 10-year discrepancy when it comes to sentencing in those two types of cases, whether it is something in the house, a domestic homicide, or one that would take place on the street outside that house for example so the 10-year discrepancy exists because as a result of a particular

campaign in 2010 the government decided to add a further paragraph into the sentencing provisions which would mean that if a crime was committed having taken a weapon to the scene of the crime, wherever that crime is, with the intent of committing a murder, then the starting point would be 25 years. And before that, the starting point for all murders other than ones of particular gravity or thought to be of particular gravity, I'm not saying that murders are not, all murders are of gravity, was one of 15 years. So in the domestic homicide sentencing review, we looked at the different starting points. And in reality, there is a discrepancy of about six years in terms of the sentences that are imposed. The starting points are not fixed. They are a normal starting point,

but they are not a finishing point and judges can aggravate or mitigate an offence of murder up or down. And with that increase in years of taking a knife to a scene, that was to try and combat knife crime, is my understanding. But with this unintended perhaps consequence of a 10-year discrepancy between what happens in the home and outside the home I don't know whether it was an unintended consequence but the reality is that domestic murders had not been given any particular consideration prior to the government

commissioning domestic homicide sentencing review that I undertook in 2021. And so the real harms that are part and parcel of the killings of women by their abusive male partners were not were not recognized. So for example Julie makes the very good point that somebody taken who commits a murder outside the home by way of a single stab wound is subject to a 25-year starting point, but somebody who commits a murder of their vulnerable partner in the home is subject to a 15-year starting point, notwithstanding, until now, now the law has been changed somewhat, that they may commit the most brutal killing and indulge in what has been referred to as overkill, namely using far more violence than is necessary to commit the murder in the first place.

Do you think the minimum sentence for domestic homicide should be raised to match outside the home, so making it 25 years as that minimum? I don't think that adding a paragraph into Schedule 21, which is effectively what we're talking about, to raise the starting point to 25 years should happen. And that's for two reasons. First, that our research has shown that there are a minority of women

who kill their abusive partners because they are entrapped and have been abused over a period of time and they too will be subject if they are convicted of murder will be subject to that 25 year starting point and that will be an unintended consequence because surely it's wrong if somebody who fights back or who attempts to defend themselves and kills in the process, but isn't acquitted of murder and kills in the process, will also be subject to that very high starting point. an unintended consequence. The second is simply that we will be increasing starting points on the basis of not having considered the overall position in terms of fixing tariffs for murder. So we will have an increased starting point and there may well be other anomalies that will follow

as a result of that having happened. Julie your reaction? Well my reaction to that is that is a different problem we look at statistics the government statistics we've got about nine percent of women killed compared to we've got 74 percent are considered domestic homicides. That's partner, intimate partner, and that's including family killings. So parents or brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles who kill, they all come under domestic homicides. So we can see there we've got big number differences there. And yes, of course, I don't want anybody to be sent to prison

for killing somebody who's been abusing them for years. But that is about education. And by changing the starting tariff up to 25 years to avoid that unintended consequence, that's about educating the judicial system. It's about educating jurors. You know, jurors are people who are, who come in off the street. They have to make really, really important and informed decisions about things. And I don't think they probably get the input that is needed to come to a considered and

correct decision. So that would be about education. And also your defence lawyers, it's their job to use those mitigating factors to get a reduction or get a manslaughter charge compared to a murder charge. That is what their job is. It's up to them to get that information. And at least in that situation, the woman who's been abused is alive. You know, you've got all those other women that are killed between 100 and 150 a year the year poppy was murdered there were 147 women killed and what about them it's all very well sitting and saying we're championing women's rights by looking at those unintended consequences and we don't want it moved up what about the what about championing the women's rights of the people that are being murdered? What about those women? What about that, Claire? Well, first of all, it's arguable that we are looking at two sides of the same coin,

because the reason women are killed is usually because of controlling partners who have a pathological need to control, who want to stop them leaving a relationship and are determined to stop them leaving a relationship at all costs, at cost to their lives. And the reason that women are moved to kill, the very small proportion of women we are talking about are moved to kill, is because they are resisting or attempting to resist that pathological need to control. I totally agree with Julie that education and training is of paramount importance. But we're not at the stage where we have those. The government, for example, haven't recommended further training for the judiciary as a result of the domestic homicide sentencing review and it will take years for the sort of things that we wish people to be trained

in to filter through and the answer is not to simply increase sentences but to increase the overall a comprehensive the comprehensive background of course, it's defence lawyers' jobs to identify mitigating features. Of course it is. But at the moment, there are no proper defences or not sufficient defences to accommodate the cases of this very small minority of women who kill. And so the answer is not simply to change the sentencing process as being suggested. It's already being changed by the government as a result of the domestic homicide sentencing review. We don't know what results those changes will bring yet. And so we need to see if they make any real difference. But also we don't have a specific timeline for that, it sounds like, either.

