Woman's Hour - National Maternity Investigation, Budget-friendly school holidays, Wigs

Episode Date: June 30, 2026

As Baroness Amos releases her long-awaited National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation into maternity service failings in England, we discuss her key findings and what happens next. Presenter Nuala McGovern is joined by former MP and maternity campaigner Theo Clarke, Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Dr Karen Joash, and Legal Lead for the advocacy charity Birthrights, Laura Mullarkey. We'll also hear from MP and Maternity Advisor Michelle Welsh about the government's plan to appoint the UK's first Maternity and Neonatal Commissioner, one of Amos' eight key reccomendations. Summer holidays have already started for some in schools in Scotland and for many families across the UK it's set to be a challenging time juggling finances, time off work and childcare. Marketing expert Catherine Shuttleworth shares her top tips on how to survive financially whilst also trying to have fun and create those lifelong memories. Despite the male-dominated history of the internet's development, women and sex workers have been pioneering online culture since long before the social media platforms we know today existed. For artist and UCLA professor Mindy Seu, this is at the heart of her work, and on the London leg of a global lecture tour, she joins Nuala in the studio to discuss an alternative history of the internet. Glamorous, fashion-forward, fun – wigs are having a moment, with celebrities leading the way and sales up by 10%. But should you go for something flamboyant, or a more natural style? Guardian journalist Leah Harper tried a different wig every day for a week. She joins us to share her experience along with Melanie Burrell, who owns a wig company in Glasgow, to discuss what might be driving this rise in sales. Presented by: Nuala McGovern Produced by: Sarah Jane Griffiths

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Your sales order says one thing. Your inventory says another. Your spreadsheet says, good luck. Odu brings your business together on a single platform, from sales and accounting to inventory and marketing. Visit Odu.com to book a demo. It's ODbolo.com. How did a boycott Jimmy become a billionaire from posting videos? On good, bad billionaire. We're going to find out how the world's most popular Popular YouTuber, Mr. Beast, made his fortune.

He's buried himself in a coffin for days. Counted to 100,000 on camera. And even recreated squid games, all in an attempt to go viral on the internet. But it all started when he gave a homeless man $10,000. So is he a philanthropist reshaping capitalism? Or is he just the king of the attention economy? Find out on good bad billionaire. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

Hello, this is Newellamogh. and you're listening to the Woman's Hour podcast. Hello and welcome to the program. Well, as we've been hearing in the news this morning, Baroness Valerie Amos in her national maternity and neonatal investigation has found that the NHS maternity care system in England is, and I quote, not fit for the now and not fit for the future. We'll have a wide-ranging discussion across it this hour.

Now, maybe you've been following some of the details of the findings and recommendations if you'd like to get in touch with your reaction. You can text the program. The number is 84844. On social media, we're at BBC Woman's Hour, or you can email us through our website. For a WhatsApp message or a voice note, that number is 0300-100-400-444. Also coming up today, Mindy Sue, who has been called the Internet's sexual historian. We'll hear her fascinating insights. She says the Internet was built largely by the infrastructure, labour and innovation of sex workers.

So we've a lot to discuss there too. Leah Harper will be with us. She's had a wild week of wearing a new wig every day. We will hear why they're becoming a fashion item apparently. Plus, we'll hear more about the government's great British summer savings scheme. Can it help families in the coming weeks as the kids are off school and trying to keep them occupied? We'll talk about all that as well. But let me begin, of course, with the story this morning that the maternity system in England

is not set up to deliver consistently safe, high quality and compassionate care and needs. Urgent reform, that is a quote, urgent reform. It's the verdict of a long-awaited Government commissioned National Maternity and Neonatal investigation. On the Today program this morning, Baroness Valerie Amos said the system needs a complete overhaul. It is not fit for the now and it is not fit for the future.

We need national standards to frame maternity and neonatal care against which we can then test how trusts are doing, how care is being delivered. And crucially, embedding, listening to women, the things that women and families have told us time and time again around the importance of having continuity of care, knowing who is going to look after you embedded in the system. as well. Baroness Amos' report includes eight recommendations on how the maternity and neonatal system can be redesigned to deliver fundamental change, as she calls it. So to unpick the recommendations some further way, I am joined by Theo Clark, former MP and maternity campaigner, Dr. Karen Joash, consultant in obstetrics and gynecology. We have Laura Malarkey, legal lead for the advocacy charity birthrights.

And a little later, we'll also hear from Michelle Welsh, the MP. and maternity advisor to the government. So let us begin with reaction. Theo, good to have you back with us. You gave evidence to Baroness Amos. You've also spoken in Parliament, also on this programme, about your own experience. I know that you suffered severe blood loss.

You needed emergency surgery following a 40-hour labour to deliver your daughter back in 2022. Looking at this report, what stood out most for you? you. Well, good morning. Well, the first thing I'd say is that I welcome that the health secretary today has accepted Baroness Amos's headline recommendation, which is to the point for the first time a national maternity commissioner. This was something that I published in my report two years ago to the government for the birth trauma inquiry, which made this recommendation having heard from 1,300 families who gave evidence to our cross-party investigation. So I'm delighted that James

