Woman's Hour - Royal state visit to US and Epstein survivors, Abortion law, Plastic waste art

Episode Date: April 28, 2026

King Charles and Queen Camilla are on their four-day state visit to the United States. Today King Charles will address the US Congress. But at the same time, survivors of the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the family of one of his most prominent victims, Virginia Giuffre, have urged the King to meet them during his state visit. A round table featuring Epstein survivors is planned ahead of his meeting to Congress. Joining Chloe Tilley is India McTaggart, royal correspondent for the Telegraph.This week, a significant change to abortion law in England and Wales is expected to receive Royal Assent - meaning it will become law. An amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill will remove criminal liability for women who end their own pregnancies. But while supporters of the bill believe this is about preventing vulnerable women from being prosecuted, critics argue that it risks reducing safeguards and say the change hasn’t had sufficient scrutiny. We hear from Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi and historian Dr Jessica Cox from Brunel University. Millions of Indians have been voting in elections across five states in a set of contests. We'll look at why the number of female voters in India has significantly increased in the last few decades - outnumbering male voters in the last general election - and how the female vote is changing politics in India.Single-use plastic waste was found on 97% of the beaches surveyed by the Marine Conservation Society in the UK and Channel Islands last year. But one woman who's passionate about changing that is Sammie Aplin. Sammie, who is known online as The Plastic Coast, is a nurse who spends her spare time combing beaches, searching for plastic waste which she uses to create colourful artwork. She joins Chloe to share why she wanted to do something about it.Presenter: Chloe Tilley Producer: Kirsty Starkey

Hello, this is Chloe Tilly and you're listening to The Woman's Our podcast. Good morning and welcome to the program. Now, it's been seen as one of the most challenging state visits on the first full day of King Charles and Queen Camilla's visit to the US. The King will address Congress, but in amongst the focus on the strains and the special relationship, survivors of Geoffrey Epstein are unhappy that they won't get to meet the King. Survivors are urging him to do the right thing. Buckingham Palace says a meeting won't happen. because of concerns about jeopardising the legal processes.

We're going to look at the potential for this to overshadow the state visit. Also, the Labour MP who has been pushing for a change in the law so women aren't criminalised for ending their own pregnancies in England and Wales is expecting to see it happen this week. Tanya Antonazi has spoken about her own experience of abortion and how that's influenced her thinking. But critics argue there aren't enough safeguards in place. She's going to join us along with Dr Jessica Cox,

who will place this moment into some historical context for us. Plus, millions of people living in five states in India are voting in elections and amongst them a huge and growing number of women. We're getting to look at what's driving their participation and whether political parties giving cash handouts to women could be viewed as an attempt to buy their votes or empower them to change their lives. And we're also going to speak at the end of the program to the nurse who, during her COVID walks to work, was inspired to clear litter from Brighton Beach and then turn it into art.

As ever, do add your experience to the stories we're talking about this morning. You can text us on 84844. On social media, we're at BBC Woman's Hour, or you can send us a WhatsApp [phone]. But let's begin by talking about what you were hearing there in the news that the King and Queen are on their four-day state visit to the United States. It marks the first British state. visit to the US since Queen Elizabeth the second's trip back in 2007. And it comes at a pivotal moment when the relationship between the Prime Minister and President Trump has been described as fractious. There are hopes that this visit could smooth things over. Well, today, King Charles will address the US Congress. But survivors of the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the family of one of

his most prominent victims, Virginia Dufray, urging the king to meet them during his trip, A round table of Epstein's survivors on the issue is also planned ahead of the address to Congress. I'm delighted to say we can speak now to India McTaggart, who is Royal Correspondent for the Telegraph. Thanks for coming in. First of all, we talk about a round table. Just tell us who's going to be there and what form this will take. So this round table is organised by Congressman Roe Kana, who has been the one spearheading the sort of cross-bench publication of the Geoffrey Epstein files. So he is convening this roundtable today, as you said, featuring Epstein's survivors most prominently, and also including Virginia Jafray's relatives, Sky and Amanda Roberts.

So she will be honoured there since it is the anniversary of her death as well. So the event, which will also feature advocacy groups, aims to basically just highlight the failures in systems that allowed this trafficking and abuse to take place in the first place. And survivors are also expected around the King's state visit and events today to hold memorial vigils and demonstrate near the Washington Monument in the White House. And it's basically just using the state visit to raise awareness and to ensure the voices of survivors are heard in this process. Is this going to be happening at around the same time that the King will be addressing Congress? We believe so, yes. And that's sort of intentional. There's been a lot of pressure on the King and Queen to meet with the Epstein survivors during. this trip. Buckingham Palace has held firm that they do not want to jeopardise the ongoing legal

processes going on in the UK, into Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, into Lord Peter Mandelson. So they have decided not to. They said that the Queen would mark the occasion because she's been a lifelong campaigner against domestic violence. So she would mark the occasion in another way, expected through the engagements. And actually, we saw that she did meet with domestic abuse. violence campaigners yesterday at the Garden Party at the British Embassy. So that was the Queen's way of marking the moment. We have had previous statements in and amongst the statements about Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, the King and Queen have just said, you know, let's keep the focus on the survivors and make sure that justice is delivered for them. But it's still a thorny issue

and it's still, you know, I'm not sure in the US whether this reasoning has, has really been taken on board in the way or accepted in the way it has here. Well, let's unpick some of those issues that you raise there and that are potentially going to be tricky for the King and the Queen over the next few days during this state visit to the US. Survivors and family members have been calling for King Charles to meet them. You mentioned Sky Roberts. Well, on news night on Friday, Sky Roberts, who's the brother of the late Virginia Dufray,

the most outspoken survivor of Geoffrey, explained why he felt it was important to see the king. We need the king of England to stand up and show his unity with survivors. We will be 10 minutes from him. And all we ask is for a 10-minute meeting with the king to show him that we're real people with real feelings. And it just so happens that he and I have crossed paths in the sense that his brother is accused and in the files with abusing my sister.

