Woman's Hour - Parole and victims, Met Police vetting, Women’s Prize for Non-fiction

Episode Date: February 12, 2025

Ellie Wilson, a rape survivor, is campaigning for the right for victims to be able to appear at parole hearings, after being denied permission to attend one for her attacker. She tells Nuala McGovern why she wants the law changed in Scotland, and barrister Harriet Johnson explains more about the process.The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley says that rooting out people who should not be in the force, has been made harder due to a High Court ruling that an officer accused of rape could not be dismissed because the process was fundamentally unfair. So, what does this ruling mean exactly and what could the wider impact be on women? Nuala McGovern discusses with the BBC's Senior UK correspondent Sima Kotecha and former Met Detective Superintendent Shabnam Chaudhri.Did you know anyone can legally call themselves a nurse, regardless of qualifications? Labour MP Dawn Butler introduced a ten minute rule bill in Parliament yesterday seeking to make 'nurse' a protected title in UK law. Professor Alison Leary, Deputy President of Royal College of Nursing joins Nuala to explain why she believes this move is important. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Women’s Prize for Fiction which was established to recognise the literary achievements of female writers. There have been huge improvements in sales for fiction written by women since then, however only 34 per cent of the top 500 non-fiction books in 2022 were written by women. The Women's Prize awarded its inaugural non-fiction category last year and have just released their 2025 longlist. Will it have the same impact as the Fiction Prize? Nuala is joined by Women’s Prize co-founder Kate Mosse and this year’s Chair of the Non-Fiction Prize, journalist and author Kavita Puri.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Lottie Garton

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petruzzella, 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 it will 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 music, radio podcasts. Hello, this is Nuala McGovern and you're listening to the Woman's Hour podcast. Hello and welcome to the programme. Policing has been left in a hopeless position, according to Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, following a high court ruling that took place yesterday.

He says the largest police force in the country now do not have any mechanism to get rid of officers who are unfit to keep their vetted status, including those, and I quote, who cannot be trusted to work with women, unquote. So what are the implications of this ruling for women's safety we will discuss? Also today on Women's Error, why some are calling for the title of nurse to be protected and today we'll also talk about nonfiction. Here is a stat for you. Nonfiction books written by women only make up 34% of the top 500 bestsellers. We'll have Kate Moss and this year's chair of the Women's Prize for nonfiction, as she is, and the

author Kavita Puri on why that is and also how to change the balance. So this morning I am looking to you for your recommendations, your favourite nonfiction book written by a woman. Maybe it's a memoir, history, travel writing or journalism, there are just some examples. It doesn't have to be over the past year. I'm talking about your favorites long term here. You can text the program the number is 84844 on social media we're at BBC Woman's Hour or you can send us a WhatsApp message or a voice note using the number 03700100444. Also Ellie Wilson will be back with us. She is a rape survivor who is campaigning to reform the parole process in Scotland to including all victims to attend

parole hearings. So we'll also discuss that. But first let me begin with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley who says that rooting out people who should not be in the force has been made harder. This is by a high court ruling that an officer accused of rape could not be dismissed because the process was fundamentally unfair. Speaking earlier on the Today programme, Mark Rowley said the government needed to resolve this issue within weeks and that there are currently 29 suspended officers sitting at home on taxpayers' money. So what does the ruling mean exactly and what could be the wider impact on women? In a moment

we will be speaking to the former Met Detective Superintendent Shabnam Chowdhury but first let us hear from our senior UK correspondent Sima Kitecha. Sima good to have you back with us. Tell us a little bit more about this ruling, it's complex in ways and also the catalyst for it. Yes of course, I'll try and make it accessible because it is as you say rather complicated. So over the last few years the Met police has seen scandal after scandal, whether it's racist WhatsApp messages, whether it's allegations of homophobia, misogyny, and of course, the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021 by a serving police officer.

All of that increased the pressure on Britain's largest force to change. So Mark Rowley got this job as commissioner two and a half years ago, and when he started, he said, I'm the man to change the force. I'm going to root out all the bad apples, and I'm gonna do that as quickly as possible so that trust in the

force will go up because trust at the moment in policing across the country is low. So yesterday's result was a big blow for him after the force lost a landmark case against Sergeant Lino De Maria. He took legal action after being dismissed over sexual assault allegations, sexual assault allegations he has vehemently denied and let's be clear, he has never been charged. The High Court ruled that an officer can't be sacked by removing their vetting clearance. So let me just explain that. The officer had argued that failing his vetting clearance and vetting clearance is background checks

on your finances, perhaps on your friendship groups, checking whether you have a criminal record and also seeing if there are patterns of behaviour that you have. The officer had argued that failing those checks, like I said, specific background checks without the accusations being proven was a breach of his right to a fair trial. And the High Court judge said, well, dismissal ought not to be imposed without an effective and fair hearing. So they're saying he doesn't have the right to respond to these allegations because he wasn't convicted in the court of law. Now the court, the Met Commissioner has said that this ruling now means that anybody

who fails these vetting checks will not be able to be dismissed and he's calling that absolutely absurd and saying that you know this is making his job of changing the image, changing the fact that you know people can can are not trusting the force, he wants to change that, he's saying that this is going to make it incredibly difficult. Now in her ruling, Mrs. Justice Lang said the Met didn't have the power to sack people because they failed those background checks. And the government, it says, needs to introduce new regulations for that to happen.