Murray has made that announcement. I suppose the question now is, what happens next? And listening to his response to that question from my fellow campaigner, Louise Thompson, who launched a petition with me earlier this year, which 160,000 families have signed calling on the government to make this appointment. What I'd like to hear now is the detail. And I suppose my concern is that given the chaos in government if they're announcing that in two weeks time will be the first meeting of the task force to announce a job description and what this role will entail. My question is, will this actually survive to the next government and the future administration? And I'm very much calling on whoever becomes our next prime minister and next health secretary, if it is Andy Burnham,

that they will honour this commitment made today by the current health secretary to make sure that families are really being listened to, that finally we do have this positive concrete step being taken, but I want to make sure it's not kicked into the long graph and it will be implemented by any future government. And I have not seen any details yet from Andy Burnham on how he plans to move ahead if as expected he becomes Prime Minister. But you may have seen, Theo, that the Maternity Safety Alliance and the bereaved and harmed families that they represent have called the recommendation of a commissioner, and I quote, fundamentally dangerous concentrating power and responsibility in one pair of unaccountable hands,

this person will not be meaningfully independent and will not be able to create real change. How do you respond to their concerns? Well, firstly, I've met with some parents from that particular alliance. And in fact, some of them gave evidence to me in Parliament two years ago in our inquiry. And I hope actually that they feel listened to by this report today because the Commissioner came out of that inquiry's recommendations when they were evidence at that previous report in 2024. I think the main point for me is that I'm on my eighth or ninth health secretary

making the case for improving maternity care. There just seems to be this churning government. So the point about the commissioner specifically is that it's an independent expert. So they will not be a party political position, which means we won't be in this constant churn of new ministers coming in, another government reshuffle or a general election, which results in none of these implementations happening. But I can...

You have 748 outstanding policy recommendations. recommendations in maternity care. And that's why I need the commissioner to be the day-to-day person that's responsible for making sure that change actually happens and not just ministers talking. But you hear from that group that they don't believe there is not the trust there that that person will be meaningfully independent and too much power in one pair of unaccountable hands. I mean, how you can say that it's something you want to happen, but how can you actually change their minds or persuade them that this is the right way forward.

Because as you mentioned, it is a headline this morning. Well, I think the main reason they're not supporting the appointment is because they're still calling for a public inquiry. I understand why they want to have a public statute inquiry. I personally don't take that view. It would take a very long time because the government a lot of money. I'm not sure it's going to tell us anything new. I think the report today and what we heard from Don Rockenden last week in Nottingham tells us what the failings in maternity care are. and now what we're missing is the piece of the jigsaw puzzle,

which is about delivery and actually ending the postcode lottery and care and improving care. And I think the question really is for the government and for who that candidate should be. My personal opinion is that Donne Rockenden, who has chaired very well the inquiries into previous hospital trust, would be the right candidate. She is trusted by the families. She is an expert. She has a background as a midwife. Obviously, it's up to the government to decide who that person should be.

But I personally think that Don Rockenden would be the best candidate to be the new maternity commissioner. Let me park that for a moment. I mean, all of these issues that we are going to discuss over the next section of the program are all intertwined. Of course they are, but I do want to turn back to you, Karen, for example, your reaction. Theo was very much focused on the commissioner. What stood out for you? So what stood out for me is that the report has now, for the first time, said that the system is not fit for purpose. And I think that has to be the bottom line. It has to be the point at which we start to turn. It's great to see Alison Wright for the president of the RCOG mentioned that this will be a turning point. And the reality of it is

that currently we've had reports that are almost fragmented, looking at different units and different parts of the system, talking about what's wrong within that ecosystem without thinking about how it relates to that wider part of maternity care. And the reality of it is we look at the maternity system. It was set up, you know, year, you know, we're talking about decades. ago to deliver care for women who are fundamentally different for the care that we deliver now. When we're looking at the workforce, they're not necessarily empowered to deliver that care in that real way with that really strong human connection that allows women to flourish and to birth their baby well and safely. If we look at the technology that is around us, it's not fit for purpose. We look at buildings, they're falling apart.

You know, you can't paint a room unless it costs £4,000, you know, and paint is peeling off the walls. So it's really great that the report has said the system is not fit for purpose now or for the future, which allows us to go back to the drawing board and to redesign what does good maternity care look like? How will women and their families flourish in that system? How will they not experience trauma? How will they deliver, have really good outcomes? So I'm actually really excited by that aspect of the report. And let me turn to you, Laura.

So I think for us we were really pleased to see that systemic racism and other forms of discrimination were called out not just as issues but as critical safety concerns. Similarly, the failures to listen to women and birthing people, again, a critical safety concern. And also the need for positive workplace cultures to replace what we know and have seen and report after report has described as toxic. ones. So I think, though, at the same time, what those three things have in common and what, unfortunately, was not pulled out from the report is the fact that these are all key human rights concerns. And we're really missing that lens of human rights analysis to understand these issues so that we can really address these properly. So what does it mean if it's looked at through a human rights lens? Let's take listening to women.

for example. The recommendation is to take action to listen to the voices. This is a quote, take action to listen to the voices of women, birthing people and families. Sounds simple, sounds obvious. But as it's come up again and again in how many reviews, it's obviously not that simple to fix. Tell me your solution.

So I think our point is that listening to women and birthing people is a fundamental step, but it isn't the full answer. So what we need to do is have a system that, at every level promotes and supports the fact that women and birthing people are the decision makers. They have autonomy as to what happens to their bodies and their births. And so the system needs to support that. We need healthcare professionals who are empowered and informed and able to provide supportive,

non-judgmental, non-coercive decision-making conversations to support women and birthing people to make the decisions that are right for them. It's not enough just to listen. we need to also be able to act. But the human rights aspect of it, where would that be embedded? Like, you know, what are they following? Is it a code of conduct? You know, how is it tangible?

So, I mean, I think it's tangible in that exact everyday scenario, right? So the law dictates that what we need to be doing is having these decision-making conversations that discuss material risks and benefits of the recommended treatment and of reasonable alternative treatments. I'm looking at Karen to my left because I know. she knows this all too well and does this every day. The law says that.