Well, here, Theresa Helm, one of Jeffrey Epstein's survivors, tells the BBC's Nardotorfic why a meeting with the king would be important to her. It would really support and demonstrate this gesture of human dignity that we are seen and acknowledge and respected and worthwhile, worth the king's time. I don't believe that there's a survivor out there that's not worth the king or any king. or any person's time. There's certainly been some movement forward by the king that has shown that survivors

deserve justice and that, you know, no one including his very own brother is above the law. And again, I can't say enough. I have a lot of respect for that. His already showed demonstration of support for the process is respectable. And this would be another pretty grand step, I think. supportive survivors. We should reiterate that Andrew Mountbatten-Winzer has always denied any wrongdoing. India, you mentioned that a Buckingham Palace source confirmed that the king and the Queen aren't going to meet with survivors during this US state visit because of the possibility

of jeopardising legal proceedings. Tell us more about their thinking. Yes. So it's in relation to His Majesty's clear constitutional position, not least with regards to the judicial process. That is why they are concerned that for the victim's own sake, they want justice to be delivered. They want this investigation that's ongoing in the UK into Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor, and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, to be as sort of airtight as possible. And the quote from a Buckingham Palace source that we got is, even though the risk may be small that a meeting or any public comments could impact on those inquiries or the proper course of the law, that is a risk we simply can't take for the best interest.

for the survivors themselves. That is their position. As the clip you just played, it was, you know, mentioned that he has already done a great deal in elevating their story and in saying that he will support wholeheartedly the judicial process into his brother. Nobody is above the law. The palace has been clear that they are going to be helping in any possible way that they can. Britain has also done more in investigating and starting ongoing procedures into the friends and sort of, cohort of Jeffrey Epstein than the US, that's absolutely without question as well. So I think it's definitely not fair to say that he isn't doing his part, but I think because of his clear constitutional position, it's a really tricky one for him to navigate in terms of actually meeting them. Is there a danger this could overshadow the US state visit? I think it won't overshadow the US state visit. Of course. course, it is such an important issue and nobody is questioning that. But I think this US visit, primarily, you know, at the behest of the foreign office, is for the UK to repair relations with the US.

It is to fortify our trade links. It is to, you know, pay tribute to our shared democratic values, to peace and prosperity, to our relationship with them. I mean, it's much, it's as much of a rescue mission of the bilateral relationship as it is a celebratory visit for the 250th anniversary of American independence. So I don't think there's a risk that this issue will overshadow it, but I think this issue does play a part and is a criticism that people, of course, are levelling at the royal family because people are very unhappy that Andrew was allowed to get away with, you know, what he was allowed to get away with and living at Royal Lodge and the litany of issues regarding that. But I think the king has done all.

he can now to sort of put this all in the public sphere above board, make sure that he's being as transparent as possible. And I think he's going to be doing his, you know, public service duty in the US as acting as a global statesman representing British issues to Trump and trying to bend the president's ear on some issues that he's been disagreeing with Starmor on. Yeah. I mean, it's worth saying, of course, Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor denies any wrongdoing whatsoever. Is this problematic for the Queen because we know that an issue close to her heart is tackling domestic abuse and protecting women? You mentioned that she actually met some survivors of domestic abuse at a garden party yesterday, but some people will still say that's not going far

enough. She did meet, yes, she met domestic violence campaigners at the Garden Party yesterday and that was probably specially put in the itinerary because she wanted to champion this cause as she does, as she has in her lifelong sort of royal duties. She has made this cause central to her mission. And, you know, she produced a documentary about this. She's been very upfront about the issues facing women in domestic violence. She's talked about her own experience on a train. being accosted when she was a teenager. So she has done more to sort of bring this issue to light than any other member of the royal family.

So to your point, yes, of course, it would be more important to her and for her to show her dedication to this cause. And I think that in as far as she could, this was the way that it was managed. And that Buckingham Palace, you know, consulting with their lawyers, felt that they couldn't do more, that they couldn't have these face-to-face meetings with Epstein's victims. That's not to say that it's going to always be off the table. Well, that's what I wanted to ask. Do you see a time in the future when there could potentially be a meeting between the King and Survivor?

Absolutely. I think that that is definitely on the cards if the investigation is closed and done. And there is no chance for that to be jeopardised. I think the Queen would be very keen to meet them. And I think that fits in perfectly with her campaigning. and what she holds close to her heart and helping women navigate these issues. So I don't think that's off the cards.

I just think temporarily it is. And the focus of the state visit isn't on that. It is on repairing the bilateral relationship. You mentioned at the beginning of our conversation, Rokohana, who's the Democratic congressman, who's really spearheaded the publication of the Epstein files. It gets quite confusing when there's this kind of drip, drip of them being released. Where are we with the Epstein files?

