Woman's Hour - Noor Inayat Khan: secret agent; BBC & Stonewall; Female MPs, Parliamentary standards & second jobs; Tim Stanley

Episode Date: November 11, 2021

The BBC has withdrawn from a workplace diversity scheme run by Stonewall. Last night the BBC director general, Tim Davie, said it was “unquestionable” that its ongoing participation in the scheme “has led some organisations and individuals to consider that the BBC cannot be impartial when reporting on public policy debates where Stonewall is taking an active, campaigning, role”. On behalf of the BBC Emma is joined by Rhodri Talfan Davies, who is Director of Nations and sits on the corporation's Executive Committee.With the latest on the row over standards in public life – and the activities of MPs in particular. Is there a reason why there are more men in the line of fire than women? We hear from former Conservative MP Anna Soubry and Dr Hannah White, Deputy Director at the Institute for Government.'Whatever Happened to Tradition?' is a book by Daily Telegraph journalist Tim Stanley. He argues that the Western tradition is anti-tradition, that we have a dangerous habit of discarding old ways and old knowledge. Sometimes, he argues, we used to do things better and we ignore this at our peril. Emma talks to Tim about his views on family, feminism, culture, sexuality, gender relations and more.During World War Two, hundreds of women served as agents in the Special Operations Executive, a branch of military intelligence which specialised in espionage and sabotage behind enemy lines. We’re joined by history teacher Shalina Patel to tell their remarkable stories, and to look at how they are commemorated today.Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Kirsty StarkeyInterviewed Guest: Rhodri Talfan Davies Interviewed Guest: Anna Soubry Interviewed Guest: Hannah White Interviewed Guest: Tim Stanley Interviewed Guest: Shalina Patel

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, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Good morning and welcome to the programme. Today is, of course, as you've just been hearing, Remembrance Day. And as we remember those who lost their lives in war, we also wanted to pay tribute to the women who played a vital role in the front line of World War II. While we may be more familiar with the stories of women who perhaps served as nurses or worked in factories, we may have heard less about the women agents of the Special Operations Executive, whose mission was to conduct espionage and sabotage behind enemy lines. Later on in the

programme, I'll be joined by the history teacher, Shalina Patel, who specialises in teaching these stories and other hidden histories. Who are you thinking about today and remembering then? And what stories perhaps had been hidden in your family? You can text me here, women's hour 84844. Text will be charged at your standard message rate. Perhaps you didn't know certain stories about the women in your family and what they had done in the war until very recently. How did you find out? What are those stories?

If you can, please feel free to share on social media or at BBC Women's Hour or email me through the Women's Hour website. Also on today's programme, the historian and Telegraph journalist Tim Stanley thinks women and men have forgotten tradition at their peril. And I'll be joined by a former female MP to reflect on what we should take from the fact that the majority of MPs with second jobs and incomes are men. All to come. But first, the BBC has withdrawn from a workplace diversity scheme run by Stonewall. Under the Diversity Champions programme, the corporation paid the LGBTQ plus charity for advice and assessments on creating inclusive workplaces. Last night, the BBC

Director General, Tim Davey, said it was, quote, unquestionable that its ongoing participation in the scheme has led some organisations and individuals to consider that the BBC cannot be impartial when reporting on public policy debates where Stonewall is taking an active campaigning role. Last month, BBC Radio 5 Live presenter Stephen Nolan's podcast considered whether the BBC and other public bodies were too close to the charity, for example by allowing Stonewall's advice regarding declaration of gender pronouns to cause a push by the BBC to raise awareness of such a practice.

Well, here to discuss this on behalf of the BBC is Rodri Talvan-Davies, who is Director of Nations and sits on the Corporation's Executive Committee. Good morning. Good morning. A bit of clarity first, if I can. What public policy debates was Tim Davie, your boss, referring to in his announcement? Well, I think if you read the press at the moment, listening to the radio, we see some highly polarised debates, particularly

in the area of transgender and women's rights. Now, I'm no specialist in this area, but clearly there are those who are campaigning to defend rights based on biological sex, which are sometimes called gender critical stances. And then there are trans supporters and activists who want a right to self-determination acknowledged. And these are very, very polarised, very hot debates. We see it taking place across social media. And I think the key thing for the BBC as a broadcaster utterly committed to impartiality is that we ensure that audiences have trust in us to come into these very, very complex areas dispassionately and fairly.

And I think in the case of the Stonewall's Diversity Champions programme, as you say, it had led to questions, I think, about whether the BBC could be truly impartial when reporting on public policy debates like this, given that Stonewall has an active campaigning role in this space. And I think for that reason, we believe it's the right time to step back from that programme. What prompted the decision yesterday, on the 10th of November? Well, we've been discussing it over a number of months. I mean, clearly, the external debate has been moving. You'll also be aware that, you know, since coming in as Director General,

Tim Davey has been focusing on the impartiality of the organisation, really as the foundation stone of everything that we do. We've seen new training on impartiality. We've seen new guidelines on how journalists use social media, a whole range, a raft of changes to really ensure that that audience trust is the absolute bedrock of what we do. We know that society is changing. We know about echo chambers. We know about the polarisation of so many policy debates. It's absolutely right that we step up and we ensure on impartiality we are squeaky clean in terms of our ability to go into subject areas. Well, I think the question that clearly our involvement in the diversity champions program was raising questions. Stonewall's campaigning position on some highly contentious and contested areas,

whether having an external organisation like Stonewall kicking the tyres on our own inclusion policies was the right framework. And I think we've taken the view. We don't believe our journalism has been compromised, but clearly we think it has raised questions about whether we can act impartially in some of these most contested areas. And given that, we think the prudent thing is to step back from our involvement in that programme. You don't believe the journalism has been compromised. Do you believe the influence has been too great? Well, we take advice on the involvement of Stonewall in the BBC is primarily around how you create a fully inclusive workplace.