We also have the Human Rights Act that really stipulates that it's not just about autonomy and informed choice, but also things like discrimination, the right to be free from discrimination, the right to equity. That is absolutely embedded. And so we really do need to look at that at every level of the system. We need to decolonise curricula. We need to ensure that interpersonal interactions are happening in a way that supports human rights and equity. Decolonize. curricula, what does that mean? So we know, and again, I'll talk that I know Karen will be able to come in on this as well, but we know that at the moment there are too many problems with training having been historically centered on white bodies, which means that there are failings for those who are not white in how their safety is centered and prioritised.

Karen, let me turn back to you with this. Let me give some more specifics for our listeners. Barron Asamus's recommendation is to treat racism, discrimination and inequality as, I quote, a critical maternity safety issue starting work immediately. I mean, what does that mean at grassroots level? Very interesting to hear about the curricula, for example, that Lauren mentions there. But that relationship between a health professional and a woman at any stage of her pregnancy. Yeah. I mean, I love this conversation because I think people find it a bit complex because they're thinking,

are we talking about racism one and one? Is it you're going into the room and somebody's denying care just simply because of the colour of women's skin? Actually, that occurs to a lesser extent. But what systems do we have in place to ensure that that isn't allowed to happen because we're delivering care for women by humans?

So therefore we need to have systems which get rid of that bias and that discrimination. One such example is the project that we did that Imperial paired with Guise and St. Thomas's under the NHS race observatory, where we looked at hemorrhage. So I would sit in my unit and I would say, no, there's no difference in the hemorrhage rates between a black and the white woman. You know, we deliver the care in the same way.

But actually, when we looked at the data, which is where data is so important, we found that there was a 2% discrepancy. We're like, wow, what's going on? So we drilled down. We got all the teams together, everybody in the system speaking to this issue. And that includes the cleaners, the HCA's, the midwives, the anaesthetists, the hematologist, the blood transfusion, the women and their families, it third-sector organisation, trauma organisations.

We came up with a plan. And the plan recognised that actually it was failure to escalate, partly because women had darker skins. And so therefore our current protocols, the curriculums, were taught based on varying parts of recognition, which wouldn't be picked up in darker skins. So once we embedded that teaching, we eliminated the discrepancy.

within three months. And this is what true implementation, data, working together, having an open mind, not presuming that what we're doing is great, but really interrogating the data can bring true change and rapid change as well. That is a really good illustrative example.

You will have seen, Karen, that the report highlights the need to capture data on where those inequalities on access, experience, safety, or outcomes are identified. So is it doing what you're doing, you've just described there on a larger scale? What would you like to see? So at the moment, NHS Race Observatory does have a project where they're creating a data dashboard and they're doing that in collaboration with the RCMs who would love to see what that data dashboard comes up with.

And that's to give people their own understanding of what data you should capture within your local area that will allow you to deliver that best care. But oftentimes, we've been taught to deliver a technical skill. What is your absolute hemorrhage rates? You know, what are your third degree, tear rates, but recognising, and I love that you've brought in the issue of culture, that actually it starts from having a system that is a learning system versus a system that's not learning, a system which is a listening system. And when we say listening, listening is a deep listening, is a compassionate inquiry that occurs rather than to a system that's very cold and almost hierarchical, a system that includes everybody from every part of that system to speak into the care,

that then becomes the best care that's individualised, personalised, it's powerful, it's able to change according to the needs of the person in front of it. But if we have systems that are rigid and cultures that are rigid, which are not changed, we will not be able to deliver that care even with the correct data. And I imagine with some of the systems being in that rigid way, although there is no excuse for the way some of these women were spoken to and treated and we can talk about that as well and their families, of course.

But there is that pressure of time on busy midwives to capture the data in real time. And it is a very difficult task that they can be up against. I mean, how do you see that working? I imagine some of the rigidity comes from people trying to hit targets

or being understaffed. It comes from a historical lens of what we can. call the safety one system, which was very much looking at individual responsibility. We're now moving towards more of a safety two system, looking at a system responsibility, which means that we've had, you know, inquiries upon inquiries, which have had regulation upon regulation, tick boxes upon tick boxes. And I'm not saying tick boxes aren't good, but if I'm in the room and I'm about to give birth, I want the midwife, not to be ticking the box,

but to be giving me the support I need, looking at me within my eyes to see, am I? mind pain, is there anything more that I need from her? Are they in juxtaposition to one another in the sense that we want to see the data and what it gives us and data to be compiled? But at the same time, we want that human experience one-on-one with that midwife. And we're asking if the midwife is a woman to do a lot to kind of spot these. anomalies, for example, and also to be able to give that personal care. I think we need to ask the staff more. And what I love to see in this report was for the first time I really,

and I think it was a bit in the opportunity, I think you mentioned as well, was a bit more of a focus of what are the staff experiencing? What can the staff tell us about how we can adjust the system rather than the top-down approach of ticks boxing? How do you want to deliver that care best for that woman? When we empower the women that care, the midwives that care, we can develop and deliver the best system possible. But if it's always at the top

and we're not including everybody in the system, we can't create the best system. Which brings me to another aspect of this report, which is the power balance or imbalance, Theo. Interesting, Karen, talking there. We've talked about women being listening to. But what about staff being listened to? We've heard about a duty of candor

that could be introduced so that everybody feels they have the right to speak. How do you see a Theo, particularly in reference to what we've learned so far with this report today? Well, firstly, just to echo what Karen just said, she's described some very good examples, I think, of care in her own hospital trust. I think the challenge for us is that that is not necessarily the case for moms like me who gave birth in a different part of the country. And what this report shows today is that the system is completely fragmented and care is inconsistent.