Are there more to be released? I mean, surprisingly, we are not even halfway through them. So he is still spearheading this effort. And actually, yeah, almost half of an estimated 6 million documents in the Epstein files are yet to be released. It's unclear when we're going to get them. The last release was damning. I mean, three million documents, I bought over it for a month. But many of my colleagues were, you know, looking into various different people.

it's deeply complicated because you're sort of going through all the correspondence and there are so many different characters in Epstein's web that he created and whether we're talking about the powerful businessmen that he courted, the people in public service that he courted, the network of women then that it's sort of indescribably complicated to go through all of it. But it's, yeah, we're still waiting for millions more to come And, you know, who knows what will be in that kind of correspondence. But if it's anything like the last time, then I'm sure we're going to have more investigations and sort of more public apologies and people having to step down with, you know, extraordinary circumstances.

And to focus on what's happening today, we're expecting the King to address Congress. Is it around 4pm UK time? Yes, yeah. We're expecting the King to address a joint session of Congress this afternoon, which will be sort of political. heavyweight moment in this trip because he's going to reference NATO, he's going to reference the Middle East, he's going to reference Ukraine, and he's going to talk about his own service in the Royal Navy, which is going to be significant because, you know, Trump and Pete Huggseth have taken to mocking the Navy and the size of it and our defence budget and all of that.

So it's going to be a very pointed sort of deft, soft diplomacy from the King, as he is so well-known for and as the royal family are sort of uniquely in a position to deliver. Yeah, it's going to be a tricky day, isn't it, for the King to navigate through that. Thank you for coming in to speak to us this morning. That's India McTaggart, Royal Correspondent for The Telegraph. Now, if you missed last week, Spice Girl, Melanie C, joining Anita in the studio. She was here to talk about her new studio album, Sweat. Here's a little taster.

She told Anita about the backstory behind the eye-catching album artwork. where you can see echoes of flash dance and a bit of a Jane Fonda vibe. I am sporty spice. You know, I've tried to run away from her, and it's ridiculous because I am her. I love being fit, and I have been most of my life. But I've never been confident enough to show it. And now I make this record in my 50s,

and I'm wearing, you know, the most revealing outfits I've ever worn, you know? And I just thought, you know what, I've got to document this before it's too late. And, you know, I also want to say, because I think it's really important to note. I look incredible on this artwork. I worked really hard to get to that point. I took two weeks to really hone in on my nutrition and working out, sometimes doing sessions twice a day,

really specifically for that shoot. Thank you for sharing that. Yeah. Because you're right, because people, women will look at that, young girls and go, oh, how do I get that? Is there a quick way of being that? I can't look like that every day of the week. I don't look like that now.

But leading up to that shoot, that is the image I wanted to create. And I think it's really dangerous now with Instagram because there are so many people on there that are presenting these images and they're just not sustainable or they're not sustainable in a healthy way. So yeah, I think it's really important to say you can look like that, but not all the time. Well worth listening to that whole interview with Melanie C. You can seek it out on BBC Sounds. Now, this week, a significant change to abortion legislation in England and Wales is expected to receive royal assent, meaning it will become law.

An amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill will remove criminal liability for women who end their own pregnancies. This comes as legislation to pardon women who've been convicted of illegal abortions recently passed its final parliamentary stage. But while supporters of the bill believe this is about preventing vulnerable women from being prosecuted, Critics argue that it risks reducing safeguards and say the change hasn't had sufficient scrutiny. And of course we should always remember that abortion is such a controversial and emotive topic with strong views on all sides. So just to recap, the current law in England and Wales states that abortion is legal, but it's allowed up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy and beyond in circumstances, such as if a woman's life is in danger. Women can also take medication at home to terminate their pregnancies under 10 weeks. Well, here with me in the Women's Our studio, Labour MP for Gower, Tonya Antonasi, who supported the amendment.

Morning to you, thanks for coming in. And also with us, Dr Jessica Cox from Brunel University of London, author of confinement, the hidden history of maternal bodies in 19th century Britain. Thank you also for coming in. Tonya, first of all, just explain to us what this change will. actually mean for women? The change for women is huge because we've seen about 100 cases in the last few years of women being picked up by the criminal system and being questioned about the termination

of their pregnancy. But it pulls the current law into line with the law in 50 other countries and Northern Ireland where women are not criminalised for the... you know, end in a pregnancy. A hundred women, you say, have been impacted by this. Give us some ideas of some of the stories that you've heard. Well, I met Nicola Packer. Her story was that she had access telemedicine,

hadn't known how far gone she was. It was during COVID. And she went to the hospital, having given birth to the fetus, and they dated it, and they reported her to the police. and then she was taken into custody and she was treated like a criminal. And that case went on for nearly five years and it went to the Crown Court where I met her last year and she was put under huge scrutiny, which was completely unnecessary and at a great cost to her wellbeing

and to her pocket because it cost a lot of money. And it was just heartbreaking to see having experienced determination myself and knowing how vulnerable. you feel and how lonely you feel to have had such huge scrutiny and to be put in that position where her browsing history was being read out, her sex life was being discussed, where that's nobody's business. And I feel that to see somebody being put in that position and then to be thrown out of court,

it really does show that it was a waste of time, a waste to the public purse, and it's not in the interest of anybody, particularly, vulnerable women to be put in that situation. You mentioned your own experience of abortion. How has that shaped your view? Of course it shaped your view on this. But tell us how. I was in a situation where I've been brought,

we were discussing this earlier. I've been brought up a Catholic, Catholic education. And having, you know, I was a student at the time. And I didn't know where to turn. I couldn't go to my parents. They didn't have that kind of ability to be able to discuss it. and it was actually my older brother at the time that was very supportive and his wife

and they helped me. Again, I had another pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, when I was a mum. And I had to juggle that between work. It was over the Christmas period. I had to wait to access the pills and have an appointment. And so it took so long and it was just so awful.