Now if you heard the Today program this morning, you will have heard the commissioner saying that he's putting pressure on the Home Office to change those regulations. He said that he's putting pressure on the Home Office to change those regulations. He said that he's been going on about it for years. Even the previous government, he was telling the Tories to do the same. The Home Office has told me it is acting rapidly

to ensure police forces can dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance. So now, with all of that explained, we know that the Met is appealing that decision but at the moment that officer is on vetting leave which along with others, 29 or so we understand who are on vetting leave and Sir Mark Rowley says that will cost millions and millions of people to be on that taxpayers money and it's something that he thinks is the best of

bad options he told me. And yes they didn't have a specific figure but I suppose the 29 people begins to give us an indication. We have got a statement from the Home Office, Seema, echoing a little of what you said there the government is acting rapidly to introduce new strengthened rules that will help forces dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance. There are clear processes already in place for forces to deal with any officer found facing allegations of misconduct. The government has also committed to introducing mandatory national vetting standards for all forces by the end of the year. But

that's different, that's going forward in a way what the Commissioner is looking at is looking back at people that are already in there and not specifically saying here how to deal with any officer found facing allegations of misconduct. Because I suppose Sir Mark Rowley is in this spot at the moment of needing change, he says, within weeks. But how likely could that be? Well yes he's saying weeks but I think the pressure he is I'm sure determined to put pressure on the Home Office to make this happen as quickly as possible but I mean this isn't just about the Met Police this is about forces across the country I mean obviously the Met is the largest force

in the UK but there are other forces that we've seen in recent years who've also been hit by scandals, police officers behaving inappropriately and being prejudicial. And so what experts are saying, those who look at this very carefully, is that this is going to have a ripple effect across those forces too, and they too will not be able to get rid of those officers that fail these vetting tests, those that they feel are untrustworthy and that they say is a big problem. But the other side of the coin is well you know this man hasn't been convicted by a court of law and there are some like the police federation who've argued his case that nobody should be dismissed for such serious allegations if they haven't actually been convicted.

And the Police Federation, the union that was supporting this action. I read the Home Office statement there and that's important particularly because the Police Commissioner seemed to be pointing the finger in the Today interview earlier on this morning at the Home Office and officials there but seem to not want to point the finger at either the current Labour government or the previous Conservative one. I mean who is he talking about exactly? Well I mean I think he's talking about the contemporary government at the moment because they're the ones that can make the change I guess but you know we know that the

pressure was on the previous government too. He's been in position for two and a half years. We know that the new Labour government announced last October that it would introduce rules to dismiss officers who did not pass the vetting process. And we also understand that the formal consultation on its proposals is closing this week. But yes, I think he's talking to Yvette Cooper directly at that point because like I said, I mean, there would be no point really from his perspective to be talking to the previous government. Thank you very much, Seema Kitecha, on the details of this ruling. I do want to speak to now Met Detective Superintendent Shabnam Chowdhury. First your response to the ruling. Good morning former Detective Superintendent sorry. Yeah obviously very very disappointing for the Metropolitan Police. Doesn't really come as any huge surprise. 29 officers who are sat on

vetting leave but when you think about it, it only took one officer to challenge what the MET don't have in place which is a legal framework to be able to sack officers who subsequently foul their vetting. My understanding is this officer had his vetting revoked based on the fact that whilst there was no case to answer, he was an officer that demonstrated serious concerns for the organisation. And there has to be, at the moment, a proper process that has to be followed, which is lengthy, which is time consuming, but at the end of the day, the Met have a legal duty in order to follow that process to be able to root

out those type of officers. When you talk about the lengthy process, are you talking about potentially those allegations that may be against an officer being followed through on in a court of law? Not necessarily in a court of law because some of these officers that sit at home on betting leave may never have been through a court process. They may be officers that were given sanctions on the disciplinary process, i.e. final written warning, 12 months written warning or no further action. And it's these officers that are now being targeted, that have been sat in policing for long periods of time, that the Met

Police have gone back after to do a review on their vetting status. And what they're actually saying is, whilst they may have passed their vetting process when they came into policing, had they applied for policing now they wouldn't pass the vetting process but that doesn't actually protect the organization and it doesn't actually protect those officers who have a right to a fair trial. I'm not condoning this at all because I think there are many officers that sit within policing who demonstrated red flag behaviours, who have a pattern of behaviour that need to ensure that they go through a process and they're sacked as quickly

as possible and that means revetting them. And I'll just add one point. In my 30 plus years of policing, you're supposed to bevetted every five years and every force across the UK or most forces across the UK failed in that process so a lot of them are playing actually catch-up. I mean would that solve the loophole that Sir Mark Rowley is speaking about? Well to a degree what it would actually do is there are police officers sat in policing who have within, whilst serving, got criminal convictions, didn't drive public order, that haven't actually notified policing of them. So what could happen is once their vetting is redone, they could basically say, well,

you didn't notify us of that, we weren't aware of that. We'll revet you. We'll put you through a gross misconduct panel, and then we can make a decision as to whether or not you should be sacked. But that's not what's actually happened. The vetting has just been revoked and they've been sacked without due process being followed. This is Woman's Hour. We've spoken many times about the Met Police and other police forces and their interaction with women, some who did not feel safe for a variety

of reasons. How can women trust the police now when they see a ruling like this, for example? Well, I've got to give some credit to Sir Mark Rowley and I think he's trying his level best to root out those officers. He has been very clear yesterday that those officers will remain on vetting leave, albeit on full pay, albeit with, they should be in possession of their warrant card, I don't know if that's been taken away from them. And their warrant card is? Warrant card is what officers use in order to effect arrest, to actually say who they are, to demonstrate that they hold the power of office.