And they have a lot of world leading expertise in that area, as do other bodies. So the BBC has always taken advice from a range of bodies about our internal inclusion policies. Has the BBC consulted other LGBT or LGBTQ plus interest groups on its HR policies? Well, we speak to a range of external experts, sometimes individual experts, sometimes bodies. But you pay Stonewall. The BBC pays Stonewall. In terms of the Diversity Champions programme, there are hundreds of participants in that programme.

And you're right, the BBC paid a fee of £2,500 to be part of that programme. But we take advice, as I say, from a whole range of bodies. The key point is that in determining our internal inclusion activity, like all other areas of policy within the BBC, it is the BBC that makes the final decisions on its policies. But if you don't believe... Sorry, just to make the point, we do not outsource our inclusion policies or our operational policies, our editorial policies

to any external body. I'll take that but why leave then? So if the journalism hasn't been compromised and if you haven't outsourced or the BBC hasn't outsourced its policies, why have you left? Because we believe that our involvement in Stonewall's Diversity Champions programme had raised questions with some groups and with some individuals and in the media about whether the BBC could be impartial in covering public policy debates. It's about the perception of risk. Not anything that's actually happened? No, we do not believe that our relationship with Stonewall has compromised our journalism. It's not just about journalism. It's also about how the organisation is run. There's

two things going on here at the same time. Well, there's two issues. You're absolutely right. There are two issues here. One is about how does the BBC create the most inclusive workplace possible for people of all backgrounds and people identify in many different ways. And clearly we take external advice on that and then we take our own view on the right policies for the BBC. But the absolute foundation stone of everything the BBC does is the trust of the audience for us to enter into areas of debate, contested areas, and to treat those subject areas dispassionately and fairly.

But you must have thought something had happened. You're slightly repeating parts you've already said, if I may. You must have thought something had happened to threaten that trust. No, I don't think there was any single moment where we thought about that. Shall I give you some examples that were raised in the Nolan podcast? A very brief question on that. Why didn't anybody from the BBC executive talk to Stephen Nolan doing a specialist podcast on this? I'm very grateful you're here today. But why didn't a single person go on that podcast? I think with hindsight, the BBC should have been, should have participated in that broadcast. Was the BBC scared to go on it? No, I think we get hundreds, as you can imagine, Emma, we get hundreds of requests. Oh, come on.

You don't get hundreds of requests from a programme that's about the governance of the BBC, about whether it's been too close to an organisation who in a matter of weeks afterwards, you leave that funding of that organisation.

Emma, I can tell you, we've got dozens and dozens and dozens of questions from the Nolan programme, which we responded to. There's clearly an issue around the FOI request that the Nolan programme put in. Freedom of information.

Apologies. We answered many, many of those questions. We gave an extensive statement. But you asked me a straight question. Do I believe the BBC should have participated in the programme? I think with hindsight we should have. And so some examples that are from that programme and also in the public domain,

where you say that there isn't and there hasn't been a moment of where the trust of the audience could have been threatened or perhaps or affected or perhaps within the organisation. 22,000 people work roughly for the BBC. You've reported or the BBC's reported back to Stonewall as achievements, which include creating an LGBT correspondent on the news floor, the adoption of the LGBTQ plus term, and raising awareness of the importance of gender pronouns. There was an article on the BBC's intranet, our internal site,

all about that and how helpful that could be. Yes, I'm not sure what the question is. The influence of Stonewall. You say there hasn't been any. You actually talked about retaining the independence. I think we're talking about two different things here. There is the BBC's policies on inclusion, and clearly we have taken advice from Stonewall and other organisations in terms of how to ensure that the environment for colleagues within the BBC

is as inclusive as possible. If you're asking me about influence on our editorial policy and our output... The creation of an LGBT correspondent the last time I checked would be editorial output. That was a decision taken by the BBC News Department to create that post. That comes within the BBC. Those members of BBC News who make those decisions are members of the fellow executive committee

that you are on, which is also subject to the rules, I presume, of the BBC and the influence on the BBC, no? But Emma, the key point here is the creation of that LGBT correspondent was a decision solely taken by the BBC News Department. Are you happy, sorry, just on that, because you've been stressing impartiality, that that same LGBT correspondent, no longer with the corporation, fronted a Stonewall video, a campaign video, it's been described as? Well, I'm comfortable that for the period that the LGBT

correspondent was with the BBC, that they reported fairly and accurately and impartially. That's not an answer to my question. Well, forgive me, I can't comment on material I haven't seen. I certainly can't comment on the material that people produce after they leave the BBC. It was while he was at the BBC. That was the understanding. Well, forgive me. I haven't seen the material. I can clearly review it and come back to you. Let me put it as a theoretical question.

Would I, as a presenter of Women's Hour, be allowed to go in front of a campaign video of a women's charity? Well, the BBC is not a campaigning organisation. I wouldn't be, though, would I? Well, without... You can answer that question, though. OK, would I be allowed to go and, I don't know, stand on a platform for Oxfam or Amnesty? In terms of a charitable activity?

Yes, front a video by any of those people. I present Women's Hour and Newsnight. Would I be allowed to do that? Well, there's clearly a lot of presenters and a lot of staff who involve themselves in charitable activity. The key question is whether it is a contentious matter of public policy. And so we would need to look at the specificity of the issue. We do have a clear policy, given our commitment to impartiality, that we do not involve ourselves in campaigning organisations on contentious matters of public policy. You talk also, well, the influence,

you say you've taken advice from Stonewall. And of course, another thing to point out at this point is some within the organisation this morning will not be happy about this decision. Something I'll come to in a moment, if I may, and is reflected in Stonewall's comments since the decision. But the BBC isn't just an employer. It's a major cultural force, I'm sure you'd accept,

in the UK, around the world, and how we speak and our style guides is influential and how people talk. Of course, there are other influences, lots of them, not least social media, as you mentioned. But I just wanted to ask a couple of specifics because of that influence and see where we are, if I may. If it was relevant to the story, would the BBC consider it offensive for a presenter or staff member, when discussing a story, to describe a trans woman as a biological male? Well, you're going at the heart of a deeply contentious issue here. This is essentially the debate

between defending the rights of people based on biological sex and trans supporters and activists campaigning for the right to self-determination. So clearly we would need to look at the whole context of that piece and determine what was the most appropriate and sensitive way of dealing with it in the piece. But forgive me, I'm not going to get into an editorial policy on that specificity here, because clearly that is an area that would need to be handled incredibly sensitively and with appropriate reference to our editorial advisors. I understand the point about sensitivity, but there will also be people listening to this

who think journalism's about facts. There are also facts that don't need to be balanced. So, for instance, I'll give you an example of a story. If we were reporting on the Olympics, and in the report we had to explain that somebody competing in a category, a female category, was biologically male. Again, if relevant to the story, for instance, it had been history making, would that be an issue? I think it would be a matter, as so many issues, where we have that editorial discussion prior to broadcast.