Back to you, Julie. What difference would it have made for you if Poppy's killer had received a higher sentence? Well, clearly any amount of you is not going to be Poppy back and is not going to change our brief family and close friends. But it's the disparity. It's saying that her life is worth 10 years less than somebody else. There has to be parity. I find it insulting. And I know other families do as well. And I know that the government have added aggravating factors for overkill. But Dominic Raab went on telly and said that probably up to two years would be added.

Well, that's not going to end a relationship yet. That's often the case case that was the case with with poppy too but again we know looking at how aggravating factors have time is that's added on generally for those on months sometimes years and then you get a mitigating factor brought in where you may have a relative write a letter and the judge will take off time because apparently the person in the dock was really a nice person and then time is taken off for that. Or they haven't been in trouble with the police before. Why on earth should time be taken off for that? So adding sort of piecemeal bits of aggravating factors here and there is not going to cut it, is not going to reach that 25-year starting point.

And that's what's the most annoying, that there isn't parity. And Dominic Raab that you mentioned, the MP. But there is one aspect that you both agree on. And this is strangulation, where there is not an additional weapon used. I think, Julie, you would call the hands the weapon in that case. Have I got that right? Yes, that's right. Yeah. And talk me through your thinking, because you've obviously campaigned about this also.

Yes, because we keep talking about a weapon well actually if we think of kitchen knives they begin as tools their kitchen tools they're made to cut vegetables or whatever when the person reaches and makes their decision to pick up the specific knife they have intent they know what they're going to do with it and they choose the way they choose the type of knife to do that they have intent and that tool then becomes a weapon it only becomes a weapon because of how it's used and the hands are integral in all of that and you get strangulation which is a gendered violence it's generally men men strangle women women don't strangle men

um so hands are weapons and they have to be seen as that. Strangulations are face-to-face, generally, face-to-face situation, prolonged situation. There is no way that that killer doesn't know what they're doing. Lots of things happen with the person that's being killed. So hands are weapons too. Strangulation should be on a par with other weapons. Claire?

Yes, completely. I completely agree. The use of a weapon is not necessarily the be-all and the end-all. We found that a third of cases where women were murdered or killed by men involved strangulation of some sort, whether that was manual or otherwise. And there shouldn't be any distinction. I agree with that completely. And I agree. I mean, I've proposed that the use of a weapon, but it should not necessarily be seen as an aggravating factor, a statutory aggravating factor in manslaughter and in murder it shouldn't be seen as an aggravating factor because a man can kill a woman um by way of strangulation which is

a particularly horrific and personal form of attack um and without without that use of weapons so it is highly gendered um but the other side of the coin is that it's gendered to assume that the use of a weapon in a murder is necessarily aggravating every woman who kills a man tends to use a weapon because she can't kill with her bare hands in the way that a man can kill a woman I want to thank Claire Ward, Casey and Julie Devi for speaking to me we did also approach the Ministry of Justice they They sent us this statement. We've already taken decisive action to ensure domestic killers are locked up for longer,

introducing new statutory aggravating factors for overkill, killing at the end of the relationship or controlling or coercive behaviour. We're currently analysing responses to our consultation on starting points for murders committed with a weapon already at the scene. And if you have been affected by anything you heard in that interview, there are links to support resources on the Woman's Hour website.

I just wanted to read a comment that came in from Charlotte. Oh, forgive me, actually, I have just lost it. She was talking about her aunt who 10 years ago went through this. Let me read it here. It's Charlotte from East London. Morning. My aunt was killed by her husband in 1996. He served 10 years.

He had already attempted to kill her on a previous occasion. In court, they even mentioned that she had had an affair. He had said that she had driven him to it. I had hoped more would have changed since then. Thanks, Charlotte, for your message. If you want to get in touch, 84844. And the law was different back then, but I suppose some of the issues that people are grappling with can be the same.