And it's a very powerful tool that these officers carry. So if those officers do have possession of their warrant cards and whilst they're not in policing in terms of on the front line, they will still be out and about and if they come across a situation that they feel they want to interject with, I don't know what the rules are and the restrictions are for those officers. It may be that they are not allowed to do anything public facing or use their warrant card for anything that is law based. But what I would say is, look, I really, really want women to be able to trust the police, and I will still encourage them

to still come forward if there are officers within policing, because that's what we're talking about, who have demonstrated those red flag behaviours. Please do go forward and report it. You know, we've got to help to build the trust. There's no point in being negative about it, because there are thousands of police officers out there that will make sure that they get the right support so that offenders can be brought to justice.

Do you think that Sir Mark Rowley will get what he is looking for, as in swift action from the Home Office? I hope so because they are looking to put in an appeal for this failed judicial review. If that doesn't come into fruition very quickly, i.e. the new legislation, then I can't see how they could win an appeal process without any protection from the law, without a new legal framework. Former Met Detective Superintendent Shabnam Chowdhury, thanks very much and also to my colleague Senior UK Correspondent Seema Ketetcha on this story. Let me turn next to nurses. If you saw someone with the title nurse you'd

probably think they were qualified to treat you but did you know that anyone can legally call themselves a nurse regardless of qualifications? Yesterday in Parliament the Labour MP Dom Butler put forward a 10-minute rule bill. This is a type of private members bill seeking to make nurse a protected title in UK law. Now while the title registered nurse is protected by law, nurse is not. Here's a little offer speech from the House of Commons. My bill today is about protecting the public and respecting the training and qualifications and experiences of registered nurses.

Now I'm sure it would come as a shock to many people here today and watching this that anyone can actually call themselves a nurse, they can print out a business card and they can start work and that would be fine. That's currently legal. Even those who have been struck off the Nursing Regulatory Council for registered for serious misconduct or have a criminal conviction can continue calling themselves a nurse. Don Butler MP there, I'm joined now by Professor Alison Leary, Deputy President

of the Royal College of Nursing and a registered nurse who wants the change. Welcome. I suppose the first thing people might be asking is like, hang on, what sort of situations are we talking about here? Where might you encounter a nurse that in fact was not qualified? You might encounter people calling themselves nurses in a variety of different situations. So we've seen that this is very common in the NHS. You might encounter people calling themselves nurses in a variety of different situations. So we've seen that this is very common in the NHS. A field of information request by nursing standard just before Christmas showed that 93% of NHS trusts

employ people as nurses who have no nursing qualifications. And you'll also find this, we particularly hear about this in areas like schools, local authorities and prisons. So we see people employed as nurses but don't have nursing qualifications. And going back to the NHS, however, that you speak about there, where might somebody encounter a nurse? You're talking about they have additional medical qualifications but they're not doing the work of a registered nurse? Yes frequently they are doing the work of a registered nurse but obviously they're not going to perform in the same way that a registered nurse would. So we've

seen particularly in the last few years a policy of substituting other workers without registered nurse qualifications for nurses and still using the title nurse. So it's a various, there are various different aspects of risk involved in this. We know that if registered nurses are missing, we have 50 years worth of inquiries to show how dangerous that can be. So it's a very, you know, different situations and different types of workers that really are not helping us manage risk. So what are you looking for exactly? We are looking for protection of the title nursing law under the Professional Qualifications Act of 2022. Registered nurse is already protected but the

public need to understand who is looking after them. So it's much clearer about job types. So it's not necessarily individuals misusing the title nurse. This is actually employers calling people nurse when they have no nursing qualifications. And for example, I go out with people like district nurses, and I often meet people called district nurse, which is a registered nurse with additional qualifications to manage very high risk situations who have no nursing qualifications at all. So if you got the title nurse protected, what would that mean a nurse is? So we would we would like to see that protected so there is clarity clarity for the public so the title is not misused. But I mean what qualifications at the lowest level would somebody who you would agree with having the title nurse, what would they have? So it would be the same as people who are registered nurses currently on parts 1 and 2 of the nursing midwifery register. So for that is to be a registered nurse at level one or

two, which is the sort of baseline nursing qualification. But there are obviously employers that believe that the people that are employed using this title nurse are adequate to treat various people in whatever scenario it might be in? Yeah, absolutely. And sometimes I think it's because they don't really understand the role of the registered nurse. So we see this particularly with school nursing. So schools are employing people as nurses who might have perhaps a first aid qualification or be an administrative worker and have no medical qualifications whatsoever. And that's one of the ways that we quite often hear about from the public.

So a member of the public contacted me last week actually about this, whose child swallowed a battery and the school nurse, who wasn't actually a nurse, gave them advice about, you know, it will pass through them. Of course that's actually really risky. If you call her a battery, you must get medical attention. And fortunately, she didn't take any notice of that. And she took the child to hospital. So, you know, there's risk involved in that.