Again, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and specific. Can I give you one that's not a hypothetical and couldn't be handled prior to broadcast. Again, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and specific... Can I give you one that's not a hypothetical and couldn't be handled prior to broadcast? And I'm asking because it's happened on this very programme on Woman's Hour and it has happened to people who sit in my chair and myself. There are guests that come on this show who talk about pregnant

people. What should I do live in the moment? Should I get them to clarify themselves because only biological women can be pregnant? Well, pregnant people isn't inaccurate. It's clearly one way of framing the statement. But if you wanted to clarify that with the individual, I think that would be your decision as a presenter. But I also work for the BBC and I'm asking you as someone who's been put up by the BBC, what is the BBC's line on that? Forgive me, you're asking me in an instant on a live radio programme to make... But you said you've been discussing this for a long time. No, what we've been discussing is whether our involvement, just to be really clear,

what we've been discussing for some months is whether our involvement in the Diversity Champions programme creates a perception or a risk that we are unable to go into some public policy debate areas impartially because Stonewall is a campaigning role. You are asking me hypothetical editorial questions that require proper full discussion and you're asking me to answer them instantly on a radio programme and I don't think that's the appropriate way of dealing with what are deeply, deeply complicated matters. Is the answer that we don't have a policy yet? Well, I think what we're identifying in this interview is that we are talking about a public policy area that is moving very, very quickly.

And I'm trying to explain, I suppose, and show my workings here, that you're grappling with this. The bosses, if you like, are grappling with this. But people on the ground, as journalists and producers, are trying to also grapple with this. And is there the leadership? There should be. Yeah, I mean, I think that we have got across the BBC, individuals are highly skilled in providing expertise and guidance

on highly complex and live issues. But the point I'm making is these are areas that require real sensitivity, real understanding of what is fact and what is currently debate. And you're right, we need to give staff, and particularly our production and journalistic staff, the confidence to deal with these issues appropriately and to reflect where debates have currently reached. The whole point, sorry, just to make the point, the whole point of yesterday's announcement is to ensure that our journalists can act confidently without the fear that our involvement in an inclusion programme with Stonewall creates a perception, maybe unfair, maybe undue, but creates a perception that somehow our editorial position on highly contested areas is contested in some way. But you don't believe...

Sorry, it's compromising. Compromising, sorry, I understood what you meant. You don't think we've got to that point yet. You don't think we've been lobbied the organisation that we're both talking on. You don't think it's been lobbied by Stonewall in a way that's inappropriate or lobbied at all. Look, the BBC

is a huge journalistic operation with a huge reach across the UK. We are lobbied by hundreds of organisations. You don't always pay to be lobbied though. You don't pay a fee. So can you say with confidence that the BBC hasn't been lobbied by Stonewall in a way that it wouldn't allow itself to be lobbied by other organisations around issues that impartiality come up? I do not believe that our involvement with Stonewall over a number of years has in any way compromised the editorial integrity of our output.

But we are taking a step, given the risk of a perception of bias, to step away from the Diversity Champions programme. We think it's the right time to do that. I want to ask about trans employees, just with the tiny time I have left, because I mentioned that earlier and it's a very important issue, but just very briefly, are you comfortable having a flagship programme on the BBC called Woman's Hour? Yes. With regards to the trans employees, it's believed around 2% or 400 identify as trans.

What do you want to say to them just finally this morning with regards to what Stonewall said? And I can read the fuller part of their statement saying ultimately it's LGBTQ plus people who suffer when you pull out of this sort of scheme? Look, the first thing is to recognise that for some staff this will have been an uncomfortable moment in terms of us stepping away from the programme. We're utterly committed to creating a working environment which is inclusive, where people feel valued and respected. But we are dealing with twin issues here.

We are dealing with twin issues here. We are dealing with wanting to create an inclusive environment where everyone feels welcome, but also creating an environment where we can cover challenging topics impartially. And sometimes those two commitments cause some real tension and discomfort internally. The key thing is to engage with those staff groups, to discuss our thinking and our reasoning,

and to listen to their responses. But we do need to keep a clear difference in terms of our staff groups between their focus on the inclusion of the organisation internally and the right of programme editors and news editors to drive our editorial decision-making on air. It's a really crucial distinction. Roger E. Talvan-Davies, we are very grateful you came on this morning.