Now, I want to turn to, this happened last week. It was a chain of pharmacies in Sweden, and they banned the sale of anti-aging skincare products to customers that were under 15. And this was after a rise in the number of young girls asking for products that are aimed at middle-aged women or perhaps even older. So the measures come amid a growing trend of girls,

some even as young as 8 or 10 years of age, interested in high-end skincare products after seeing them used by influencers on YouTube and TikTok. The British Association for Dermatologists has told the BBC that these products could cause irritation to young skin and are ultimately unnecessary. Well, I have joining me down the line from Stockholm, Monika Magnusson, who's the CEO of Apotec Jatat, which is around 390 pharmacies in Sweden and has introduced the age restriction. Also opposite me here in the Woman's Hour studio

is Abbey Robbins, the mother of an 11-year-old with first-hand experience of this trend. Welcome, Monica. Welcome, Abbey. Thank you. And let me begin with you, Monica. I know you're not a pharmacist, but you do have a lot of experience in the industry. And when I talk about advanced skincare products that are being restricted, these include ingredients such as, and it's kind of like an alphabet here, of AHA acids, BHA acids, vitamin A, vitamin C, enzyme peeling.

What is it about these ingredients that could be impactful to young skin? Well, it's almost just listening to you that sort of helps you realise that, of course, things that are aimed to help with an ageing skin or a duller skin that many of us in my age, for example, experience. Those have other causes of action, for example, skin renewal, for example. And that is something that's completely unnecessary for a young skin. And we're talking very young children here. So this, of course, when we saw this rise in demand, the wish lists that mothers came into our pharmacies with, that really concerned us. And that was what sort of led us into thinking, how can we contribute in this area? And that's what led us to taking the decision to introduce this age limit.

And kind of going against perhaps profits that you could have had in that particular area. But I see Abby nodding. I want to read a little from Dr Tess McPherson. She is from the British Association of Dermatologists. And she told us about topical products. She says, bought over the counter, they've different amounts of the ingredient in them and their claims may be in line with poor or limited evidence. Most of the ingredients banned by the Swedish pharmacy that we're hearing about from Monica

have some evidence of anti-aging. They change skin over. They tend to have some irritation, but through this reduce fine lines and wrinkles. However, they're not needed, as Monica was telling us, or helpful for younger skin and can cause irritation, particularly in eczema prone skin, as well as AHA acid, BHA acid,

vitamin A, vitamin C and enzyme peeling parents should look out for retinoids which may be advisable for acne if suggested by a health care professional but not necessary unless you have a skin care condition um can you just give me an idea of just how popular they were monica and then i'll come to you, Abby. Well, of course, data is a bit limited since we do sell them for the proper purposes as well. But we have seen over the past couple of months, we've seen more children coming into the pharmacies actually asking for these products.

Do they know what they are? Do they know what they do? Actually, I'd say no. They've heard about them. They've seen them in various social media often and then they ask for them. Let me throw over to you, Abi. Okay, what has the experience been? So last year, my daughter went on a residential trip with her year six friend, so last year of primary school. And she came back and said, oh, mum, all the girls were having to do skincare routines so I thought at the time I thought it's quite innocent that you know I was thinking back to when I was a kid and we used very um like

Nivea and all you know easy products and lip balm and stuff um but it sort of escalated and she was talking about brands I'd never heard of the brand names all sounded quite innocent um but when we went to the shops to look at them um I noticed firstly the price because they were extortionate and then secondly the ingredients you know retinols and vitamin c and all different things i didn't know you know i knew that they weren't for her skin type um but that she was desperate for them so it was really difficult as a parent to navigate that so if you're okay with telling us a little bit what that conversation was like so at the the beginning, I mean, we started with a firm no. But then we discussed it as a family and thought, you know, we have to educate

her to make good decisions. Because if we just say no, she'll go and seek it elsewhere. So we went down this rabbit hole of trying to find information. I went to some of the skincare specialist shops and asked for advice. A few of them I went to, I walked skincare specialist shops and asked for advice. A few of them I went to, I walked in with her and said, can you help us? My daughter's 11. She wants to get into skincare. And they were saying, well, you should get started with hyaluronic acid. And I was like, pardon? This doesn't sound right. And again, we were going to all these stores and just seeing other parents like myself or their daughters

with baskets full of things I knew were harmful. And it just felt like we were all in a nightmare, to be honest. And did you buy any for her at any point? No. No, you didn't. No. You might even buy them for yourself, I'm thinking. I know.