And when you know how lonely and vulnerable you are, just seeing it happened to another woman and to be accused of actually wanting to terminate your pregnancy and that wasn't necessarily the case because if Nicola Paggar had known how far gone she was, she wouldn't have done it. And that was her daughter. And I feel so strongly that women are being put and treated

and controlled by a legal system that is making it more unsafe for them because they have that fear that if they go to the hospital or they access any medication, that they may be criminalised. What this law does, it's very simple. It decriminalises the woman.

It doesn't change the Abortion Act. It doesn't change the terms of the Abortion Act. And it's interesting you say that, because there are, of course, people who are opposed to this, who are critics of this, who are uncomfortable to say the very least with this. The amendment sits within the wider crime and policing bill. The Conservative Peer, Baroness Moncton,

has previously argued that more scrutiny should have been required. before the amendment was added to that bill. What do you say to that? I completely disagree with it because there have been nine debates recently. This was actually put into the crime and policing bill before the last general election. There have been many debates on abortion and decriminalisation. And actually, the good lords passed, you know, five years ago, the law and decriminalising women in Northern Ireland. So, you know, this is something that has been debated at length.

and it has been discussed, you know, amongst, you know, cross party. And this had cross party support, huge amount of MPs voted for it. So did they did in the Lords and it has now passed. And I totally disagree respectfully that there hasn't been enough debate. This debate has been ongoing for many years. So for clarity, does this change in the law mean that women could end a pregnancy at full term without sanctions? women do not choose to terminate their pregnancy up to 40 weeks. It's not something that they do.

If something has happened, I know, I suppose, Jonathan Lord, who is a gynecologist, has explained very, very clearly that if pills are accessed, then it would probably be a normal birth. So to say that this is abortion up to 40 weeks is actually wrong. We need women to get the right healthcare at the right time. We've seen more women accessing telemedicine within the 10-week period. We've seen safer abortions as a result of the introduction of telemedicine. So the counter-argument doesn't actually stand.

We are decriminalising. All we are doing is decriminalising women. If a doctor has performed an abortion post 24 weeks, they are still, under the Abortion Act, they are criminalised and so is a coercive partner. So you say the safeguards are in place? Yes, they are. Okay. This is, as I say, it's a controversial. It's an emotive subject.

Does that mean that you have faced a backlash for what you've done? Well, there has been backlash, but I haven't been. I was the lead name on the amendment and I have. have led on this, but there are many, many, many MPs and peers who I've worked with. There has been a backlash. There have been death threats. Things like that have to be then passed on to the police. And, you know, I've had people outside my office with photos of myself and of fetuses. And, you know, luckily we have, the police have been very supportive. So is the house. You know, so I, you know, there is backlash and it's not very.

pleasant, but we've done the right thing. We've changed the law and we are supporting women. Tony Antonasi, thank you. I want to turn to Dr. Jessica Cox from Brunel University of London, really to just give us a kind of historical context if we can. In that context of history, if we're looking at England and Wales, how significant is this moment? It is significant and I think very welcome. The legislation which continues to govern abortion in this country dates back to 1861, so it's been on the statute books for a long time. The first piece of legislation was passed in 1803, criminalising abortion. So there's a very long history of criminalising abortion. And we were discussing previously, criminalising abortion

has lots and lots of evidence that it makes no significant difference to a number of abortions that are performed, where it does make a difference is to maternal mortality. So more women die when they are trying to access illegal abortion in whatever form. Just expand on that because you're saying that when it's criminalised, it doesn't reduce the amount of abortion. Just explain why that is. Women have sought to end unwanted pregnancies since the beginning of time. Women can not always prevent pregnancy.

This was particularly the case in the past, so in the 19th century where my work is particularly rooted. Very, very difficult to prevent pregnancy. of knowledge about contraception, lack of ability to employ any form of contraception. Marital rape wasn't criminalised, as I'm sure you know, until 1991 in this country. So preventing pregnancy was very difficult. In some respects, terminating a pregnancy was easier than preventing the pregnancy. So it's always been the case that abortion has been used by women as a means of controlling their fertility. And the law has sought to regulate it for right

wrong over, you know, for the last over 250 years now. Parliament is moving to pardon women convicted of illegal abortions. From a historical justice perspective, how significant would you say that is? I think it's very important. My understanding is they're looking to pardon cases of recent convictions and I'm assuming it's not going to go back to the 19th century. I mean, these women were unjustly treated a lot of the time through the process that criminalised abortion. There's hundreds of records of these cases, you know, in the old Bailey records, going back to the Victorian period.