So we really need to be joining up antenatal birth and labour neonatal services together and that chimes so much with the inquiry that I chaired in Parliament two years ago and in fact we called our report ending the postcode lottery in perinatal care because we didn't feel like services were joined up

and I personally still find it shocking that depending on where you give birth in this country you will actually be referred to a different maternity pathway so for example I suffered from a major birth injury and had to be referred for mental health services I was very lucky in some ways that my constituency had those on offer and I was given treatment. But if I'd had my baby 50 miles down the road, those services would not have been available to me on the National Health Service. And what I find concerning about today's report is that there's a lot of themes in there which I recognise and say we've seen in previous reports.

But where's the actual action with the exception of the new policy for the maternity commissioner that will actually drive change? Is their new budget? Is their new training for midwives and doctors? like what are the additional policy changes rather than another summary of the failings that we already know exist within maternity care in the UK? We will be hearing from Michelle Welch

in just a couple of moments, MP and maternity advisor to the government. But I want to turn to the word triage. The report identifies the triage process as playing a critical role in driving improvements and calls for NHS trusts to urgently review how they assess women. So that's whether it's over the phone

or in person when that woman contacts maternity services with their pregnancy concerns. Baroness Amos says maternity triage must be formally designated as a safety critical clinical environment with binding national standards rather than guidance, which is, you know, a lot of the stories that we've heard might have originated with that part of the triage not going in the way that they needed. Is this an organisational issue, Theo, a resource. sourcing one or more attitudes towards women as they reach out for help and support when they're feeling anxious or worried about their baby? Well, I think it's all of the above. I mean, firstly, we need governments of all political parties to prioritise maternity care. Every single person in

this country is going to be born. We've got to have adequate resources. And I still find it astonishing that the government pays more on its maternity negligence compensation bills. So women suing the NHS for poor examples of care than we actually do on the frontline budget. So if we reduce the harms to mums, then actually would have more money to spend on the front line for doctors, midwives and obstetricians. And if I could just add something else about the report, I do feel like the voices of families have not been heard enough in this report. And I was particularly struck by, for example, the lack of references to birth injuries. Some of the references that I heard in the birth trauma inquiry, which were the most shocking, apart from baby loss, were examples of women who'd had

third and fourth degree tears like myself, particularly from foreseps injuries. And I can't really find references to that in Baroness Amos's report today. So I do think it's quite thin. It's not the level of an in-depth investigation that probably the public we're expecting. And I think we probably still need the government to take more additional action in funding and making sure that there's additional resource on the front line. I do want to also mention we have a BBC Live page at the moment and also hearing a lot of testimony, as we have heard on this program,

from people have been through something very traumatic, be it with a birth injury, be it a traumatic birth, or indeed heartbreakingly losing their child some of the stories that are there as well. Let me come back to you, Laura. How do you think triage could work better to perhaps prevent some of these huge problems

that these women go on to have? I mean, I think there is a lot in the report that specifically outlines the concerns in triage specifically. I would say two things, I think, one that we also fail if we look at triage in isolation. Again, if we use this human rights framework, which I know I keep talking about, but it really does answer everything, every way along the lines. And just to give kind of one example, one thing that we see very regularly is people who unfortunately find that triage is sort of gate kept and often in quite an intrusive way. So, for example, people are told that unless they say,

submit to a vaginal examination, for example, they will not be allowed to remain, that they will not be admitted, that they will not be given their choice of pain relief. And actually, there was a very powerful case just recently in Australia talking about exactly that. And the hospital in question was found guilty of battery and of negligence for that. And we can clearly see the parallels of what's happening in this country too. So I would say that triage is just one example of human rights abuses that are happening everywhere and we need to channel that with a fundamental answer

and a fundamental fix at every level of the system. Yes, I think very distressing some of the stories that people have mentioned. I will say, also mention the BBC Action Line. I know so many people have been affected by these issues.

The BBC's Action Line, there's links to help and support with it. Let me just get some of your thoughts on justice because I think a lot of this review people want to be heard and a lot about being heard is also that it doesn't happen to somebody else and also perhaps for their story to have some sort of resolution.

Karen Baroness Amos says change is needed now but she is not calling for a public inquiry that would be where people were compelled to speak. Do you think there should be one? The question is what would a public inquiry add? Would it delay us making change and creating the maternity system and that would be better for all, would it take unnecessarily funds

that we can use to make maternity better? I don't believe a public inquiry would add to where we are now, but actually urgent action needs to occur to implement all the findings. I think, you know, Laura, you said there are over 700 plus findings or maybe it was Theo from all the inquiries that have gone before us. When are we going to start to act? And I think that's the important question. I do, you know, very much feel that people need to be heard.

and there needs to be a channel that we develop that allows them to give that feedback. But do we need another public inquiry? I wouldn't necessarily say so. Yeah, very briefly, Lauren, just before I bring in Michelle Welsh. I think that's very fair. I think we wouldn't, birthrightly, wouldn't rule out a public inquiry, but I think nothing should be stopping action happening now

to save people who are giving birth today tomorrow and in the future. Yes, indeed. And I do want to reiterate that, of course. If you have any concerns in you're pregnant, you're listening to this, do contact. your GP for any advice, health advice that you might need. Theo Clark, former MP and maternity campaigner, Dr. Karen Joash, consultant in obstetrics and gynecology

and Laura Malarkey, legal lead for the advocacy charity at birthrights. I do want to bring in Michelle Welsh, MP, maternity advisor to the government. Good to have you with us. Thank you for joining us. I do want to let people know that you also come at this with a harrowing birth experience, which happened when you had your son, Billy, who's now six.

And I read that you were able to understand with your experience as some of the shortcomings that you endured. But you said you will never be able to get your head around why you were treated personally so badly with contempt and disdain, staff being so awful to you and your unborn baby. And many would say that is about culture.