Thank you very much. The BBC's Director of Nations and sits on the Corporation's Executive Committee. Stonewall have released a statement. It's a shame that the BBC has decided not to renew its membership of our Diversity Champions programme, but as with all membership programmes, organisations come and go depending on what's best for their inclusion journey at the time. We will continue to engage with the BBC on a number of fronts to champion support for LGBTQ plus colleagues

and to represent our communities through their reporting. This news comes in the wake of organised attacks on workplace inclusion that extend far beyond the Diversity Champions programme. It is shocking that organisations are being pressured into rolling back support for LGBTQ plus employees. Ultimately, it is LGBTQ plus people who suffer. Now, the Prime Minister took some by surprise yesterday when he hit back at Sleaze allegations,

insisting the UK is not, quote, a remotely corrupt country, while addressing the world's media at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow. This comes amid controversy over MPs with second jobs and an investigation into Sir Geoffrey Cox doing paid outside work in his House of Commons office. This, as well as paid lobbying, attempting to influence the government in return for money, is banned under MPs' rules. MPs are allowed to do extra jobs, for example, as doctors or lawyers

or writing books or giving speeches, but they must declare their additional income. Analysis of this data shows the majority of those with other work are male MPs, especially the highest paid additional work. I'm joined now by Anna Soubry, the former Conservative MP and minister who you may remember left the Conservatives to join Change UK in 2019, now no longer an MP having lost her seat but returned to work as a barrister, and Hannah White, the Deputy Director of the independent think tank, the Institute for Government. Anna, I thought I'd start with you, if I can. I wanted to get, standing right

back from whatever is being looked at right now and who's done what. Do you think it is a time to draw a line on MPs having these other roles? No, I don't have a problem in theory with MPs doing second jobs, but I think we should be looking at why they do it. And by the way, it really is important to say that the overwhelming majority of MPs do not have second jobs. It is a small minority. But I think we need to look at why so many or some of them do do that. And some of them earn some extraordinary amounts of money, because I think that we actually need to have a root and branch reform of the way we do politics, MPs pay, working conditions, what we want from our MPs, how many we have, how we make it easier to become an MP, be an MP and have a family and have some sort of private life.

You just brought up the family there. And yes, it is the minority, although it's still quite a number looking through and what they do and where they do it. Of course, that all differs as well. But is there an issue here when it comes to women and men? Because that's also quite striking. It is striking. And you know what, we had a discussion months ago, Emma, when Boris Johnson did a reshuffle, and it was observed that the number of women actually serving in government had gone down. So something is going on. It's not just confined to the Conservative Party, but largely is. And I think it is fascinating. We know that women are less keen to ask their bosses for a pay rise.

I don't think it's because we lack ambition. And I don't like to generalise a whole sex or gender by the way but you know there is something about you know our self-worth or perhaps our lack of it perhaps we're not as arrogant as men and we don't have that feeling of entitlement and is that because of who we are is it just the way that we're conditioned we are brought up I don't know but I think there's a link I think there must always also be a link to the fact that I think most women MPs, if they have children, it's interesting there's a lot of women in Parliament who don't, and whether or not they still bear the burden of childcare. So frankly, they've got enough to do being a busy MP, as well as bringing up, largely bringing up the children. So it's lots of different things.

And they're things that we've got to discuss and debate openly, honestly, because frankly, I think we're in a fearful mess in the way that we do politics. And it's got to change. And that includes abolishing the House of Lords. Well, that's also another whole conversation. Anna, let me get to Hannah White. Because Hannah, I mean, the joke, the wry joke has been for those MPs, those female MPs who do have children, they've already got a second job, ba-dum-bum, as it goes. But in terms of that, again, as Anna was saying, lots of women don't in the House and there's other things going on there. But Anna's saying that it's not about getting rid of necessarily second jobs. It's about the scrutiny and the systems around that.

Do you think it's good that MPs do have other roles? Personally, I think I don't know how any MP does the job of an MP in the time they have available to them full stop because they have so many responsibilities. And I'm pretty much astounded that any of them have time to have a second job. I don't think I think, you know, as a as a starting point, they probably shouldn't because I don't find any of the arguments that have been put forward convincing. There's this argument about whether it brings richness to the House of Commons to have people who are also involved in other walks of life. I would much rather answer that question by having a greater diversity of people enter politics in the first place. And I think that, you know, it's really inefficient to say that an MP needs to bring that richness in by spending hours of their time each week on another job, when actually they get lobbied by lots of people, they meet their constituents every day. That is how they stay in touch with everyday life, which is their job to be in touch with everyday life. And having to have a second

job, you know, in order to bring that into the house, I just don't think given the scale of the work they have to do these days is a very efficient way to go about it. Anna, what do you make of that, that you don't need it to be in touch with people? Of course, there's some people who do jobs like being a doctor, but it's the whole point of that is your job to be in touch because you've got your constituents yes but of course you spend most of your week away from your constituents and i think we have to look at all of that we have to look at the the terms in westminster you know one thing is i get really agitated about and my colleagues when i was in the house also was this idea oh they're breaking up they're going on holiday there we were we were going back to our constituencies to work in our constituencies but could i just say this is really

important i was a minister a ministerial position is a second job and you could rightly say how the heavens did you do that and how that's what i'm saying well actually what you do is you work even longer hours you undoubtedly work work seven days a week. I am not exaggerating. And you work the most extraordinary hours. And so, and I don't want, I don't think that should change. I don't want ministers not to be members of parliament. It's a really important part of our democratic process. But I, you know, so I don't get agitated about second jobs.

I don't actually think that that's really the deep-seated problem. I think Hannah's absolutely right when she talks about we need people from more different backgrounds going into Parliament. And I say absolutely here to that. I think we have too many MPs and I think we have too many mediocre MPs. But the second job of being a minister, I'll bring Hannah back in now in just a moment, but the second job of being a minister usually pertains to your work as a politician.

The two go together. Yes. These second jobs, some of what we're seeing and hearing about, they go together, not always in a way that they should, with who you're working for and then potentially what you're asking questions about. And I do not disagree with you on that. I mean, I don't have a problem with MPs writing books, even works of fiction. I don't have a problem with MPs being doctors or all those. I think it does enrich the political debate when somebody stands up and says, I'm a nurse. I've just done a nursing shift. Let me tell you about the real world. But I do have a problem who with mps who are acting as consultants if they sit on the boards of plcs they are absolutely transparent and accountable but when they become consultants i agree with you i i i'm struggling to see the value to the overall parliamentary democratic

processes in our country i agree with you on that i. That's why I wouldn't make a blanket ban, by the way. Hannah, to come back to you, of course, that remark yesterday from the Prime Minister was stark. You know, we're not remotely a corrupt country, saying that to the world's media. I suppose the bigger damage here is what the actions of some have done to damage democracy and the perception. Yeah, I think that's right.