Well, tell us about some of those kind of older cases and incidents. You know, lots of similarities. They're often, but not always single women. For single women in particular in the 19th century and unwanted pregnancy was very, very damaging, both in terms of reputation, practically. in terms of being able to work. And also in terms of finances, so the 1834 Poor Law Act meant that fathers of illegitimate children

did not have to pay any contribution towards their illegitimate child. The entire financial burden fell on the mother. But it wasn't just single women who were having terminations, and it wasn't just poorer women. You know, it was across the social spectrum. It was easier, the more money you had

to cover up an abortion. It was perhaps likely that you'd have an abortion in slightly safer circumstances, although the medical knowledge at the time meant that it wasn't a safe practice, no matter how much money you had really. But it's been there as something that women used to control fertility and to control their bodies

in the face of a legal system which has repeatedly thought to control women's bodies. Well, I wanted to ask you that, whether you thought, if we look at this through history, who's had the most power over pregnant women bodies? Has it been the law? Has it been doctors? I mean, dare I ask, has it been women themselves? I think we probably agree it's not the women themselves who've had that power. The law was not always enforced, so abortion was really quite widespread for the reasons I've mentioned in the 19th century.

And yes, there's lots of criminal cases. You look at the newspapers, there's lots of sensational reports of women dying as a result of illegal operations and so on. But actually what sort of flies beneath the historical record because it doesn't leave any record a lot of the time is the abortions that were successfully carried out. And for some women were used fairly routinely because if you had no means of preventing pregnancy, you could be looking at 20 years of being pregnant pretty much every single year. And so it was a practical solution for a lot of women. I'm just wondering what it says about how women's bodies have been viewed and how that has changed over time and where that control moves to. Do you think the control moves more sufficiently to women now?

I'm not sure if control moves to. I mean, it takes, what this legislation does is it takes away this threat that women are under. You know, there is a backlash against it, as you said, it's a very, very emotive issue. There will not be cues of women thinking, oh, great, I can terminate my pregnancy after 24 weeks now. That's simply not the case. The women, in the cases that have been mentioned, are in incredibly difficult, incredibly challenging circumstances, tragic circumstances, a lot of them. And what this does is just remove scrutiny.

And it removes scrutiny for all women who've suffered pregnancy loss as well. I think it was the BBC a few years ago. It carried out an investigation and found that an incredible, number of women were being looked at, were being investigated for possible abort-inducing abortion. This legislation will stop that from happening. You know, the stories of women who have suffered late miscarriages

who have been interrogated on hospital wards by, you know, nursing staff and sometimes the police as well. You know, this prevents that kind of thing from happening. So it's very welcome, I think. You're nodding, Tonya. I totally agree. I think any fear that a woman has regarding a baby loss, you know, and to be questioned,

if you have a loss of a baby loss experience, it's the most horrific thing in the world. And so for that woman to then be questioned. And I've also seen it, even quite, you know, locally we've seen a case because the law hasn't actually changed until Royal Ascent on Thursday. You know, there are still means by which people are being referred to the police and to the coroner. And therefore, that will stop and that fear for women will be taken away. And I really do welcome it.

Thank you both so much for coming in. Really good to speak to you both today. You heard there from the Labour MP for Gower, Tonya Antonasi, who supported this amendment and also from Dr Jessica Cox from Brunel University in London. Thank you so much. This is a woman's hour. Let's turn our attention now to elections in India

because currently millions are voting. in elections across five states in a set of contests, which seems really is a way to gauge support for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. According to India's election commission, the five regions have a combined 174 million voters. That's around 18% of the country's electorate. What makes these elections significant is that the female vote has become a battleground for politicians in a way that it hasn't been before. That's because the number of female voters in India,

has significantly increased in the last few decades, and they even outnumbered male voters in the last general election back in 2024. Well, to discuss the growth in women's participation, and indeed how it's changing politics in India, I'm joined by Mukalika Banerjee, who is Professor of Social Anthropology at the London School of Economics, and we're also joined by BBC senior correspondent in India, Davia Aria. Thank you both so much for being with us this morning.

I wonder if we can talk, first of all, about participation. Divi, tell us if you would. How many women are engaged in this? And how much has it grown in recent times? Well, great to be back on the program, Chloe. And for women's participation, it's important to remember that India granted women voting rights when it adopted its constitution back in 1950 when it gained independence. So women have had the right to vote all these.

years and equally as men. But if you look at how many women were voting compared to men, there was a huge gap when we started out. And as things have improved in terms of levels of education, empowerment in terms of women's participation in the workforce, and various government programs that target them or value them as voters, all of that has led to a huge jump in the number of women participating. So the number of men participating, not the number, but the proportion has remained around 60 to 65, like pretty constant. But for women, it's gone from 48 to now a little over men nationally. And even in the current elections season that we are witnessing, women are either neck to neck with men or marginally exceeding them in their turnout at the

voting booth. Mukalika, why is it that more women are voting? I mean, some people may say, is it down to rising literacy levels, is it down to more women working, or is that just too simplified? Well, India's bucked the trend of other democracies where, in fact, turnout figures haven't always corresponded to education levels. Poor, illiterate, rural, low-cast women are much more likely to vote than, say, upper-cast urban men. So there has been very high participation amongst socially disadvantaged groups all along and certainly since the turn of the century. So, Divya, does it mean if more women are voting and more women are engaged that actually political parties are looking at policies that particularly attract women? Oh, absolutely. And I think the media is also paying attention to those policies more and reporting them more, leading to.