How do you think you can really change that culture and in what time frame? Well, this is the overarching question for me because I think this is part of the uncomfortable truth that we really, really need to face. Some organisations I know are finding this quite difficult, but actually we have a situation where the regulatory bodies haven't done

what they have supposed to have done, where we have a culture that's been particularly outlined in Nottingham, where mothers have been treated absolutely awful. The abbreviations have been put on the whiteboard. I think we break down that culture by having some accountability, but also we need the learning and the training to change what is acceptable. Some of this also may come about if we actually have a safer staffing structure. I talk to many midwives who say actually they need the time to care, but I go back to that. How can it be that it wasn't just a week, it wasn't a month? We're talking years

and years of which a culture was allowed to develop, where people like me, ordinary people walked out of a hospital thinking, what did I do so wrong to be treated so disrespectfully and so rudely? It was terrible and I read your story and I'm so sorry that you went through that as well as anyone else who has had an experience akin to some that we're speaking about this morning. But I wondered how do you quantify if you are able to turn that ship around with the culture? How do you quantify how awfully someone has been spoken to? I think that comes down to how we manage it not only with regards to to families' voices and mothers' voices

and how they are listened and what structures we place not only on the maternity ward, but their ability to report back afterwards as to what their experience was. So the women, but what would that form take? Like, is it, I don't know, where is it going? Is it a survey afterwards of your experience? I'm just thinking of something concrete, because I'm sure women go home, probably try and digest what's happened,

maybe want to try and forget about it. But how do we see where the problem actually is and manage to get in there in a more nimble and earlier way? So I think it's a step-by-step process. I think one of the recommendations that Brown-S Amos has said is that every woman gets a debrief no matter what happened with regards to their birth. So that gives us an ample opportunity to capture it there. Sometimes, as many women know, it's not talking about.

they get home and they start reconsidering or consider actually how they will be treated, in which case there has to be a direct pathway, whether that's through our regulatory authorities or whether that's something that can go through maternity commissioners team. That would have to be worked out. But I think there has to be not just one step, but two steps with regards to this. Because what we found is there are so-called places where women can report, but it's never actually actually materialised. Let me move on to the maternity and neonatal commissioner for a moment.

We spoke about it at length with my previous guests. I mentioned some of the concerns that families have, that it won't bring about the change that is desired by them. Why are you so convinced? I'm so convinced because I think maternity is crying out for a figurehead, an independent figure head, not somebody that works within the system, was working within the system now, an independent figurehead that is prepared to take things on when things are going wrong.

That's what we need with statutory powers. I can understand why they're concerned. I absolutely can understand why they're concerned. They've been let down so many times and they'll be worried and concerned about, well, who will this person be? What will their role be? So I feel passionate about it because in my mind, I see it as a bigger picture at looking at a regulatory body.

and I'm sitting in a position where actually if trusts are failing or regulatory bodies are not doing what they're doing, then this maternity commissioner can step in. They need strong, strong powers. And that's why I feel so passionate about it. But I also understand families, families fears. And that's why whatever this maternity commissioner looks like has to be done with families and those working on the front line as well. So we develop a role that is effective. Let me turn to also.

you just mentioned regulatory bodies there. You have said I read that the Care Quality Commission, the CQC, the Nursing and Midriffrey Council, the NMC, and the General Medical Council, the GMC, are unfit for purpose. I quote you, I quote you back at you, those three organisations need to go. We need to establish an umbrella organisation that allows for when things go wrong. Midwives, doctors, obstetricians have to have a safe place to be able to say, this is what went wrong and why this.

happened. But does the government have any political will to follow you on that recommendation? Personal recommendation? As I said, you know, this isn't a government policy. This is my I understand that. But you are the maternity advisor. Yeah. And absolutely. And I stand and I stand by that. Well, I actually stand by and this is and this is where it comes from. This is my standing point with regards to this. I've spoken to hundreds and hundreds of families that have been seriously let down by a maternity service. Serious, serious failings that has not only impacted them, it's impacted their own family, the whole family, their careers have ended, their marriages have ended. And this is all because of this uncomfortable truth. And that is, it was not a regulatory

authority that brought about the Nottingham inquiry, nor the Telford inquiry. It was not NHS England. It was not a government. It was families having to stand up over and over again and relive what is the worst moment of their life again and again and again. That is a system that is not only failing, but is cruel, absolutely cruel. Where were our regulatory bodies when all this was happening? Because it was being reported. It was being reported. So what happened?

So when I say there is an overall, it's because I actually, as you can tell, feel quite angry that actually babies have died in the hands of. of people that were reported years ago to a regulatory authority. That's the reality. And unless we face that uncomfortable truth, actually, we don't fix maternity services. We really do not fix maternity services. So if the GMC and the NMCC want to come back to me and tell me, this is how we're going to change and this is what we're going to do. And within that, we're going to ensure that the maternity commissioner has the real teeth, then absolutely, I will sit around the table. I will sit around the table with them. But at this moment in time, when I know, I can probably tell, I can tell you hundreds

of stories, hundreds and hundreds of stories. And it is wrong. And it is cruel. It is really, really cruel. Women and babies deserve better than that, a lot better than that. And that's my position. It's not always, you know, what other people think, but that is my own personal opinion and what I think about the regulatory authorities. And let me make this clear to you. I've been very clear to them face to face about what I think with regards to this as well. And I will say I do not have a response from the Care Quality Commission, the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the general medical council, but of course it's a story we will continue to cover here on Women's Hour. But it is interesting and, you know, we could talk probably

at length another time about what form a reformed umbrella organisation might take. But I do want to run something else by you, Michelle, before I let you go. The Truth for Our Babies Group comprised of bereaved and harmed families impacted by negligent maternity care at University Hospital Sussex NHS Foundation Trust. And they criticised today's report, the Amos report, for being, I quote, surface level. They said this, quoting again, this process was never the in-depth investigation that we, the families, were promised. Are you satisfied that this report is in-depth and adequate for change? I think the report is in depth, but I think we have to take it in with all the other reports as well.