And, you know, the reputation of politicians is low at the best of times. And politicians often say, you know, this is just really terrible and what can we possibly do about it? And they sort of throw up their hands in horror. And I actually think it's these sorts of stories which are what consistently continues to undermine the reputation of politicians. And, you know, I think my presumption, what I would do is reverse the presumption. It's really building on what Anna's just said.

I would say the presumption is that you can't have a second job unless it's in one of the categories that we actually decide is something that's useful and valuable and definitely doesn't present a conflict of interest. And what's your take on it? The majority of it being men who are doing this and doing this sort of second element of their lives. I think there's a number of angles on this. One, I think, is the point that Anna made. Potentially, you know, we know that women in general report taking a higher burden of care and childcare. And so potentially there are some women, also male parents in the House who are taking on that greater burden and therefore don't have the time to do this. I also wonder whether, you know, in some ways it is harder to become an MP as a woman. And I think some female MPs feel that they're held to a higher standard than

some of their colleagues. And maybe they feel less able to think, well, actually, I would be able to justify taking on extra work because they, you know, and having worked very hard to become MPs, that is the job they really want to do. So they're less bothered about maintaining a separate career that they previously had. The job that, you know. The job of being an MP is the thing that they really want. So that is the thing that they devote their time to. That's fascinating. Anna, did you feel that additional pressure? Sorry, the additional pressure? Did you feel the additional pressure, sorry, as a woman potentially in that role to live up?

And that's so much good sense that Hannah's just said. I think that must be true because we know emma don't we that and you know this is as a as a broadcaster as well you know you get much more criticism for the way we look for all that sort of stuff and of course we do know that women mps like women in public life get far more abuse online than men do. So these are facts. And I don't think there's any doubt that it is turning really good, able women off politics. And you only have to look at the fact that women MPs,

women left Parliament in higher numbers in 2019, chose not to restand than men. And that is deeply regrettable because we lost some really good women from the House of Commons. And it was even more ironic that it was, this is a concern, more of a conservative problem. It was after the good work that David Cameron had done to bring more able women from different backgrounds into the House. Well, as say, I think we need a complete root and branch reform. I think our politics is essentially broken. And I think we've got to go all the way through it.

Anna, I mentioned there that you are a barrister by training. You've gone back to that. You've gone back to that. Yes. Not to the Geoffrey Cox level, can I just quickly say. Well, I mean, he seems to be doing terribly well. And he says, you know, he's not a criminal barrister. His constituents know what he's been doing and it's for them. You know, I've got a message here talking about, you know, constituents should have more power and then they should be the ones, you know, outside of elections who have that power. But in terms of could you imagine being a barrister at the same time as being an MP?

Well, I mean, people said to me when I got elected in 2010, are you going to continue at the bar, the criminal bar? And I said, I don't, you know, I thought, well, I'm here now. I mean, why would I want to do anything else, truthfully? But it would have been absolutely impossible. I mean, it was difficult enough, frankly, for all the reasons that we've identified, you know, the hours, the hours away from home, being down in London, which I found actually quite tough, which is obviously a rather important part of being an MP. And we could actually start to make even more reforms to the way that the House sits, what we expect of our MPs,

how much time we expect in our constituency. So there's all of that. Well, there's a redesign perhaps coming or not. We shall see. Anna Soubry, as a former MP, thank you for talking to us now back in the law. And also to Hannah White, thank you to you, Deputy Director of the Independent Think Tank of the Institute for Government. We've got a message here saying, if MPs say outside jobs give them real world experiences from Joanne, how come none

of them work in a factory, supermarket, care home or call centre? I do believe a couple of MPs did have done some shifts within a care home, but the question is still there. I recall that from the beginning of the pandemic. Now, it's next to me here. He's also just walked into the studio. I'm talking about the book and the guest. Whatever Happened to Tradition is the new book by the historian and Daily Telegraph journalist, Tim Stanley, who's come into the studio he's arguing that western tradition is anti-tradition and that we have a dangerous habit of discarding old ways and old knowledge sometimes he argues we used to do things better and we ignore this at our peril tim there's a lot in this book you cover a lot of ground good morning welcome i know we're going to concentrate on the ways men and women have been viewed through the centuries and perhaps how that's played

out through the family and your arguments around that but i thought we'd just start there with with the differences potentially in public life and the responsibilities that maybe women still often feel they have over men sally wrote a message in during that discussion about why many more mps male mps are the ones with the second incomes. Obviously, I know you're a keen watcher of politics. And she says many women MPs do have second jobs. It's in the home. You're a man who favours tradition. I do. A good example of an MP with a second job is Maria Caulfield, of course, MP for Lewis, who during the coronavirus went back to working in a cancer hospital. So it's not always a terrible story. There is a difference between men So it's not always a terrible story.

There is a difference between men and women's experience of politics. A few nights ago, I went to a Westminster dinner. I very rarely go to them, but I did go to one. And I noticed that of a table of about 30 people, perhaps four or five were women. I don't think it's, it is partly what's been described, the pressures of home. It's also networking. Westminster has a clubbable atmosphere. And it's partly because this is one of the downsides of tradition. It's something

we've inherited from the 19th century, with the ideal of politics almost as an amateur sport, something that gentlemen go into as a part-time thing. They maintain another job. And once it's all over, they go back to another lucrative career. Well, politics, class and society have completely changed in the last hundred years. But what we've not done is professionalised parliament. And what I argue in the book is tradition is open to change. Good traditions survive because they adapt and they develop. And I agree with much of what was just said. What's needed is a definition of what an MP does so that people will understand not just what the MP should do, but also what the limits of the job are.

And that's one of the most inhuman things about it, is so many MPs end up becoming effectively a counsellor and a mental health worker, and they shouldn't have to do that. And if you have additional problems, additional pressures on you with your family, I can understand why women in particular find that a squeeze. Well, let's go to more what you say here or more what you argue. You say in the book that at the heart of Christian traditions and other faiths is a profound pessimism about sexuality and gender relations.