That may be alarming to some people that are listening. One, is there a register where people can check whether a nurse or what qualifications somebody who is deemed a nurse has? Yes, so registered nurses you can check and so you can also check registered nursing associates on the Nurse and Midwifery Council register. It's online. If you want to reassure yourself that you're seeing a registered nurse, then you can look on the NMC register. And also coming back to that point of employers, just as I think about it, you're targeting the title so to speak or the individuals with

this particular title, but is it not something to go up one level to those employers or people that are hiring them because there's nothing to stop them from hiring somebody who doesn't have qualifications even if the word nurse is protected? Yes absolutely but what employers won't be able to do is claim that those people are nurses and that will be think, a lot clearer to the public then. They'll know that actually they're not seeing a nurse, a registered nurse. Because if you think you're getting advice from a nurse

or you're getting treatment from a nurse, that comes with a certain level of trust. And that trust is important in terms of that relationship. And so if it's clear that you're not getting advice from a registered nurse, you may view that advice differently. So yesterday I mentioned the Labour MP Don Butler, she put through the 10 minute rule bill, played a little off it there yesterday. Your response to that and what do you expect to happen next? We fully

support Don Butler's 10 minute rule bill. We would like to see the title nurse protected in law and applied to the parts one and two of the nursing with Council register. We would like to see government and make this amendment to the professional qualifications act. It's actually quite a small amendment because registered nurse is already protected. We would like also the public to understand a lot more about the different types of people that they are seeing in health care. Currently in my database alone we have 77,000 job titles in the English NHS and that just paints a very confusing picture for patients and families. I want to thank you for joining us. That is Professor Alison Leary, Deputy

President of the Royal College of Nursing and a registered nurse. In response a Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson has told us, we hugely value and appreciate the work of nurses who work tirelessly day in and day out to care for patients up and down the country. This summer we will publish a refreshed workforce plan to ensure we have the staff we need so that patients are cared for by the right professional when and where they need it. There will be a second reading actually off the bill. I think it's March 28th so keep an eye on that one. Let me read some of the messages. I was asking for your nonfiction recommendations. We're going to talk a lot about nonfiction a

little later in the program. Here is one, The Slow Road to Tehran. This is by Rebecca Lowe, a young woman who has an inexperienced cyclist cycled from London to Tehran about 10 years ago. Very stimulating comic details as well. Everybody I lended to has loved it. That one is from Rosemary. Another best non-fiction, Brené Brown, Daring Greatly, An Atlas of the Heart, outstanding books written by her. If you'd like to add yours, 84844 is the way to get in. I'm Sarah Trelevin 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. Touch. Now, my next guest is campaigning to change the law in Scotland around parole hearings. She says victims should be allowed to attend their perpetrators parole hearings. Ellie Wilson was with us before you might remember her story. She was raped by her ex-boyfriend, Daniel McFarland, who was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

Last year, the parole board wrote to Ellie to ask if she wanted to make a written submission ahead of his parole hearing, which is set for this Friday. Ellie instead asked to attend in person because she wanted her voices heard at the hearing, but was told she was not allowed to attend. She joins me along with Harriet Johnson, who's a barrister and author of the book enough violence against women and how to end it, you're both very welcome. Let me start with you, Ellie. When you heard the parole hearing was

coming up, what went through your mind and also bring us to the point that why you want to be present? I think I was just shocked that it had come around so quickly. When my attacker was found guilty he was sentenced to five years and I thought to myself at that moment I was thinking five years right? That gives me long enough to rebuild my life. I'm still, I was still living in the address that he knew. And so I was looking forward to just having a bit of peace and quiet. But then it was two years into his sentence that I got that letter from the parole board inviting me to make a submission and I just couldn't believe how quickly it had come around. I

didn't feel like I'd had enough time to move on. I was still living in that same address and I still am now. And I just thought I wanted as much information as possible. If they were going to release him early, then surely I had a right to know why they had come to that decision. I think I'd found the criminal justice process when I was going through the court case to be so disempowering that I wanted to be a part of the parole decision. So you also, however, because I suppose you be a part of the parole decision. So you also, however, because I suppose you are part of the parole decision if you're submitting an impact statement, but you also wanted to be there.

Why? I think several reasons. First of all, is actually a pretty practical reason. It's that if I'm there in person, I know what the decision is there and then. I don't have to sit around and wait for a phone call, feeling racked with anxiety. I just know there and then.

But also I think for me, I just think that it was about feeling like I was a part of the process because this impacted my life, it has a direct impact on my life, it's not just about his life, it impacts me too and I felt like I deserved to understand why any decision was made. If he was going to be released I needed to know why and on what basis that was going to happen. I actually didn't realize when I applied to attend the hearing that I wouldn't actually be physically present there. I would be what's called

a silent observer. So I would observe the hearing, not even in the same room, but via a video link. So it was a very limited right in the first place just to essentially observe on a screen what was taking place. But yet even that right was denied to me. Did they give you a reason why? They told me that my rapist solicitor had lodged an objection to me attending and that the parole board had decided, and I quote, that it was not in the interests of justice for me to attend, which I find really, really difficult to understand.