higher awareness of it. So in a way, the men and the women both understand that political parties have woken up to this idea of what is locally called a vote bank in India, so a bank of votes. So they look at women as a homogeneous community, a vote bank that political parties were not tapping into earlier. So if I were to talk about the current elections, we've seen, especially in the last 15 to 20 years, if you see there are particular government policies that would encourage, for example, girls to remain in school. So they would give some financial incentive to the family if their daughter crosses a certain number of years in school. And that would continue so that the girls don't drop out, which is what they usually do. Similarly, when to discourage child

marriage, which is marriage before the legal age of marriage, which is 18 for girls, again, there's a financial incentive if you're marrying your daughter after she turns 18. So all of these girls are then eventually going to become voters, right? And for adult women, there's a financial incentive to just give them some money in their own bank account, some financial autonomy, even if it's a small amount of money. So all of these government policies targeting the benefit or the, you know, enhancement of women's lived experience in the country, which is in a way valuing them, also attracting them to come and vote for the political party. And that could mean that a woman who was not voting earlier,

who was not being valued by her family enough to be asked to go and vote, would now herself want to go and vote because she feels valued by the government, by the political parties and is being wooed. Talking about the money aspect there that Divya mentioned Mikulika, there are parties, political parties offering cash to women. Some people see this as a way or an attempt to buy vogue. votes. Other people say, well, no, this is about empowering women. Where are you on that? Vote buying has never worked in India. People take money from all political parties and then vote

for the one they want to. We must remember that in India, nearly two-thirds of the population relies on free food rations to survive. The economic scenario is very grim. So women being given cash means families can eat. Children can be taken to the doctor. Women invest that money to make sure their households can survive, which is why women have been the beneficiaries, the targets of these particular welfare schemes. I mean, some people have said, and I've read in fact that there's one woman who is running in the West Bengal elections, Dipsi to Dar,

who says that should be better to raise living standards through higher wages and improve working conditions rather than giving gifts from politicians, which, well, to quote her, risk disappearing the moment they're booted out of office. I mean, there's a logic to that, isn't that? Absolutely. There is absolutely no question that with very high unemployment rates, India is a very young country, youth unemployment is higher than ever before. You need to invest in human development projects. Health and education everywhere is the top right.

for people, they would much rather have jobs, have opportunities. And when you talk to voters who are beneficiaries of these cash schemes, they say, yes, we take it because how else are we going to survive? But really, we would rather have a much more dignified life where we could earn our living. So this is a, it's a band-aid, really, for what should be a much more thorough development program. Now, Divya, I know that you've been noting that hundreds of thousands of migrant women are traveling back to their hometowns to cast their vote. Just explain to us why they're doing that. Well, this election has been a cause for worry for both men and women, both, but more for women, because India's in the middle of a review of its voter rolls.

So the Election Commission of India has been asking voters to furnish old documents that prove that they are. are valid voters and citizens of the country, dating back to their parents and grandparents and earlier voter roll count that happened in the year 2002. Now, as it happens, women, especially from marginalized communities, do not have proper documentation. Again, it's part of how women are valued in households, that their documentation would not be as proper as men. So in fact, the state of West Bengal that you just mentioned, a lot of women got deleted in this voter role revision. So whoever is on it,

and even women who have not made it to the final list, have made it a point to go back to their state, furnish more documents to stay on the voter role because it provides them with an official identity document. And just to give you a sense of how many voters, 62% of the voters who have been deleted are women. and that's almost 6 million eligible women, I mean, not, who have not been found eligible, six million women voters who will not be voting in this ongoing election.

So it's a cause for huge anxiety. But it's interesting to note, we've been talking about how women are turning up to vote. And it's interesting to know that a lot of them are migrant women. So these are women who are able to leave their villages in small towns and come to big cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore to work. So what we are witnessing right now is a change in women's lives, where they're able to access these work opportunities like household help, like cooks, or workers in factories in big cities and metropolises. But they're again carrying the baggage of history where their documents may not be in place,

where such kind of voter role revisions may again hamper their chance of turning up at the voting booth and exercising their right to vote. It's also worth saying that the state of West Bengal that's being discussed has India's longest, serving chief minister who's a woman, right? So, Mamatha Banerjee has been in post for a very long time and this mass disenfranchisement of nine million voters that Divya just mentioned, of whom a large proportion are women. There is a huge amount of anger in West Bengal at the moment. Some see it as a direct attack on a female chief minister of great popular standing. And it seemed to be, you a dirty tricks campaign that women feel they need to vote out of their, to express their anger

more than anything else. How is the representation of women in Parliament now? Because I know there have been some moves to try and improve that, but it doesn't feel like it's really working right now. Well, the bill for women's reservation, 33% reservation of women's posts in the Lokesaba, the House of Commons of India, was specifically. passed in 2023 unanimously by all

political parties. So there is no reservation about that. People think this is a good thing. The reason it's back in the news now is in the middle of these elections, where 250 million people are going to the polls in five different states,

the government in New Delhi decided to revisit this bill, which was brought in a slightly dubious fashion, People have mocked it by calling it the BJP Preservation Bill. There's nothing to do with women's reservation because it was tagged on to an idea of expanding the house to over 800 MPs in order to make space for women. And I think it's worth noting that there is the women's reservation issue was relaunched in this current form,

almost as if to say, yes, we can make space for women as long as men never have to do. give up any of their seats. So in order to accommodate these extra women MPs, we've got to expand the Parliament itself. And it was defeated. It's the first defeat of a bill by the government in Parliament because the opposition saw through the duplicity of the move. Divya, I mean, we've spoken a lot about women coming out and voting and the growing enthusiasm for voting. Are there particular issues as you speak to women in India who are exercising their right to vote, that they particularly are voting on? The issues that they talk about, including unemployment, which Mukulika mentioned earlier in the

context of the government-handed financial support, range from high prices to equality or the lack of discrimination of marginalised communities. As Mukulika pointed out, this is a very divided election and identity has become a core issue. It is something that the ruling party ruling in the central government, BJP, and as you mentioned that this is being seen as these elections are being seen as a barometer to gauge Mr. Modi's popularity, that party's pitch has been about weeding out illegal immigrants into this state of West Bengal. West Bengal has a history of partition. It is the state that got partitioned when the country of Bangladesh was created separate from India. So the Hindu Muslim identity is definitely something women voters are as engaged in,

as a political issue. They are looking at which party should they vote on for their own safety if they belong to the minority community or if they belong to the Hindu community. So there are economic issues like unemployment, financial incentives that are on their mind, high prices, availability of gas, etc. There's also identity that is high on their agenda, which party will keep them safe, will not disenfranchise them, will allow them to live peacefully.