Human beings cannot be trusted with absolute freedom and men unleashed will behave like pigs. Yes, I say that as a man, as a porcine animal. Yes, I'm afraid I do think that is true. And I know you are keen to come on Woman's Hour with some of this. So tell me more. Oink, oink. There's a temptation to see freedom in the abandonment of rules.

And I entirely understand that because some of those rules hold us back. And one thing we're programmed as Western people to want to do is to maximize ourselves. We want no limits, no glass ceilings, and all those sorts of things. All I'm saying is that it's possible that some of those rules have evolved, not just to repress, but also out of a Darwinian necessity. That it could be that sometimes you need to place limitations upon human behavior, because if you don't, people will behave in a bad way, and that will have a negative effect upon freedom. So in terms of gender relations until the 1960s, we had a rigid, sometimes unpleasant and reactionary set of gender or a gendered order. That has been torn up.

And now, not only is there a little bit of chaos, but I'm interested to see that some people are writing new rules, some of which seem to me to be just a retread of the old ones, which implies the old ones weren't all that bad. What are you referring to? Well, Me Too could be interpreted as a pro-chivalry movement. It's about saying treat women with dignity and respect. One shouldn't need to say that.

That's not always what people associate chivalry with, though, is it? No, it's not. That's the thing. As I said, tradition must develop, and it has to become democratic over time. Women are not going to want to be told this is what to expect etc etc it's going to be very different in the future or felt that they are weaker in some way and need to be looked after no precisely but they are owed respect

there are certain things that one is owed to as a sex and one thing that women are owed is respect and this was woven into our dna now I'm not saying feminism wanted to undo that. On the contrary, it was very pro-respect. I'm just saying that the sexual revolution since the 1960s has seen the uprooting of some of those rules. And it's no surprise to me that now we are recalibrating, bringing back some of those rules, and they look a little bit like what we left behind. Well, you say of contemporary culture, you describe it quite as a strange mix of the puritanical and the prurient. Yes.

The message that women must be respected is undermined by a pornographic subculture that implies they're up for it 24-7. There are two completely different cultural worlds. There is the world of mainstream culture, which is pushing a healthy, positive message of womanhood and respect for women. And there is a culture beneath that of pornography and a popular culture, which is pushing the complete opposite. And men are simple creatures. This is confusing. They don't know how to navigate it

because they're told women are superior by one element of the culture. Some men would say they're not simple creatures at all. No, some men are perfectly capable of doing that. But I bring to all these conversations about humanity a certain degree of pessimism, an assumption that people, I think, are born with the potential to be good. They are born

to be good, but they have an inclination to do wrong, and society has crafted rules. You're deeply religious. You're a convert to Catholicism. You talk a lot about faith in the book. Has that influenced pessimism or optimism in you? Because, of course, when one has faith, it can also make you feel a lot better. Oh, it's a mixture of the two.

As I said, I think human beings are created to do good. But the problem is we do have this inclination to do bad. And the religions, which are now tarred as reactionary, have developed those rules over thousands of years, not out of an ignorance of human nature, not because they're contrary human nature, but because they understand it so well. Well, sometimes some of that understanding, though, is, of course, rooted in the society they're in. And the understanding at that point, certainly of women, a lot of the time was very limited. And has changed and has changed. And you see the change within the religion. I mean, you mentioned the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church's attitude towards women has not just changed recently. It has peaked and troughed over the centuries. There have been

times, particularly in the Industrial Revolution, when men suddenly went off to the cities and started sleeping around and having sex outside of marriage and producing children out of wedlock. The church shifted its attitude towards sexuality to promote a very conservative sexuality in defense of women. This is a misunderstood thing. It's assumed it was done entirely for reactionary patriarchal reasons. Yes, there's an element of that. Of course, it's a church with the hierarchies dominated by men. But it was also done in defense of womanhood. And there was a promotion of the virtues of being a mother through the cult of the Virgin Mary. And there was a promotion of an ideal of womanhood and the idea that women could actually morally instruct men,

which is quite novel. I think quite a lot of what you're saying in this book and a lot of your writing, and we've spoken a lot often about American politics or British politics, is that the reasons for why certain things were or are a certain way have been misunderstood. They have been looked at through a modern lens as being oppressive. Or even when you say to people talk about traditions or conservative ideals in a sort of western liberal state they are viewed with suspicion they are not listened to properly if i was to put sort of those things to one side for a moment because you've given a couple of examples where perhaps something's been misunderstood or not seen in the correct light

what are you actually looking for what are you asking for if we're to go back to some traditions with views to women and men? What I'm asking for is I'm not trying to promote one particular tradition. I'm trying to promote the idea of living traditionally, which is an ethic. And as part of that ethic, two key elements of that ethic are... I feel like we've gone into your thought for the day segment on today. So one part of that ethic is a sensitivity towards history. And there's a lot of that. And I find women's history and the movement towards it

very exciting and interesting. And this attempt, I mean, you're discussing it today to discover hidden stories, lost stories, discovering your own history and how you fit into that is one part of it.

Another part is about submitting to something beyond yourself, being willing to give up a piece of yourself. I've had to learn how to do this. I'm a classic atomized individual. I'm a loner. I live alone. I've got a very small family.