Like Theo says there's been a number of really in-depth reports. I think we're at a place where actually we have got, we know where those changes need to take place. We know what we have to do and we have to get on and do that. But that is not taking anything away from those families because I know if they are feeling that, they are feeling that. should absolutely be heard with regards to that. You know, it's not for me to sit here and say that those Sussex families are wrong whatsoever. But what I will say is, and this is where I feel, you know, confident, is that we do know what is going on and we do know what is happening and what is wrong.

Now we have to fix it. They cannot be reports left on the shelf any longer. This is action. It's not recommendations. This is action. And I'm doing everything I can to hold the governmental account on that. Baroness Amos has said that she would not call for a public inquiry briefly, would you? I'm going to be a bit of a politician here, and I apologise for that,

but I'm going to sit on the fence with regard to this. And the reason that I want to sit on the fence is I always believe that when an inquiry comes out, we should be respectful of that inquiry. I think we all need time, even now, to digest what Donna Rockenden has said as well. We need to pull that information together, and I need to have further conversations with families. I am aware that there is a gap. And if I relate this back to Nottingham, and this is really important,

120 senior staff, 80 decided not to talk to that inquiry. I heard that. These are people that have been in charge and make big, big decisions. So there is a gap. And until we address that gap and really say, have we answered all the questions around accountability, can we really make sure that going forward that women and babies have a voice, in what is probably the most important service. If we kind of answer that,

then we have to get around the table and say, do we need a public inquiry? So I think it's right to still leave, that it's there, that it's on the table. But I do think we, as politicians and as people around the table, we need to have a very calm and considered approach to how do we fix maternity services

and let's get on with it. Michelle Welch, MP, a maternity advisor to the government. Thanks very much for your thoughts this morning on our wide-ranging, discussion. Thanks also to you for getting in touch. Here's one. It says culture change is often not improved by accountability because that then becomes blame. What's needed is a collective safe place to talk and learn that's in a place that's psychologically safe. Many midwives have left and midwifery services have been underfunded to benefit other services that prioritise targets which skew the budgets. Lots more of your messages coming in. Thanks very much. 844 if you'd like to get in touch. I also want to let you know Listener Week begins next month

Maybe you sometimes discuss a topic with your friends or your family and you think I'd love to hear more about that on Women's Hour Well now you can make it happen We need your ideas So keep sending them through to us One of the most moving stories We have heard on Listener Week

was Betty who told us how an invite to a friend's house When she was a young child introduced her to a different way of life One that she says saved her We love to hear those personal stories and experiences. Maybe you'd like to come on and share a story from your own life. Maybe your experience could inspire somebody else.

Who knows, maybe even change your life. You can text Woman's Hour, the usual ways. 84844 on social media. It's at BBC Woman's Hour. Or indeed, you can email us through our website. Looking forward to hearing what you come up with. How did a boycott Jimmy become a billionaire from posting videos? On Good Bad Billionaire, we're going to find out how the world's most popular YouTuber, Mr. Beast, made his fortune.

He's buried himself in a coffin for days. Counted to 100,000 on camera. And even recreated Squid Games, all in an attempt to go viral on the internet. But it all started when he gave a homeless man $10,000. So is he a philanthropist re-shaping capitalism? Or is he just the king of the attention economy? Find out on Good Bad Billionaire. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

Now, when you hear the words, invention of the internet, maybe you think of a huddle of men in Silicon Valley wearing a grey hoodie and maybe sometime in the 1990s, but of course that's never been the full story. Women have pioneered internet culture and technology long before the social media platforms that we know today even existed. My next guest, the artist and UCLA professor Mindy Sue, has been exploring. the women erased histories through her work. It includes her 2023 book, The Cyber Feminism Index.

Also, her latest, A Sexual History of the Internet. She is bringing a lecture performance of the latter sexual history to London's Institute of Contemporary Arts this evening. But first, she's taking some time to join me in the studio. Good morning. Good to have you with us, Mindy. Good morning. So happy to be here. So you grew up in Orange County in California. Yes. Didn't learn to drive, which I think we could talk about as well, how you're a Californian that doesn't drive.

But you went to study at UCLA, business to begin with. But then your interest very much switched to the internet and technology. Give us the years, you know, what was going on at your mind at that time. I think I was on the cusp of this zillennial generation where I had half of my childhood that was very analog. And just as we were hitting high school, we became very, very digital. We are all online, we are all blogging. My dad was an engineer, so he was a very early adopter for new tech. My mom was an artist. So subsequently, Bridge the two ended up with internet and art.

So a lot of your research is about women, particularly sex workers and also desire. What called you to explore the intersection of those aspects? I think I've always been very interested in embodied technology. So what do you mean by that? If you think about all, when we think about the internet, we think it's very ephemeral, cloud-based, but it's actually extremely tactile. It's very much rooted in nature. Our phones are made of rare earth minerals that are mined in the Congo. Our phones are recycled to provinces in China.

Fiber optic cables run through the ocean floor. If you send an email with a large attachment, it has a carbon footprint. So I think it's important to understand that there are very naturalistic repercussions and this all has to do with the body and the land. So interesting. I was reading about Aaron Brockovich yesterday, her latest campaign is against AI data centers because of how she feels it's impacting on nature.