It is also a mandate on the chief minister, the woman chief minister, Mamta Banerjee, who has been in power for a long time now and is staring an anti-incumbency because she was at the helm of affairs when hugely reported on a rape case of a doctor and her government's mishandling of it was widely reported. So the safety for women as well is one issue that's weighing on their minds. Really good to speak to both of you

this morning. Thank you so much for joining as you heard there from the BBC senior correspondent in India, Divya Aria. We also spoke to Mukalika Banerji, who is Professor of Social Anthropology at the London School of Economics. Now, most of us spend a, well, a quite surprising amount of time avoiding difficult conversations in our personal lives, whether that is with a partner, a colleague, a parent, a friend, knowing what to say and how to say it can, well, let's be honest, feel overwhelming. So this at Bank Holiday Monday, Nula will be joined by some amazing guests, including psychotherapist and international conflict mediator Gabrielle Rifkind, also TV and podcast host Vicki Patterson, and comedian Helen Thorne. They are going to explore why we find

difficult conversations so hard, what happens when we avoid them and how we might get better at actually having them. So do you make sure you join Nula on Monday for that special programme. Now, the weather, well, it has been heating up, a bit colder today, but has been heating up. And many of us might be thinking about heading down to the UK's beaches, enjoy some sunshine in the coming weeks, but more visitors often means more litter, according to the Marine Conservation Society. Single use plastic waste. was found on an incredible 97% of beaches that they surveyed in the UK and the Channel Islands last year.

Now, one woman who is passionate about doing something about this is Sammy Applin. Known online as the plastic coast. Sammy is a nurse, but in her spare time, she combs, brightens beaches, searching for plastic waste, which she then uses to create colourful artwork. And she joins me in the studio now. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for having me. Well, thank you for coming in.

First of all, how much rubbish. are you finding? It changes with the seasons. So the winter, it's normally fishing gear, crab pots, lobster pots that get washed up, old fishing lures. But in the summer, Brighton really gets hit by the tourism, which is great. But the amount of litter is quite staggering.

I think the council cleared 24 tonnes over two weekends last summer. So it is a huge amount of litter, especially in the summer. And to give us a clue, if you walk down Brighton Beach in the summer then, is it very obvious? I mean, can you see sand? I mean, give us a sense of how much litter there is. I can't really comprehend what 24 tonnes is. It's really tricky because it's so busy on Brighton Beach.

You can hardly see the pebbles. It's just full of people. So it's normally the morning when I'm walking to work, it's when I beach clean and everyone's gone home and that's when you can see it. And it is littered with lilithes, towels, flip-flops. I think one morning I found five pairs of shoes just left behind in about a mile of beach.

So yeah, it's pretty bad in the summer. Yeah, I forgot, of course. It's a pebbly beach, isn't it? Pebble beach, of course. I've been on there many times. So tell me, what do you find then on the beach? And what made you say, actually, I'm going to create some art from this? Because most of us would just go along with a plastic bag, bag it all up and try and get rid of it.

Yeah, so I think for me, it was just reusing. I try and reuse as much as possible in my personal life, you know, recycle, go to charity shops. I've seen all these other people online that were creating the big, giraffes made out flip-flops. There's a lovely lady in Cornwall who makes microplastic sort of artwork and I thought I could do that, I'll give it a go. And my sister-in-law actually posted it on a local Facebook group and it just sort of went from there about five years ago. So I try and use all the plastic I find, colourful bits, smaller bits so they can fit in the frame and use a rainbow effect to sort of create these flat lays, people call them. So yeah, I try and just

recycle as much as possible because unfortunately in Brighton, if it can't be recycled, it gets incinerated. So whatever I can, I reuse. And so how much do you feel that you, of what you gather, you're able to use in your art? Because I can imagine there's a lot of coat cans and plastic bottles and stuff that you probably don't want to use. Yeah, it depends, again, in the seasons, really. So sometimes in the winter, I find some really interesting stuff that's been at sea for years and years and years. In the summer, like you said, it's more single-use plastic, aluminium can, so I do recycle that. But in the winter, it's more sort of stuff from even the 1960s that I can use. So I'd say about maybe 30% gets reused into my artwork.

Okay, and give me an idea of the size of your artwork. Are we talking small pieces or large pieces? Exactly that, anything. So 30 by 30 up to sort of 1 metre by 65. So from large to small, whatever the customer would like, really. I heard as well that you were being a bit kind in the pricing of your art and maybe making a bit of a loss. Yes, definitely at the start.