I don't know how it's not in the interests of justice for a victim of a crime to attend, well, just to observe their attackers' parole hearing. You are now working to try and change the way the system is set up in Scotland when it comes to parole hearings. But I do want to bring in Harriet here. Can you talk us through the process of a parole hearing? Is it trying to figure out exactly whether it's safe to release that person? Yeah that's exactly what parole board hearing focuses on and I think that's what a lot of victims understandably find quite difficult.

You know, there are three sort of three judgmental parts to the criminal justice system, I suppose. There's the, you know, the guilt or innocence phase and then once guilt is established there's the sentencing phase and of course the victim very much has a role in both of those phases. But when it comes to the parole board hearing, their primary focus is to determine whether it's safe to release someone. And of course, in considering that, they look at the crime that was committed and as part of that, they look at the harm that was caused by that crime.

So the victim's voice is still present, but it's not the primary focus. The primary focus is whether it's safe to release that person. And it is different according to each UK nation. Could you tell us a little bit Scotland, as we know, Ellie is hoping that all victims could attend parole hearings but it's different circumstances why is that? Well I mean it's there are different laws in in Scotland and in Northern Ireland to the laws that are in place in England and Wales and there are similarities across the board so things for example

in England and Wales are slightly better for victims, they have slightly more rights, but again in England and Wales there isn't an automatic legal right to attend a parole board hearing. The parole board has to consider an application by the victim to be permitted to attend and they have to read their victim personal statement or have it read by someone else on their behalf unless there's a very good reason not to do so. You know that statement needs to be read by the victim or by somebody else. So it's things are slightly better in terms of victims voices being heard in England and Wales but you know in other jurisdictions so in parts of the US in Canada and across Europe in in South Australia, we see victims having a right to attend those parole board hearings to give their view and to let

it be known exactly what impact the release of that offender would have on them. Of course, there's no way to generalise, but have you come across many victims who do want to attend parole hearings? I have. I've also come across victims who, so I mean, we ought to say there is no victims aren't automatically told when the perpetrator of the crime against them is going to be released. You can sign up to something called the victim contact scheme if you're the victim of a violent or sexual crime, or if the person if the crime, the person who committed the crime is sentenced to more than 12

months in prison. And in that case you are told. But I have had women come to me who have, for example, found out that their rapist had been released when they saw him walking down the street, which is obviously horrific. But again, I mean, people process the trauma of something like a rape in very different ways. And I think, you know, some people do want to be at the parole board hearing, other people don't want to think about it ever again. And I think, I wonder if that's part of the reason why victims don't have an automatic right to make representations at parole board hearings is because all aspects of the justice system are concerned with fairness and that's one of the reasons why we have sentencing

guidelines for example to guard against a situation where two people could commit identical crimes and receive vastly different sentences from two different judges and I think that's part of the reason why the role of victims can be limited in parole board hearings because you could hypothetically have two identical men who'd committed identical crimes against identical women causing identical harm, but one victim could decide she was content for him to be released. Another could decide she wanted him to remain in prison.

And in those two situations, those two men could receive very different sentences. So I think that that's a situation that the justice system tries hard to avoid and I think that's the logic behind not necessarily giving victims a right to make representations about length of sentence once that sentence has been imposed. Yeah, what about that, Ali, that you're hearing that it comes down to with some of the laws trying to serve justice, basically? I mean, I take the point that fairness is incredibly important in the justice system.

But I would say that at present, we don't have a fair justice system. I think that a lot of the rights lie with the perpetrator or suspected perpetrator. I mean, think about it, even from the beginning when they're in court, they have their own lawyer, whereas a victim has no right to independent legal representation, they're just a witness. Then when it comes to if an offender has been found guilty, they then have numerous opportunities

to appeal their sentence opportunities to appeal their sentence and to appeal their conviction. My attacker attempted to appeal twice in the Scottish courts and then attempted to appeal twice to the UK Supreme Court. I had no opportunity to appeal his sentence. And then when it comes to parole, he has the, he can object to me simply observing the hearing, but I don't have access to information that impacts my life directly, which seems very unfair. I know you met with the Scottish First Minister John Swinney also with the Justice Minister Angela Constance about this. You obviously in this case wanted to attend the parole hearing.

What other changes are you asking for? So obviously I think that victims should have a legal right to observe these oral hearings when they take place. I also think that parole boards should give more weight to whether an offender has acknowledged their guilt or expressed remorse for their actions because my attacker continues to deny responsibility, he's continued to try and appeal and he blames me for his crimes. The other point that I want to change is I want communication with victims to be better. I want them to have their rights fully explained to them from the outset because when someone's arrested for a crime we read them their rights but we don't do that for victims at least

not in Scotland. So I want that communication to be enhanced because that would take away a lot of the anxiety if victims know what to expect and they know what rights they do have. I want to throw that back to Harriet just for a moment. I mean with parole does it ever come up whether an offender has admitted guilt or is remorseful? Does that play into it? Yeah, that is absolutely a factor that parole boards take into consideration. They take into consideration a wide range of factors, including things like courses that the offender might have undertaken in prison, other attempts at rehabilitation. facilitation but absolutely an acknowledgement of guilt and a display of remorse is something that's likely to weigh in favor of A person being granted parole because of course it's an indicator that that person understands the significance of their crime and therefore Potentially poses less of a risk to public safety and if they were to be released

So it is something that's taken into consideration, but I entirely understand, Ellie, wanting it to be given more weight. And coming back to you, you know, just one of the words that that Harriet is using there, that rehabilitation, which, you know, is always a discussion when it comes to prison. Do you subscribe to that notion of rehabilitation, whether it's in this case or not in the larger context? I mean, I think rehabilitation is important and it's something that we need to consider. I think for some offenders, rehabilitation will never be possible. And I question whether in my case it's possible.