But that's another conversation for another time. I want to turn to a sexual history off the internet. And it'll be the lecture that you're delivering later, as I mentioned. But how does sex and sex workers in particular relate to the development of internet technology? I think you can see it from multiple sides. So in the very beginning, computers were women. They were women secretaries and mathematicians

who would do calculations by hand, and that later became machines doing this kind of computation. But if we start to think about the advent of a lot of these digital tools that we're using, maybe it's built off of extraction and a bit of jokes. So Lena Forson at the time published as Lena Schlublam was a Playboy model, her first and only nude image. She, it was used to test a compression algorithm at USC, reanalyzed billions of times, kind of becomes a trope of computer history, and ended up as the JPEG that we all use now. Even the first computer-generated nude was a joke that was a large mural printed on the office of their professor at Bell Labs.

So I think we start to see that there's a lot of boys' humor perhaps and using women as a sort of vehicle to test out new technologies. But on the other hand, we also have a lot of women who are pushing this forward. VNS Matrix, the Australian Art Collective coined cyberfeminism in 1991. the year that the first website was released. We also have sex workers who are the vanguard of new technologies or personal websites, excuse me, as described by Melissa Gira Grant. And I want to come back to sex workers, but cyberfeminism, how would you explain that or how, yes, what does it mean?

Maybe it's helpful to talk about the etymology. So cyber, that prefix, was attached to cyber, space in William Gibson's Neuromancer, 1980 science fiction novel that kind of predicted these sensory networked online landscapes that were very much living in now. But that landscape was also very much depicted with fembots and cyber babes and sexualized depictions of women. So when cyber became fixed to feminism in 1991 by VNS Matrix and Sadie Plant, it was almost a provocation. How could women or marginalised communities shape what cyberspace might look like? And we end up with the very slimy version of the internet away from its militaristic origins.

Indeed. Can I come back to sex workers, however, and also particularly because you zone in on how them working really or finding ways to work really pushed forward technological advances. So in the book, the book, Sexual History of the Internet is a facsimile of the performance script, and in it you'll find so many scholars of sex work history, like Melissa Gira Grant, who describes how sex workers were some of the first people to create personal websites. Like Ezra Padgett, who describes how sex workers were some of the first people to use cryptocurrencies that were shippable products, even before they, at the time when they were still speculative tools. They were, it caused the rise of bandwidth increasing.

The desire to chat with performers was built into these tools. The desire of mainly men to speak with female performers, you mean sex workers. Yes. And women, I feel like some people position this as sex workers are policed on mainstream platforms. Their payments are observed in police and etc. So then they're moving to external channels. but I also think inherently in this field there is a mark of innovation. So they're always developing new tools and ways to kind of skirt the system.

And then that becomes very much adopted. Even platforms like Patreon, which now seen as a podcast platform, some of the first things used there were sex workers being used as models with discussion with their clients. And then that then turned into podcasts. Well, Mindy, you're making me think of only fans, which started as more, I don't know, cookery, fitness, and then became more... Or the opposite.

Yeah, that became more for people that were sex workers and indeed one of the most successful tech companies now in the UK due to that. You've also said to be a woman, just thinking of that word performer in another sense, that to be a woman who grew up online means that you've been taught to be a performer. I'm not talking about sex work at this point. But how is this pressure for women and girls who are digital natives, so grown up with the internet, different do you think from the pressure to perform that maybe your mother or your grandmother may have experienced

in society at large? I think the difference now is it's extremely public. And with the rise of, on the one hand, anonymity, but on the other hand, the ubiquity of your face and image, anyone has suddenly has access to these things. So we're taught to behave in certain ways that encourages likes and algorithm. We're now performing for algorithms more than people. But I think it's important to understand that there's been a big interest in sex work in this project

because I think it feels like a sort of othering. But I think the goal here is to really say that if you're interested in media art history, in internet history, that what we see, in sex work, we will see soon on ourselves. So give me an example. Let me imagine it for a way, because you're looking into the future. If you think about something that maybe we've all

experienced on Instagram, you post something that has perceived as obscene or political, there's a version of shadow banning where it's just not shown to your viewers. Once up above that is that post is taken down, or perhaps your profile is taken down. Mistress Harley describes

how once up above that is in the terms of conditions that no one actually reads, because we don't understand this legal speak. What happens when it says that actually posting this content is a liability to the company? Then suddenly posting this as an act that can be jailed rather than just removed or erased. So we're all kind of on this pipeline.

And you're talking about the paradigm as you see it. Really interesting, thought-provoking. Mindy Sue, thank you so much for joining us this morning. I just want to let people know that your latest publication is sexual history of the internet, the ICA, London's Institute of Contemporary, arts is where you can find Mindy this evening. Thank you so much for joining us. Right, I need to talk about wigs. Have you ever had the urge to chop off all your hair, dye at a different color?

I don't know, blue bob, purple plats. Well, what about a wig to switch up your look? People wear wigs for so many reasons. It might be cultural, it could be religious, it could be a health condition. We've often talked about that when it comes to cancer and hair loss, for example. But Celebrities are very much opening up about their use of them. You might have seen Drew Marrymore had a grey wig on her TV show. Kylie Jenner has a colourful wig collection. Let me bring in Leah Harper, journalist for The Guardian. She's been looking into this, wearing them as part of her reporting different wig every day.