I was making a loss. I was taking on the postage and packaging and I remember I sent one to America and I definitely came away of a loss at that. But I've tried to get a bit better in my business skills over the last couple of years. I presumably you've got to be quite careful when you're out collecting on the beach because it presumably must be quite hazardous. There can be some sharp things you don't necessarily always know what you're going to pick up. Yeah. Broken glass, sometimes dirty needles, which is such a shame. Napis, sanitary towels.

Obviously with the spillages that happen on RCs. So all sorts down there. So definitely wear gloves and use a litter picker if you are planning to go to our beaches. So how do you prepare? If you've gathered some litter off the beach, there's the obvious things that you don't want to use. You look at some things that may be interesting. Presume you've got to clean them? Yep, yep.

So I've normally got a keeper's bag and a rubbish bag and then I'll go home. Give everything a good scrub with a tooth brush and a bit of washing up liquid. And then dry it overnight and then saw it in some plastic containers at home until it's ready for. for reuse. And how much time do you have for this? I mean, as a nurse, you must be pretty busy anyway. Does this take up all of your time between working and coming the beaches? Yeah, it's tricky.

I'm doing a master's at the moment as well. So it's a bit full on. So, yeah, it used to be my lovely walk to work would be along Brighton seafront, but I've recently moved. So it is trying to find the time now to get down to the beach is a bit of a struggle. But I've got so many friends and family. And people that follow me online that also send me their rubbish that they find. So it's great.

Are you grateful for that? 100%. I love it. I absolutely love it. It feels like Christmas when I receive a little parcel in the post of litter. Yeah. Yeah. So why do you think we as people are doing this?

Because I'm just astounded that you're saying people are leaving things like flip-flops and towels. There's never an excuse for litter, clearly. But maybe if the rubbish bin was full, somebody might think, I mean, where I live, there's a beautiful sort of picnic area. And people will just leave bagged up picnic leftovers. And it's frustrating the foxes will get in it. it makes a mess. But why on earth do you think people are leaving paraphernalia from a day out at the beach? I know. It's actually quite crazy.

I don't know whether it's laziness. Brighton has about 500 bins along the seafront. So if they're full, just go to the next one along, I say. But also people bring, I don't think they want to carry it back to their cars or the train station. But it's so wasteful. It's just such a waste of resources. And some of the stuff I find hasn't been used. It's still got the tags on.

So I try and rescue that and take it to the charity. shop if it's in in good nick so people are leaving new things on the beach new things yeah sandpit toys on a pebbly beach with the tags still attached towels like i said flip flops all sorts you find down there phones wallets i've tried to reunite with people jewelry makeup the whole shabang and how many people are like you and out there on brighton beach there's so many of really oh it's such a great community to be a part of yeah there's i think brighton really cares for its nature and it's wild spaces so there's lots of people that I've connected with through this artwork, which is great.

What's worrying is if you weren't doing that, what would the beach be looking like? Well, because I used to get out before the council cleaners, so there are council cleaners during the summer months, and they do such a fantastic job. But yeah, and it's not just me. There's lots of other people that are doing it, but it's quite fascinating.

I think people that aren't involved in the beach cleaning scene, they don't believe that I find all this stuff on the beach. And I just, yeah, I say to them, get out there and have a look along the tideline. What's the best thing you've ever found? Oh, that's a hard one. I found a little tartan monkey once who lives on my cheese plant and I really like him.

Oh, so he was too good to be included in the art. He's a keeper for me, yeah. And so what are you selling this art for? How much? Well, that all depends on the size. The problem is the frames are so expensive. So maybe one day I might like to be able to do the framing myself but I just haven't got the time in the moment.

But anywhere, the small ones sort of start at 150 upwards and the frames probably about half of what I charge on top. So the frame would cost 75. I'd put 75 on for a small one, that type of cost. And do you sell locally as well? Yeah, locally. And I've been lucky enough to try and actually meet people from America, New Zealand. And they've somehow got it back to the other side of the world, which is really fascinating. Really good. Listen, thank you so much for coming in and talking to us today. I want to see some of it. You'll have to send me some. I don't find it really interesting.

Thank you so much for coming in. That's Sammy Applin there, who's also known as the plastic coast, does fantastic work there clearing up Brighton Beach. Let me just read you this statement from Councillor Tim Rokens, who's deputy leader at Brighton and Hove City Council. Say, well, it's brilliant to see Sammy's creative response to leave waste behind on the beach. We obviously share her opinion and would rather not see anything left behind. Our team works incredibly hard to keep our seafront looking at its best. For example, we cleared 24 tonnes of rubbish from the beach over just two weekends,

including shoes, beach inflatables, children's toys and even a kayak. We've got plenty of bins on the beach. beach for recycling, so no excuse to leave things behind. I just want to say thank you for being with me for today. Do make sure you can join me again tomorrow. And if you've been affected by any of the issues in today's program and the discussion we had about abortion, there's information and support on the BBC Action Line. That's all for today's Women's Hour. Do join us again next time. Hello, I'm Tyler West and I'm Alfie Watts. And this is The Detour, the official companion to race across the world.

This is the post-episode checkpoint where you'll hear the latest chat around each episode from us and our race superfan special guests. Plus, I'll be joined each week by a resident travel expert, Alfie. That's you, ma'am. I'll be revealing my optimal way

to travel through each leg, including visits to all of those unmissable detours along the way. And we'll also have some not seen anywhere else exclusive content at the end of every episode. I cannot wait. The detour will land straight after

each episode of Race Across the World. You can watch on Eye Player or listen on. where you'll also find extra bonus content. We'll see you then.