The price point that I saw with some of these products. But what about her reaction to it? Or what was her motivation as you understood it? So as a family, we've always avoided social media, because I know that it's quite harmful. But in the playground, there are kids who have social media. So they were really, you know, talking about the things they'd seen and the products that they'd heard about. So she couldn't get away from it, really. So she started to want these products just desperately. To be the same as everyone else or for anti-aging? I know that sounds ridiculous for an 11-year-old, but...

I think she wanted to be like everybody else. So we watched a few videos on YouTube at home. And, you know, the videos are made really well. They're enticing. It's this get ready with me nighttime routine glow up and she just wanted to be a part of that because she saw older girls looking after their skin and she thought that would be good for her too but what she didn't realize but that the chemicals inside the products were just so harmful for her monica let me throw this back to you what do you

think of that story well it's it's a very sort of live version of what we've experienced on our end so so really it makes me happy that you have such a good conversation with your daughter actually because i think that what we aim for with with doing this age limit really is of course a having good discussions in our pharmacies as to what do children and young people need for their skin out of the skin type and the skin condition and that would normally not at all be anti-aging products obviously but the other aim of course is to to increase the conversation on this and i must say that the amount of of love and appreciation the feedback that we've gotten from all around the globe actually

and from a lot of parents it really underlines that this is a topic that is really engaging and a lot of us a lot of people have sent us thank you notes on good this really makes it easy for me to have a conversation with my children around this what do kids have to do show their id or something to be able to buy certain products? Well, yes, if our pharmacy employees, if they think that this is a young person, they will engage in conversation and make sure that they advise on the right type of product when it comes to young people. What do you think about that, Abby? Sorry, Monica, to step over you. Would you like to see something like that?

I'd love to see that. Because like I say, I go to some of these stores and now you see people queuing outside, children queuing outside and it's unbelievable. Yeah, some of the biggest stores. I have come across it online,

I will say, even though the algorithm would not be directed at my age. But I have seen maybe kids of celebrities that are very young and kind of going through, I don't know, a 10-step skincare regime with the most expensive products. But I suppose it's like a modern day advertising campaign. Absolutely.

And I looked into the commerce industry in this country and we're like the third largest in the world. So kids have been advertised. In the sense of skincare and cosmetics? Just everything buy online so we're advertised to we're sort of shown the way through um social media and through advertising campaigns and so i think if kids can be stopped at the till or educated at the till you know or somebody the staff just being saying look this isn't for you. I think it will go really far.

I see we got a message from Maggie. She says my 15 year old used to use anti-aging. Recently, she realised the potential damage to her skin and has stopped. She keeps herself informed and educated. And I learned so much from her. 84844 if you've had any of the issues that monica and abby are speaking to us about right now on women's hour but monica what about the business interest obviously there's a lot of money to be made if there's like these tweens queuing up outside cosmetic stores and pharmacy type places to get some of these products was that talked about well we figured we are passionate about health and well-being as a whole.

And this obviously isn't part of a healthy and sort of sound ideals for young. So we have to take the responsibility and doing the right thing and contributing in any way we can. If that means selling a few less serums, well, then we'll live with that. And I suppose you are actually, in a way, could be considered a PR exercise in the sense of so many people know your pharmacy now, and there's probably name recognition, perhaps that there wasn't before globally. But Abi, do you feel these products, because we're talking about they're meant to be for middle-aged skin or older, do you feel the companies are marketing the children or do you feel it's the influencers or social media that are targeting the kids?

I think it's a mixture of everything. I think the companies want profits and they want to sell their products so they don't really mind who buys it because there's no regulation around the product. So I think it's a bit of a free-for-all. So if we did see some regulation, I really think it's a bit of a free-for-all and so if we did see some regulation I really think it would go a long way to just educate people and get people to stop in their tracks and look at what they're buying for their kids. And what about your kid now? How did she know you're chatting today about it? How does she feel about it? Yeah we're just we're just trying

to educate as many as we can I mean when I speak to parents at the school everyone's in the same position it's a huge problem that's not being spoken about enough. And we're all grappling with it because we want our kids to fit in and have the things their friends have. But also we want to protect them. And protecting their skin at that point as well. Sunscreen is probably something everybody can agree on. But I want to thank both of you. We had Monica Magnusson and Abby Robbins. Thank you very much. And you can find advice on how to help your child have a healthy relationship with their skin on the BBC Bite Size website, and it's part of the Parents Toolkit.