I certainly think it's not possible when you've got an offender who's denying what they've done because if someone doesn't have insight into their behaviour, if they don't even believe they've committed a crime, then how can that person be rehabilitated? I think that they will continue to pose a risk to the public. Do you have faith in the parole boards? I don't. I have no faith whatsoever and I also have serious concerns about the lack of transparency. I don't understand why the public, why these hearings are hidden from the public. Even the factors by which they make their decisions, there's no clearly

accessible list of factors, at least for the Parole Board for Scotland, that they refer to when making decisions. I think that it is a secretive institution and I think that it's not really been held to account either. I do actually have a statement from the Scottish Parole Board as well, Ellie and Harriet. They told us a legal right for victims to attend parole hearings would require legislative change and it's a matter for Scottish ministers to consider. That said, the Board has taken a position whereby it will consider such requests. On the timing of the hearing they have said individuals must be considered on or around specific dates and considerations are scheduled

accordingly. The Board also needs to take into account the availability of panel members and witnesses. Just a quick reaction to that Ellie? I think that this statement is probably in reference to the fact that they have scheduled this parole hearing date for Valentine's Day which I had asked them to change and unfortunately they wouldn't change that. So I mean it's a generic statement I don't think it offers any real response to the criticisms that have been leveled against it. The last time I spoke to you, Ellie, it was the third of May, 2023, if people want to hear our original interview as well. But I realise this is coming up to a couple of years later. You've campaigned tirelessly about this issue.

And I'm wondering about personally what drives you or how much it takes out of you. I mean, it takes a lot out of me and it's not easy to do. I think when I waived my anonymity and I first started speaking out, I didn't know the amount of criticism that I would open myself up to. I've received rape threats. I've received death threats, I've had deep fake pornography made of me, and I never expected that to happen. I don't regret waving my anonymity,

and I think that for me wanting to make change for the people that will come after me is worth it. I've also found it to be hugely empowering taking on the system that I feel failed me in many ways. It's a huge driving force for me and I don't feel like I'm ready to give up trying to make change just yet. Ellie Wilson and Harry Johnson, thanks very much. Now we have been talking about non-fiction as well as a thread throughout the programme, a narrative throughout the programme. Here's some coming in from our listeners. Bessie Smith by

Jackie Kaye, excellent non-fiction. Here's another, A Loved Eileen by Sylvia Top, wife of George Orwell. She died tragically young. She was, though, a remarkable and successful woman, as well as being a rock for Orwell. Here's one from Jennifer, her suggestion. The Lady's Handbook for Her Mysterious Illness by Sarah Raimi. Amazingly written nonfiction about how medicine continues to fail women. Keep them coming. 84844. Because this year marks the 30th anniversary of the Women's Prize for Fiction. You might know it was co-founded by the bestselling author Kate Moss to recognise the literary achievement of female writers.

And the prize has been awarded to so many big hitters, Aidy Smith, to Amanda Ngozi Adichie, Maggie O'Farrell. That's just a few. But according to new research by the Women's Prize, although the situation for female fiction writers has improved significantly in the past 30 years, nonfiction is not faring so well. Here's the stat. I mentioned it at the top of the program, but it bears repeating. Only 34% of the top 500 nonfiction books in 2022 were written by women. Last year, the Women's Prize, you might remember this, awarded its inaugural

nonfiction category and the long list, the long list for the 2025 nonfiction prize was released this morning. I am joined by Kate Moss, this year's chair of the nonfiction prize and journalist and author Kavita Puri. Welcome to both of you. Good morning. Good morning. Just to say, Kavita Puri. Welcome to both of you. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Just to say Kavita is the chair of the prize. I'm the founder of the prize.

Kavita is chairing the non-listing panel. No, that is great. Forgive me for getting that wrong. So Kavita, I'll give you your full title. The chair of the non-fiction prize are very important this morning. I mean, I want to kind of just jump into those stats that we were hearing of there. 34% of the top 500 non-fiction books in 2022 were written by women. Why? Let me begin with you, Kavita. What do you think?

Well, I think, I mean, I think Kate can speak to this probably a lot better because the Women's Prize has conducted some really excellent research on this and I think that if you look at the beginning of the process to the end, whether it's what's commissioned, how writers are paid, to what gets reviewed, to who buys books, it seems that there are these kind of structural inequities throughout the system. So that's really why Kate founded the Non-Fiction Prize, to kind of redress that. So let's jump into that. Why do you think it's lagging, Kate? Well, I think there is still the idea of an expert being a man, actually.