We also have Melanie Burrell, who owns a wig business in Glasgow. Great to have both of you with us for this part of the programme. Leah, why did you wear the wigs? What did you learn? Well, morning. I wore them as a sort of an experiment to see how I would get on as someone that's never attempted to wore wigs before, but has always kind of been interested in experimenting my hair. You know, a lot of that experimentation can often cause quite a lot of damage to your hair, and wigs seem like a way to do that without causing that damage. And I was also kind of reading a lot

about how weeks have come a long way. They're much more realistic than they used to be, and it's much less obvious that you're wearing a wick. Additionally, the test. taboo is dropping off, and people are being speaking about it much more openly. So I thought I would give some a go and I tried long, short, curly, straight, things a little bit similar to my own hair, but things wildly different from my own hair as well. I loved looking at the pictures. I'm looking at you now on a screen. You have long brown hair with the fringe. Is that your real hair? This is my real hair today. I've asked me that since I've all the weeks. And in fact, one of the weeks I wore was just a

topper. So that was the most similar to my own hair and it just sort of fit on top. It didn't cover all of the hair. But it kind of gave an extra thickness and it kept my fringe in as well. It was a new word for me. Also, fringe wigs I saw the other day. I think it was Vogue podcaster. Yeah, Vogue Williams wearing one. And it was so great. It just kind of popped on and then it popped off. Melanie, you have the wig company in Glasgow. Paruque, I think it's the Italian word for wig and you help people primarily with health conditions like alopecia where people lose their hair but you also have people coming in as a fashion statement to buy a wig for a holiday or a wedding tell me what you've seen the change good morning yes so from um we're based in glasgow so

we're perush with professionals being there for a long time and we have noticed quite a big difference i would say in the last say 16 years that we've been open so again referring to a lot of the celebrities now changing hair and changing quickly. You know, from one's down to the other, who's probably opened up the eyes a wee bit more from looking at it as more of an acceptable accessory that you can change your look. So sometimes if you're going for maybe an outfit

and you've got dark hair, you might go, no, that doesn't quite go, you can actually change your hair. So there's a lot of possibilities now with doing that and the wigs that are available are so much better with respect to seeing on trend, different colours, lanes and everything that you can get. Leah, wasn't it hot or weren't they all hot? Or does it depend on how much money you spend on one?

I think it does depend a little bit, how much money you spend and what that means for the cap construction. So some wigs, I mean, Melanie knows more about this than I do, but some of the wigs are kind of much airier than others. And also you wear underneath the wig a wig liner. So I had probably quite cheap, quite synthetic headliners. So it did get very hot, very hot. and also because I have my own hair

and that's up under there as well. So I think it sort of slightly, it depends. Some days it felt very hot. But I think also, again, because weeks have improved so much, they aren't as uncomfortable to wear as they once were. And also, once you've got them on,

I just definitely discovered after a while, you sort of forget you're wearing one and that kind of that goes. So you didn't pluck it off at any point, a la Samantha in Sex and the City, if I remember from one episode. But let me come back to you here, Melanie. I mean, what has, what about price point? Is it still hundreds of pounds for a good wig? How would you describe it? I think in the past, um, synthetic wigs were

kind of around about maybe 60 to 100 and you can get cheaper wigs online, but it really just comes back to how natural you want it to be. Some people would want to wear their wig to go, this is an alternative here, whereas other people maybe just put it on as a fashion statement are not too fast, but price-wise, I would say, a good synthetic wig, for example, is probably going to be about 100 up to about 500. And then it depends on the fibre type. And as Leah had mentioned there as well, comfort is a pretty big thing when someone's wearing a wig because you can look fantastic.

But if the wig doesn't feel good on, it's going to properly put you off wearing it. So a wee bit more money spent the better. It is really interesting, though, isn't it, of that the stigma is being erased? in some ways I think I'm hearing which many people who've come on and spoken about wigs for health conditions you know really it could have been a very difficult step

for them to, for example, to go to your shop Melanie and to pick out a wig and have it as part of their life how have you seen that stigma around it or erosion of it? I would probably say actually a lot of people when we even first opened would come in and they would talk about the wigs

and even the word wig had a stigma to it because you had a connotation to perhaps a family member years ago and that was what you've remembered whereas now because the wigs are so much more on fashion trained to hairstyles they're quicker and their adaption

from a lot of suppliers providing that to the market it's helped a lot and also biggie like we'd said before is how natural it would look on so sometimes less density in a wig can make it look a bit more natural. So yeah, definitely would see staggarly breaking down a lot more, but it's still taking time.

Yes. You like the pink one. I have to, we're finishing up for today. But you're a bit like Frenchie and Greece. Would that be fair, Leah? Yeah, a little bit. I've always wanted to do pink hair like that. And it would be quite a big step to get from my natural colour to something like that.

So it was fun to wear it like that. And actually, I wore it out to a festival and people were kind of saying, oh, I love your hair. And it was easy to say, you know, actually, that's a wig. Everyone was great about it. So, yeah. Leah Harper, you can see all her styles online, journalist for The Guardian and Melanie Burrell. Thank you both for spending some time with us. Maybe you'll spend some time with me on Friday afternoon.

If you're free, come to Sheffield. A few tickets left to watch our special recording of an episode of the Woman's Hour Guide to Life at the Crosswires Podcast Festival. You'll find it online. crosswires. Dot live forward slash fringe. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. So, Alice Lockstone, I'm here for the history. Well, Ben Henderson, I like the formality, and that's perfect because we have a lot of history to share.

Why did tea become such a British obsession? How did English turn into the language we speak today? And yes, why do women's clothes still not have pockets? Well, in our new podcast here for the history, we're investigating how stories from the past shape everyday life today. Basically, the things we've all noticed but never stopped to question. Listen on BBC Sounds. Or watch on YouTube. Just search for Here for the History. How did a boycott Jimmy become a billionaire from posting videos?

On good, bad billionaire, we're going to find out how the world's most popular YouTuber, Mr. Beast, made his fortune. He's buried himself in a coffin for days. Counted to 100,000 on camera. And even recreated squid games, all in an attempt to go viral on the internet. But it all started when he gave a homeless man $10,000. So is he a philanthropist reshaping capitalism? Or is he just the king of the attention economy? Find out on Good Bad Billionaire.

Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.