Thanks so much for coming into our studio, Abby, and for joining us from Stockholm. Monica. I'm Sarah Treleaven, and for over a year, I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered. There was somebody out there who's faking pregnancies. I started, like, warning everybody. Every doula that I know.

It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story, settle in.

Available now. Now, I have a question for you. I have a lot of questions for you today. Here's another one. Are you a country music fan? Is there a particular song that means a lot to you? Well, next week we will be exploring all things country for a special Easter Monday edition of Woman's Hour.

So it could be Dolly Parton to Shania Twain. So many women in between. Let us know about the female icons and their songs which have inspired you and why. For me, I'm going to say Billy Joe Spears, Blanket on the Ground. That's a favourite. Patsy Cline is another one.

Walking after midnight. But I want to hear from you. So Texas, Woman's Hour, 84844. Text charged at your standard message rate. And on social media, it's at BBC Woman's Hour or indeed email us through our website. Now, lots of you are getting in touch on my next item. Talking about kids. When to have kids, how many to have.

Because when or if a woman chooses to have children is becoming one of the defining issues of our time. And I do very much appreciate there are many who want children and they cannot or could not have them. But those who are able to have them, in many cases, are deciding not to, or to have fewer than previous generations. The global birth rate has declined significantly in the past two decades. The largest 15 countries by GDP all have a fertility rate below what's

called the replacement rate. It is, as it says, the level at which a population remains stable. Now, this is an issue of great concern to Emmanuel Macron, president of France. There were 1.8 births for every woman last year. To maintain that stable population, to have that replacement rate, that should be 2.1 per woman. Now, President Macron has announced plans

to incentivise people to have more kids, including reforming parental leave and free fertility checks for everyone, men and women, at the age of 25. And France's birth rate is still higher than here in the UK.

It is 1.5 births last year, which is the current rate as it's calculated. But is Mr Macron right to declare what he's called a demographic re-arnament? Well, to discuss, we have Stefania Marcasa,

Associate Professor of Economics at Cergy Paris University and Sarah Harper, Professor of Gerontology at Oxford University. Welcome to you both. I've already had comments that are coming in.

I just want to read one before I get into our conversation. Catherine in Sheffield. I would have loved to have had three children. However, my husband and I simply couldn't justify it as the world is so overpopulated already. We've two wonderful children and this was primarily his decision, although of course I agreed to it. We can afford to pay for any extracurricular activities our children want. We go on nice holidays, nicer than we would have if we had a bigger family. However, there is a selfish part of me that still mourns the gap in my heart for that third child. Is it selfish? I don't know. Thank you for your message, Catherine Sheffield, and more

that are coming in as well. But Stefania, let me start with you. Why do you think the figures are low in France, but still ahead of of Europe ahead of the UK? Hi good morning thanks for having me. Well so France has always been the example for Europe in terms of fertility rate and I believe there are many factors that are behind this higher fertility rate in France and in other countries. There are also other characteristics that made France a bit special compared to other countries, like higher labor force participation of women and of married women, a higher supply of childcare, tax system that included some tax credit for children that depended on the composition

of the family. So there has been a set of family policies that have been implemented since the 70s in France that have been distinguished, I would say, allowed to develop a different set of social norms for what concerns people, I mean, women and mothers working and having children and continue to work. So I believe that there's the reason why France has always stand out in terms of higher fertility rate is really a combination of many factors. But it's still not at the replacement rate. Sorry? It's still not at the replacement rate.

Right now, yes, of course. Why do you think that is? Well, the macroeconomic situation of the country has changed. The labour market situation has changed and has been changing at least since 2009, 2011, when we entered one of the latest economic crises, and the fertility rates started to decline about at that point, as we have seen also in other countries. So I do believe that also the bad economic expectations of families or young people that were thinking about having children

may have taken that into, I mean, that may have affected their decision to have children and started to, you know, to decide to have children. And then there are many other reasons why also the medical science said that people in general are getting less children. There are other issues linked to fertility, for example. Women are

getting married and starting to have children later in life, which is obviously related to the fact of having more children because the probability is greater. So let me think about some of those issues as well with Sarah.