So, you know, to put it plainly, so the idea that with non-fiction books, and boy do we need proper research, wonderful books of non-fiction at the moment, we're living in times of unparalleled misinformation, and so that is very important, it's where the truth lies in so far as we can find it. But what you discover is that even though we know there are women in science, in physics, in natural geography, in biology, in every single area, there is still the idea that when you need an expert a male voice is what is required or rather is often presented as a neutral voice. When women are asked they are often asked to talk about menopause or biography or child care and the bestseller lists reflect that,

that the books that do well are often those categories. So what we know is we don't know exactly the balance of books written in non-fiction by women and books written by men because that research has not been done by anybody, not even us, but what we do know is that men read books mostly by men and women read books by men and women, which means almost all the stats that we've shared with you, you know, so only a third of non-fiction reviews in national newspapers are by female writers for non-fiction, only a third of the best books in 2024, only a third of the top 500 non-fiction books. That's where you see that disparity. And publishing is a business. So if publishers feel that the books by women

are not gonna get reviewed, and therefore they are less likely to find an audience, then they are less likely to commission them in the first place. One of the reasons we set up the Women's Prize for Non-Fiction was to change all of that as well. Not just to shine a light on the incredible books

that were being published and were there. And there are so many of them, this long list, that shows us that. But actually to say, come on publishers, there are some incredible women writing in these fields out there. Go and find them, commission them, and then let the reader decide.

So that's always been our job with the Women's Prize. In a world that often is only talking about women as victims, is only talking about women in quite depressing ways in some ways. This is about celebrating, amplifying and honoring exceptional achievements in nonfiction by women. And this list just proves the books are there. And we will get to the list in just a moment, but I want to come back to you, Kavita, because you've written nonfiction.

just a moment, but I want to come back to you, Kavita, because you've written nonfiction. Did you ever think about or question that word being the expert or the authority on something? Did I do that? No, I didn't, but I think that that's because I was writing about an area. I wrote a book about the lived experience of people who lived through partition and nobody had done that and so perhaps I was the expert in that little tiny field. Well you were. But I myself didn't question that but I don't think it's about us questioning ourselves as women as experts, it's how other people perceive that and I think authority really matters and that I have to say is a

unifying theme of the 16 books that we have chosen because who are we saying are our experts, who are our thought leaders and surely part of the public and social discourse has to be women. We have so many, you know, so much expertise in so many areas and are we saying that we shouldn't be equal partners debating and discussing these ideas? So, you know, this isn't a nice to have. It is absolutely essential to the quality of discourse. It's important in society. Let me read some that are coming in. These are all long-term favorites of people when it comes to nonfiction and then

let's get to some of the books that are on the long list for the inaugural, or not the inaugural, let me see, the second year for the Women's Prize in Nonfiction. Here's Sarah in Exeter, her suggestion, I have a couple for you. House of Glass, Hadley Freeman, really intriguing, brilliantly written account of Freeman's research into our family's experience of the Second World War as Jewish. Fleeing Poland for Paris where Nazism caught up with them. Here's another from Sue, The Living Mountain by Nan Shepherd, written in the 40s. It describes the landscape in Scotland using a very personal female voice. A wonderful book. I always give it to my friends.

Six weeks of the Blenheim summer by Victoria Panton Bacon, a brilliant account of an RAF reconnaissance pilot at the fall of France in May 1939. So some history there, which sometimes people think of when they think of nonfiction. We sometimes think of these tomes. But of course, there's so many different types of books shall we hear a little Kavita of who's on the list is there something do you see a thread or is there anything that kind of unites some of the books that you're seeing on the long list?

Well 16 books is a lot and they are really different and and you know the genres are really wide and you know we have been talking about really different and the genres are really wide. We have been talking about women in authority and boy are there so many on this list. We've got geopolitics, we've got medicine, we've got science, we've got the natural world. But I think that there is probably two overarching themes when I look at this list. And one are books that talk to the really kind of pressing issues of our day, whether it's power or unchecked power, whether it's injustice, whether it's a human connection and that could be with each other or the natural world, or it's how we deal with like the biggest issue, one of the biggest issue of our time, which is climate change. But there's also, I think, a look at raising the spotlight on overlooked histories,

perspectives, and experiences as well, and whether that is... there are two books here looking at indigenous histories, whether it's experience of the care system or whether it's the lives of ordinary Chinese women which we rarely hear about. So I think those two strands telling us about something in our world today but also shinier light on stories where a light needs to be shone on. You have read all these books and been busy. Do you think women write non-fiction differently to men? I think what's really interesting going through not only this long list but also the books

that were submitted to us is they, in not all cases but a lot of cases, they do seem to defy genre. They are multidisciplinary. And there is also writers playing with form and structure as well. I don't think we can say women write differently or men write differently. But I do think there is something about how we categorise the writing. You know, you could call something memoir, but you could also call it nature or you could call it smart thinking. And so maybe that's something we can think about and how we categorize and therefore promote this kind of writing. And let me throw that back to Kate

again, because it is quite stark when you look at, I suppose, really how well women's fiction has been doing, probably in no small part to the Women's Prize as well, highlighting issues of it. I mean, what are you hoping to do, starting from that baseline that I was mentioning at the beginning, when it comes to women non-fiction writers just making up 34% of the top 500 bestsellers. What do you do on a day-to-day basis? On a day-to-day basis, when you buy and borrow the books that you hear about, you do what we do, which is promote a long list of 16 and then a short list of six and then a winner, but we promote all of the books to as wide a readership as possible.