I do have a puppy. I've got some responsibilities. A puppy you adore who's on a book jacket. Yes, I would say I spent about the first 25 years of my life trying to maximize my freedom. But now I'm looking for ways of giving bits of it away. And marriage is an example of that. I've not done it, but that's an example of a partnership

where you give a part of yourself away. And that's a very traditional way of living. And it's quite unusual. It's not an ethic that we encourage nowadays, I think. Although marriage has survived, people didn't think it necessarily would. That's something else you talk about in the book. That's the fascinating thing is how it has adapted

and how it has grown and expanded. And of course, there were moments in history which was not just limited to two sexes, but also limited by race as well and other societies too. So there is a story of tradition progressing and developing, which again goes back to those that survive, have that Darwinian quality of speaking to a need that we have. And as you mentioned, there are some things

that people think they're reactionary, but you go back to the roots of them and you find they're not. When Christianity promoted its version of marriage in the Roman Empire, it was very pro-women. Up until that point, you could walk in and out of a marriage. Women were treated like vessels, like inhuman objects. Christianity, through marriage, encouraged the idea of the equality of male and female, loyalty, and that something was for life and therefore had to be invested in and treated as sacred. I'm thinking of the model who has been doing quite a bit of publicity for her book, Emily Radjowsky, I think I say her name as,

who was in that video, Blurred Lines. She's written this book about how she thought she was in control and that she was sexually liberated. And she now realises, and I'm paraphrasing about how she thought she was in control and that she was sexually liberated and she now realises, and I'm paraphrasing, that she wasn't and it wasn't as empowering as she thought she was. If people remember that music video, she's not wearing very much and she's also talked about some of the circumstances around that not being to her benefit at all.

And that can sometimes happen to people. She's now having a family, she's got a child, that they have a realisation that perhaps when they thought they were free, they were not. Yes. But it's also about the lines of that and having the choice at certain ages and certain stages. Yes. And the and the education to be able to make a truly empowered choice and the freedom and the economic freedom to be able to walk away from something as well. Things which capitalist society do not lend us. So the book is quite critical of the capitalist order. I mean, if you take something like the music industry, if it's being produced, if something's being produced by men, if it's being made for the profit of men, and if men are largely consuming it, then I will guarantee that it probably isn't working for the advantage of female empowerment.

Female empowerment is probably being used in some way to sell something. Heather's not happy with you. She's written him. She says, recasting lack of male responsibility, lack of consequences for men as somehow respecting women and their moral authority. No, we are not responsible for men's choices. Women are only protected if they conform to the rules for ladylike, submissive, sacrificial obedience.

Oh, no, no, no. That's unfair. I've been discussing women's part in traditional living. I've not discussed men's. And if I was having this conversation with Jordan Peterson or someone like that, I'd be talking about exactly that, the fact that men need to take responsibility, that the traditional relationship between the genders is a dance. And part of the problem is that men have been liberated from their personal responsibilities for the last 30 is a dance. And part of the problem is that men have been liberated from their personal responsibilities for the last 30 or 40 years. And that's got to be corrected. Thank you very much for talking to us. A lot more we could say and you cover a huge amount in the book. Tim Stanley, thank you. The book's called Whatever Happened to Tradition. More messages,

I'm sure, going to come in on that. But your messages have also been coming in with regards to what today is, which is, of course, Remembrance Day. And as we remember those who lost their lives in war, we also wanted to pay tribute to the women who played a vital role in the front line of World War II. Of course, we may be more familiar now with some of those stories of women who served working in factories or as nurses,

but we have heard less about the women agents of the Special Operations Executive, whose mission was to conduct espionage and sabotage behind enemy lines. Shalina Patel is on the line, a history teacher who's recently shared some of this hidden history on the BBC Teach Me a Lesson podcast with Greg James and Bella Mackey. Good morning, Shalina. Good morning, Emma. Thank you for having me. Well, as a good pupil, I hope I will start with the very basics. What was the Special Operations Executive? Great question. So the Special Operations Executive was formed in July 1940. They were a new secret intelligence agency and they were created to be separate from the already existing agency. So we'll all be familiar with MI5 and MI6. But this agency were doing slightly more underhand things.

So you've already mentioned disruptive tactics they were using. So they were involved in sabotage missions. They were involved in linking up with different resistance groups across Europe. They were involved in assassinations as well. And they did a huge amount to try to disrupt the Nazis from within. And Churchill specifically said in 1940 that his aim for the SOE was to, quote, set Europe ablaze. Wow. I mean, the kind of training. Well, let's do how many how many women were in this first of all, and then perhaps get into what you needed to do to be in it.

Yeah, absolutely. So in terms of the number of women that contributed to the SOE, whether that is agents or people working in the numerous departments, we're talking upwards of 3000 women. So as you said earlier, when we think about women during World War Two, for example, we picture, you know, those women in the factories, we picture them on the fields, you know, plowing, etc. But actually, there were so many women that were doing incredibly creative and dangerous work. And the SOE was the only opportunity that women had during World War One to play a combat role. Wow. And that role must have been something. So it is not for the faint hearted. Absolutely not. So if you were working for one of the auxiliary forces during World War Two, so often the women were recruited from the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, for example,

and they would be watching you. If you were particularly quick, particularly when it came to wireless operations, so if you were shown to be somebody who was highly skilled in that, you would be invited to an interview. Now, you wouldn't necessarily know what this interview would be,

but if you passed the interview, you would then be put through really, really gruelling, extensive training. Only 35 percent of people pass the training in itself. So we're talking, you know, being taken from your bed in the middle of the night and being interrogated. We're talking about can you jump out of a plane and hide within a few minutes? Can you successfully make a make a key out of materials that you've got in your pockets? Can you get yourself out of handcuffs with a hairpin? You know, we're talking about

really, really kind of dangerous, highly pressured tasks that these women would not have had any, you know, wouldn't have had really any experience in doing this. But there were some women who really showed themselves to be incredibly talented. And those women were parachuted into Nazi occupied Europe. And you like to tell your pupils about a couple of them individual. One of the Nazis most feared operatives was a disabled secret agent called Virginia Hill. Tell us a bit more about her. Yes, absolutely. So Virginia Hall was, she actually lost her leg in a hunting accident. So she had a wooden leg. Virginia Hall, I'm sorry. Yes, Virginia Hall, yes. And she referred to her leg as Cuthbert, of all names.