First off, your reaction to Mr Macron's plans? Well, I think what's interesting is that what Stefania said is absolutely right, that France is, if you like, one of the most successful ones in keeping the fertility rate high because it is approaching it from both a cultural point of view and from an economic point of view. Having said that, I think we have to be a little cautious because, of course, we're talking about, as with many other European countries, very high income countries, huge amounts of consumption. And women are choosing, many of them are choosing to be child free, those that want to have children, maybe just want to have one or two. And the idea that we have governments that are trying to get women to have large numbers of children, when the trend is

downwards, I think is something that in the bigger picture of the world, just as you said at the beginning, the fact that we live in a finite planet. And when we put that in the context of the fact that we have very, very high childbearing still in many other parts of the world, particularly in Africa, our world population is going to continue to grow. And therefore, the idea that high-income countries are encouraging women to have more children, which is probably not the trend, maybe is something that we have to sort of reflect on in a much bigger picture. Well, let's reflect on that. I do want to read a couple of comments that are coming in.

Here's Paul. He says, surely a falling worldwide birth rate must be the greatest thing that could happen to the planet. It may be economically disastrous in the short term, but overall, it must be a good thing in the long term. A continually rising birth rate is just not sustainable. That was actually echoed also with the message I just read out about people also thinking about the planet. But I suppose something like to increase the population of a country, one way to do that is through immigration or migration. But I suppose that can be politically very unpopular.

And politicians don't talk about it that openly at times because they're talking about trying to have people who are already in those countries, whether it's the UK, Italy, France, we could name a number of others. They're trying to have people who are already in those countries, whether it's the UK, Italy, France, we could name a number of others. They're trying to have the women who are there to have those children. Sarah, how do you understand that?

Yes, I mean, I think the two messages you've had from your listeners are exactly right. So there are three ways in which we can cope with this. One, we can look at migration. One, we can look at migration. Two, we can look at technology. And three, we can look at our own population, which is if women are choosing not to have children or not able to have children, then they're going to be more economically productive. And older adults who are now well-educated, most of them, the health status of most of our older adults is much higher. And therefore, the idea that we are going to retire in our 50s and 60s when we're going to be healthy and active, probably for many people in both this country and in France until our 70s,

because that is one way in which we can prevent this fear that we're not going to have enough workers. And that is one of the problems that Macron has, of course, is that at the other end of the spectrum, France doesn't want its pension age or its retirement age to go up. So other countries like the UK, we are slowly increasing the age at which the state pension is given. And as a consequence, we're having more people in their 60s who are fit and healthy and able to work staying in the labour market. He doesn't have that option at the moment. And that is one reason why I think he's really pushing this

child bearing in a way that we can look at different levers. Let me push that back over to Stefania. But it is, of course, people are expected to live longer. 80s, 90s is not that unusual anymore. But with that comes health care, people to care for those that are of an advanced age at times, even if they may be healthy in their 60s and 70s in a way they weren't in a previous generation. How do you see that, Stefania, some of the points that Sarah made there about what Macron is trying to do as he, you know, basically battles with trying to raise the pension age even by two years. Yeah, I totally agree with what Sarah said. There are very sensitive points, though, that are being made, especially in this period of time, not only in France, but in many other European countries. And I agree with the fact that immigration is one of the points

that has to be, even if we may all have different views, but it's one of the key points that has to be taken into account when we talk about fertility decline. Can I read your comments, Stefania, that just came in as you were speaking? It says, too many people in the world. We are genetically 99.9% the same as all other humans. Macron, get a grip. Let the immigrants in to fill the gap.

Cultures change over time. The planet can sustain a lower population. You're smiling. Yeah, because, I mean, of course, this sustainable development, you know, consciousness is widespread more and more. So there's a trade-off.

Do we want women to have more children? Do we want to try to make the world, all the resources sustainable with the population that we have? Do we relocate population from one part of the world to another one? There's climate change that obviously comes into. And I think that we cannot exclude, you know, we cannot talk about fertility decline without talking about immigration. We are going to be faced, especially with climate change in many developing countries, which have still today very high fertility rate. So fortunately, on one side, if we are for this kind of sustainable resources world. They might need to start looking at it globally. Stefania, so interesting.

So many comments coming in as well. Stefania Marcasa joining us from Cergy Paris University. Sarah Harper from Oxford University. Really interesting and a lot of threads to that conversation as well. So thank you both so much for joining us on Women's Hour 84844. Keep your messages coming in. But I want to turn to the next episode in our series Breaking the Cycle. Yesterday, our reporter Jo Morris found out about a new idea, Shift,

which aims to cut re-offending amongst young people at risk. You can hear it on BBC Sounds. Children's services all over the UK are under pressure as budgets shrink and need grows. 150,000 children, that's according to the Department of Education, are severely absent from school in England. And that is a rise of 150% since the pandemic. And not being at school, as we know, makes children vulnerable.