So someone who has never thought that they want to read a book about one particular subject because they've read another book on the list. They find that if they're in a family of books, if you like, so they try other things. So that is about broadening reading. It is also exactly as Kefita said, is that within non-fiction, you know, I write fiction and non-fiction was a publisher of both, that the categories were and non-fiction was a publisher of both, that the categories were traditional and quite old-fashioned. Whereas we know because of the nature of women's history, because of the way the history has been written, that quite often women's stories were left out, they were not necessarily evidence wasn't in the archives, all of these kind of things, which means that quite often when women are writing they have to go a rather more meandering route than they would do from a

straightforward book that fits in one genre. So the idea of expanding people's perception of what a book is, you know, you don't have to say it can only be a memoir, it can be a memoir about environment. The final thing is really where I started, which is, you know, I was partly triggered to say to the board of women's prize for fiction, who is brilliant, you know, we've got to do this now. We've got to set up this prize because there was a moment a couple of summers ago when we had the prospect of two people being the unelected prime minister of the country, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. And so one woman, one man, and a list was put in the newspapers by a reputable newspaper with a reading list for the new incumbent of number 10.

And there were 10 books on each list and they were all by men. And so it comes back to that idea of let's say there is a market for exceptional writing, nonfiction writing by women. Readers want to hear about it. Men, women, everybody, they want the best. They want the person who knows. You know, if you need your brain fixed, you get a plumber.

You don't go and get someone who might have once, you know, seen a tap. And this is precisely the same thing with books in non-fiction is if we want to read about coding, we want to read about China, if we want to read about tyranny, let's go to somebody who has done the work into that. And women are doing that too. So it's never been about the women's prizes have never been about taking brilliant books by men out of the library. It's been

about expanding the library. And already the nonfiction prize, this is only the second year, but already has a huge head of steam behind it, if you like, because people are saying, I hadn't heard of these books, why haven't I heard of them? So beg, borrow and don't steal. Go ahead. And it's already happening. It's so interesting to see the reaction to the list today.

And people say, I've read some, but I've already ordered the books or I'm already gonna share these books. It's already happening. And these are books for everyone. There's something on it for everyone. I have to say, even just coming into your office now, there's a book about a Polish resistance female fighter, a woman who was in the war. And one of your production staff said, oh my goodness, my father was in the Polish resistance

too. I must read that book. And so it's happening. And I think that, you know, we are the younger sister of the Women's Prize. We're two years old. But look how the Women's Prize for fiction has totally changed the landscape for fiction. And I honestly believe that that will happen with a nonfiction prize as well. In terms of, you know, I hope that more books will be submitted on areas that are currently underrepresented more broadly like economics and philosophy and current affairs and that this will be a prize that that female writers all around the world will want to win and

submit for. It was doppelganger Naomi Klein last year for the inaugural prize really interesting as well. Where can people see the list because I know I'm It was doppelganger Naomi Klein last year for the inaugural prize. Really interesting as well. Where can people see the list? Because I know I'm not going to read out 16 right now. So the list is on the Women's Prize website and it's all across social media right now. All 16 and hopefully all bookstores will be stocked up with them. I just want to read a few more coming in.

My favourite non-fiction book written by a woman is Stone Will Answer by the artist Letter Carver and stonemason Beatrice Searle about how she came to learn and love stone. I love the beautifully crafted writing, it's so vivid and thoughtful and concise. I would recommend it to everyone. That's Ellie in Leeds. Kate in Worthing.thing, favorite nonfiction recently is An African History of Africa by Zaina Badawi of this parish formerly. On Chapel Sounds by Laura Cumming, a beautiful piece of storytelling about her grandparents

through the lens of one photograph and so skillfully woven. So obviously people are very much reading them. They have some more that they need to read. It is on the long list. I want to thank Kate Moss and also Kavita Puri for coming in to our studio. Kavita, Kate, I have trained council, so you're on the line with me. Next month on Woman's Hour, we will be talking to long listed

fiction and nonfiction authors as well as some past winners. So make sure you tune in for that one as well as some past winners so make sure you tune in for that one as well. I'm going to continue reading a couple more of the messages that came in. Here is Wilding by Isabella Tree. Oh yes, Isabella Tree about rewilding the estate has been one of her favourite nonfiction books in the past few years. The climate impact of projects like this is essential and this book has taught me more about nature, farming, trees and wildlife than I could ever describe. A wonderful poetic book for one that is so jam-packed with facts

warning it will make you want to up sticks and live in the country and roof wild some land. That is Rachel Gettinton in touch and Lee on sea. Right I want to let you know you don't want to miss tomorrow. Anita will be live from the set of EastEnders in the Fox & Hare Salon where she'll be celebrating 40 years of the BBC soap that has given us drama, intrigue, romance and some of our most beloved characters. There'll be all about the storylines that have involved women as well as the strong female characters that have featured in Extenders over the past

four decades. So we will hear from Diane Parrish and Kelly Bright who played Denise Fox and Linda Carter. 10am tomorrow Fox and Air Salon or on your radio or however you listen to Woman's Hour that will be tomorrow. Don't miss it. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. Hello, Greg Jenner here. I am the host of You're Dead to Me from BBC Radio 4. We are the That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. to the history of coffee, to the reign of Catherine of Medici of France. We are looking at the Arts and Crafts movement and the life of Sojourner Truth, and how cuneiform writing systems worked in the Bronze Age. Loads of different stuff. It's a fantastic series. It's funny. We get great historians.

We get great comedians. So if you want to listen to Your Dead to Me, listen first on BBC Sounds. I'm Sarah Trelevin, 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.