There you go. And actually, she was absolutely well known to the Gestapo and they actually called her the limping lady. And the reason why I think it's so important for us to know that is because it just goes to show that these female agents, that, you know, the Gestapo knew how important they were by the fact that they constantly were trying to find her. She did so many things during the war. She was sent into France. She was given a cover of being a journalist. She actually helped break upwards of 10 agents out of internment camps all across France. And she actually was alone for about 12 months in the field before they sent any more female agents. And what's amazing about her is that she trekked across the Pyrenees

with her wooden leg because, of course, she couldn't go through borders, etc. And what's also incredible about her and what I love about Virginia's story is that she survived the war and she didn't stop there. She didn't put her feet up and say, you know what, I'm done. She was one of the first women to be recruited into the CIA as well. And she died at the age of 76. particularly because she did not let her, you know, her disability stop her from doing things that the most incredibly, you know, the most incredible athletes, you know, would would potentially not be able to trek across the Pyrenees, frankly. It is incredible. And Christine Granville? So Christine Granville. So she was an agent of Polish descent.

So her name was Christina Scharbeck. And she's actually known as the first female special agent of World War Two and the longest serving. So she actually was doing a lot of this work before the SOE were officially created. And one of the things that she does is that she skis into Nazi occupied Europe. And she gets an Olympic skier to help her, which is just incredible. And she's skiing with, you know, pockets and bags full of British propaganda because her job is to link up with Polish resistance fighters over there in Poland. She does. She's all over the place during the Second World War. So she does a lot of work in Poland. She is parachuted into France in 1944 and she is a vital part of the resistance. She smuggles intelligence. She goes through a few hairy moments as well.

So she is almost caught a few times. One of the times she is in her car and she is suspect. She gets questioned by border guards and she just plays a kind of damsel in distress role. And she says, oh, my car's's stalling can you help me fix it so she kind of plays into um which which is one of the reasons why Churchill was keen to get women to be in the SOE because he knew that they would be they would be viewed with less suspicion and Christina Schaubach played on that um definitely she um pretends to go to a prison pretends to be somebody's wife um to get into the prison and she locates the agent she's looking for by singing and waiting for them to sing back amazing skiing singing yeah using your your you know your your sex against

yourself and for yourself uh nor iniat khan tell us about her as well as we're talking about the the female agents of the special operations executive absolutely Absolutely. So Norton Out Khan is where my obsession with the SOE started. So Norton Out Khan was of mixed race heritage. Her father was Indian and her parents lived all over Europe, in Russia and France and various places. But she finds herself in England at the beginning of the war. She works for the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, shows herself to be a really fantastic wireless operator.

During the training, they do note that she is not the best when it comes to these kind of fake interrogations but they send her to france anyway because she's so talented um for context the average lifespan of a wireless operator in the field is six weeks at this point because as soon as you switch your wireless on the gestapo have got vans looking for the signals. So she's in a really dangerous spot. And unfortunately, she is betrayed by the Gestapo and eventually ends up in Dachau. She is put under a night and fog decree, which shows us that the Nazis knew that she was incredibly special and dangerous because they were trying to keep her presence really, really quiet. She was integral in connecting agents in the field with the SOE back home.

She'd actually been asked by the SOE to, you know, we'll get you out. We know that things are dangerous for you. And she refused. She said, no, I can't leave my agents in the field. If I go, there's going to be no one to connect you guys together. And unfortunately, yeah, she was executed at Dachau by the Nazis. It's said that the last words that she said before she was executed was liberté, which is the French word for freedom. And yeah, she's just incredibly, an incredibly important woman for me as a woman of South Asian heritage, because she is somebody who looks like me I

suppose and was incredibly important to the war effort um there's a bronze bust of her actually in Gordon Square in Bloomsbury which I go and visit quite frequently and she's recently been given a blue plaque as well um on Taverton Street which is the address that she scratched onto a bowl while she was in prison to let the fellow prisoners know um she was. So she's really, really incredible. And just like lots of the other women like Virginia Hall and Christina Schaubach, she was given medals and things like that after the war. But I feel like the stories of these women are not necessarily that well known in the public consciousness. I feel like their images don't really appear that often when we think about remembrance but for me you know we've got three minutes till uh till we're going to have this the

two minute silence and these are the women that I will be thinking about well during that time our listeners have been telling us a bit about who they're thinking about if I can I'm going to get to one or two of those in a moment but I was going to say like any good teacher you've given us a bit of homework and I want to go and see the bust and the blue plaque and and follow up but just very briefly how do your pupils react to hidden histories like this yeah i think the the biggest thing for me is that they they love the fact that we get to talk about the kind of people that were there um you know in these moments you know during world war ii etc but they're not necessarily the people that have made it onto that mainstream narrative. So for lots of the students, they really appreciate the fact that actually they know that in our history department,

we are searching for these stories that are not necessarily in the textbooks because we want to give them a wider and kind of richer understanding of these different events and times. History teacher Shalina Patel, thank you so much for such a good lesson, if I can put it like that. Thank you so much. Especially just before 11 o'clock on Remembrance Day. Ros says, we're lucky to have a diary written by our mum in 1944 when she alone had to run a corner grocery shop in Newcastle-under-Lyne and look after two children, excuse me, at age seven and five. It makes a fascinating read. My nephew wrote a series of articles for the local paper and called it Betty's War. Our dad was in Burma serving in the RAF

and she didn't see him for two and a half years. It was a steep learning curve for her in retail. Ros, thank you so much for that. Many more coming in about who you're literally about to think about

as the clock turns 11. Thank you so much for your company today. We'll be back with you tomorrow at 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one.

If I think I've made a mistake, I'll just sort of pause and try and read it again so you can get your scissors in. Paul McCartney as you've never heard him before. Are you ready? Revealing the stories behind his life and music. We hear about superstardom. When the show aired, 73 million people watched us.

Drugs. What we had to get into our lives, it seems, was marijuana. Falling out with John and Yoko. The thing is, so much of what they held to be truth was crap. His grief after Lennon's death. I was just sitting there in this little bare room thinking of John and realising I'd lost him. And his sense of wonder. Sometimes I pinch myself and think, were we there?

To hear all ten episodes from BBC Radio 4, just search for Paul McCartney inside the songs on BBC Sounds. 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 was 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.