SHIFT has been set up to work with these children. There are four SHIFT practices now. Four more are on the way. Skilled professionals called guides work with six young people. They have them each over 18 months and they stay with them. They help them to change their lives.

Over the first year of a new practice in Greater Manchester, Jo went out and about with some of the team and the kids they're working with. You're going to be able to hear her reports all week. The plan was an interview with one of the guys from Shift, Eva. But from the off, it was clear

that she'd been overtaken by events. She'd had an urgent call from one of the guys from Shift, Eva. But from the off, it was clear that she'd been overtaken by events. She'd had an urgent call from one of the young people, so I went out and about with her, riding shotgun in her E-class Mercedes. He called me last night around six o'clock. Hi, Mum and Dad have split up. This is exactly how he said it. Mum and Dad split up.

Mum's back in hospital with a mental illness then i said so where are you and he said i'm at my girlfriend's and i said but where are you staying and he said he's staying at his uncle's with his dad i said he was at the family address he said no one's there at the moment how old is he 14 now how concerned are you about him quite concerned because a lot's gone on recently. Probably been working with him now for about two months, I'd say. Hard to engage initially, obviously, because given the previous experience with services, they were a bit reluctant.

And the fact that he's phoned me, it must have been about six o'clock last night, that he's phoned me and actually let me know what's going on. What do you think that means that he rang you? Trust. Massive relationship building. And he asked him, has he told anyone else? And he said, no. I said, so social care don't know? And he said, no. I said, well, you know, I will have to inform them

and I'll have to let school know. And he said, yeah, that's fine. What does that feel like for you? Obviously, I'm panicked and I worry about him because he's a 14-year-old boy. By himself. By himself, yeah. But at the same time, I was so glad that he reached out to me as well.

So, yeah, that was the amazing part of it that, you know, I felt, OK, that relationship is definitely established. So now, for me, with that young person, we'll definitely move on to the next stage of, like, looking at what goals he wants to achieve. And then I've just spoke to school then, and they said he was doing really, really well, so he's in a pro at the moment.

So that's a pupil referral unit? Yeah, so I'm hoping to get him back into mainstream, if that's what one of his goals are, because that's my goal. I've got to make sure it's his goal. Another busy day. So our office is on the corner, eh? I'm going to go in and sort out what I need to do and then I'm all yours again.

How are you doing? You all right? Eva's plainly dedicated to this work. She told me what inspired her. When she was 23, her younger brother was shot and killed on a night out in Manchester. He was just 21. He wasn't involved in any trouble. Eva's all about supporting young people before it's too late.

So what I'll do is I'll just update these professionals about this and then we can get going. Tameside.gov.uk, you are second in the queue. Busy today aren't they? School holidays. Children are not in education and they're more likely to go and have missing episodes. It's structure and routine in the life, isn't it? And when they're just left to their own devices and sometimes they've not got their parents in, at least if they're in school, then professionals have eyes on them as well. Very busy. Second since I've come on.

How long have you been in the job for, Eva? January has started. No day the same. You have to just respond, you know, to crisis situations. UK, you are second in the queue. Yeah, still second. Eva's still queuing. Tameside.gov.uk. You've been waiting 15 minutes.

You are second in the queue. To talk to the social worker. To get through to the duty team, yeah, social worker that will be on duty today. They might need to do a complete referral, because I've already spoken to a social worker that's supporting another young person this morning. It's so weird, because, like, literally me and the social worker

about this case was emailing yesterday, and she was saying she thinks Mum's close to a mental breakdown because she's coming across so confused, which is sad. He's there, obviously, a 14-year-old there. Very hard for your young man to see as well, his mum like that. Yeah, very hard. And he's got such a good relationship with his mum, really, really good relationship.

So I'd done a session with him and I dropped him back off. And then I'd just go in and, you know, say hi to Mum and stuff and have a little bit of a session with him and I dropped him back off and then I'd just go in and say hi to mum and stuff and have a little bit of a chat with her and then as I was leaving he said, I'm going to go out now mum and he'd give her a kiss and said I love you and I just thought, oh that's so sweet because you don't see that with teenagers anymore they don't give mums kisses, especially boys as well

and I was just like oh that's so cute and then the next time I see him I went you've got a really good relationship with your mum and that's important Have you got kids either? Yeah I've got three two girls, one boy

he's eleven but even him at the moment doesn't even want to be seen with me and I thought I was quite a cool mum 11 but even him at the moment doesn't even want to be seen with me. And I thought I was quite a cool mum. Welcome to Tameside Children's Services. So they're dealing with a lot, your young people, aren't they? Yeah, some are dealing with loads, yeah.

We've got poverty in the household. Very rare to parents in the household. They have a lot of the adverse childhood experiences. But then on the other side, there is some that, you know, like in particular the one that we're going to do the interview with, mum and dad both go to work, Mum and Dad both live in the household. So it just shows that it can happen to anyone. Welcome to Tameside Children's Services.

Please note your call will be recorded. Just cut me off. Transferring you, please hold. And gone. She did eventually get through. Is this the duty team for social care? The name's Eva and I'm calling from shift. Calling in regards of a young person. One more call to make before heading out to see the family.

We were meant to be meeting a couple of hours ago. Who are you calling now? Mum. Hello? Hiya. You OK? I'm OK, thank you. Are you sure? Did you think she was making sense? No.

She sounded confused, didn't she? She did, didn't she? Yeah, definitely. How much time do you spend helping the parents of your young people as well? Shift are quite keen that you get to know the family as well and always pull the family in. If the young person that I'm supporting, he's got a really good relationship with his mum, so if he sees me supporting his mum, potentially, had I not had him already engaged,

that would have been my hook. I would have just been there alongside mum until he eventually would think, oh actually, she's not just going to disappear or she's not just another professional because you've got to think of how many professionals come in these people's lives for a period of three months six months but actually with this shift off or it's that nice 18 month period it's persistence isn't it and Eva is crafty she knows how to get young people to open up sitting them down for the big chat isn't often the best approach sometimes it might be you do a session and then you say, oh you're going anywhere, do you want a lift? You're dropping them somewhere, you're kind of getting a bit of knowledge of where they're chilling, who the peer groups are that they're with, what areas they're gravitating towards.

You get a lot out of a young person on a car journey, believe it or not. Sometimes people don't like eye contact contact so it's no eye contact you're driving and you're talking and they just give you loads i don't think sometimes they don't even realize how much they're giving you over the next hour eva picks up the young man's mum and drops her back at home she helps with the mum's prescription gas food and calls the young man to tell him his mum is safe then we're off to meet another teenager in his family eva smiles when she talks about him it's a cheeky little chaffy he's not a little actually he's calls the young man to tell him his mum is safe. Then we're off to meet another teenager in his family. Eva smiles when she talks about him.

He's a cheeky little chap here. He's not a little, actually, he's quite a tall boy. Really nice, really engages in sessions, gets a lot out of his sessions. He's 16, he's just finished school, he's on study leave at the moment. Much more about this teenager we're visiting next time. Meanwhile, his mum and him and the family dog all welcome Eva like an old friend.

Hiya. How are you? I'm fine, thank you. You're freezing, isn't it? I know. And hello. Come in. You've been waiting. I knew something was wrong.

I had that gut feeling. But everyone was saying, don't be dramatic. It's his age. He'll come round. I kept saying to my mum, you just haven't got a clue, but wouldn't tell me what I didn't have a clue over. So for me, I think we could have stopped it a lot sooner if we would have known the right questions to ask him

and how severe of a risk he was facing. The reporter was Joe Morris. You can hear the next part of Breaking the Cycle tomorrow. A message. I stopped having children after two with no extended family in this country to help out. I figured two of them, two of us. As long as we aren't outnumbered, we can cope.

Thanks for all your messages. Tomorrow I'm joined by singer-songwriter Zara McFarlane. I hope you will join me on Woman's Hour. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join for all your messages. Tomorrow I'm joined by singer-songwriter Zara McFarlane. I hope you will join me on Woman's Hour. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. I'm Natalie Cassidy. And I'm Joanna Page.

Now you might know me as Sonia from EastEnders. And Stacey from Gavin and Stacey. And while sometimes we are on the telly, mostly we just love watching it. So that's what we're talking about in our podcast, Off the Telly. We're chatting about shows we just can't miss and the ones that aren't quite doing it for us.

That comfort telly we can't get enough of. And things we know we shouldn't watch but we just can't help ourselves. And we'll be hearing about all the telly you think we should be watching and talking about too. No judgement here. Well, a bit. Join us for Off the Telly. Listen on BBC Sounds. I started, like, warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this?

From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story. Settle in. Available now.