02/11/2015 Newsnight

The Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan.

She's responsible for schools in England.

The biggest issue for her is the huge regional gap

We'll ask if the Government have the ideas or the money to fix this?

We all know that no means no when it comes to sex, but does

A BBC documentary puts the complexities

The director of public prosecutions is here to guide us through it.

And as the bodies of the dead arrive back in Russia, we'll analyze what

Was it technical failure or was it terrorism?

Yes, there is the possibility of a terrorist attack.

Whether that was by a missile or whether it was somebody carrying

Tomorrow, Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, gives

a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank, which will set our her

They're all about tackling under-performance,

and include a National Teaching Service - an elite squad of 1500

teachers going into low-performing schools to help turn things round.

There'll be more academies too - ones that have well-run sponsors.

It's not a departure from the polices

of the last Parliament and the last Education Secretary, Michael Gove.

But lurking in the background is a staggering

that over the last two decades, the ones in London went

from being some of the worst to some of the best in the country.

The contrast with the schools in many older,

industrial areas of the north - the Northern Powerhouse - is now stark.

So has Nicky Morgan got the polices to close the gap?

We'll hear from her in a few minutes, but first

One of the hardest subjects in English education is geography. It's

been well discussed how schools in London have improved substantially.

In 1995 poorer pupils in lopped were four per centage points to achieve

five GCSEs than poorer children outside London. By 2003 they were 5

per centage points more likely. By 2013 they were 19% more likely to

get five good GCSEs than similarly poor children outside the City.

While London has soared away, there are parts of England whose results

have stagnated. We have a problem with our coastal air yarz and towns

and cities across the north of England. Imagine taking two

11-year-olds of identical poverty, ethnicity, test results, everything.

Put one in a Hackney secondary school in East London and one

somewhere else. These red areas are the boroughs where that kid sent

elsewhere would expect to end up more than a third of a grade behind

the Hackney child in English and maths at the age of 16. That, you'll

have to take my word for it, is a very big difference. What does a

good teacher make these days? The complex understandable and the

mindboggling... Part is down to recruitment. There's a problem at

the moment, but particularly severe outside the capital. An oddity of

this is that teachers in Central London aren't the best paid. In

2012, civil servants estimated that teachers in the high performing

Hackney schools were, paid 85% of what other local professionals were

getting, in say Knowsley in the North West, they're paid 6% more

that. Hackney teacher in 2012 would earn 14% of the cost of a local

house, in Knowsley, 26%. The quality of schools matters to more than just

the children and the parents they serve. If schools in the great old

cities of the north struggle, they'll hold back their economies.

The northern powerhouse of the future will need good schools fit

for the 21st serge ri. -- century. Joining me now is the Education

Secretary, Nicky Morgan. Good evening to you. Good evening.

Can we start with one point not in that piece to clarify, testing.

You're going to suggest a review of Testing age seven. Some people say

this is a retreat from the testing regime. Others say it's to harden up

the tests. What's the review about? Let me be completely clear. There is

absolutely no change. We want to know the progress that students are

pracking -- making from the baseline tests that we introduce this year,

when they start primary school, through to Key Stage 2 tests at the

age of 11. We want to make sure we can monitor the progress, so the

tests children take at the age of seven, we are confident that they

are identifying where children are making progress and where they are

not. Anybody who has, in the last 48 House of Lords, print aid story

saying that somehow -- 48 hours, printed a story saying they're going

to change they're being led on a merry dance. No retreat on testing

then. Let's focus on the corps this afternoon film -- core of that film

there. The weird gap that's between London and the rest of the country.

What is your theory as to what happened in London that it went

behind to so far ahead snrchlts it's aI combi -- It's a combination of

things. I think it was a determination to raise expectations

for students, to bring in sponsors from outside and of course, this

started with the academies programme, started by Lord Adonis in

the last Labour Government, where bringing in strong sponsors, teacher

recruitment, the introduction of the highly successful Teach First

charity, which takes graduates from top universities and puts them into

schools, giving them the confidence and training to do that. Everybody

in London was saying we have to change this. That's what we want to

spread to other parts of the the terrorism it's one of the things

I've -- of the country. It's one of the things I've noticed, excellent

teachers and excellent schools, we don't have them everywhere. Zplt

northern powerhouse zone of schools under performing, London schools by

more than most, must be a pig worry. Let's ask if you have policies and

you're announcing them tomorrow that meet the scale of that challenge.

Let's start with the national teaching service.. By 2020 we will

have 1500 excellent teachers, experienced teachers to go into

challenging schools across the country. They will go in, several

teachers in a school. They can be invited in by the school, if it

identifies its problems or under the education adoption bill, we can

tackle failing schools, coasting schools. We can say we think you

should have some of these teachers to raise standards. This is 1500

teachers. I mean there are 451,000 teachers in English schools.

454,000. OK. 1500, it's approximately zero isn't it really.

No, I don't think so. Even one new teacher coming in from outside,

there'll be more in these challenging schools, but even just

one teacher coming in from outside, bringing new ideas, bringing new

experiences, offering collaboration, it does make a big difference. Of

course, if there were more people who came forward, but I think 1500

is the right number to start with. We start with a pilot particularly

in the North West. We're going to be asking for teachers to step forward

to do this. It's going to be recognised in terms of their career

progression. There'll be incentives to do this. Hundreds of teachers...

Who want to give up the job at a cosy, good school, perhaps in the

south of England and move to the north, a difficult school in the

north? Are they cueing up for that? Many do. Many want the best for the

children. Many teachers, many heads I speak to, relish the challenge of

getting the best for pupils. We have to be more directional about this.

There are places like Knowsley in that report where only 38% of

students got five good GCSEs. That can't be right. That isn't fair on

the students in Knowsley for whom there isn't a choice about anywhere

else to go to. In a way, isn't the problem that you can't recruit

teachers in some of those areas, there's a recruitment problem,

except in London, where salaries don't go as far, there's a

recruitment problem. Solving that has to be a bigger priority than

bussing in 1500. We're talking about the national teaching service, year

seven resits, we're talking about students doing core academic

subjects, all of them taking those. Five sponsors coming forward. Five

sponsors, five, you're giving them ?5 million as I understand it.

They're sharing that money. But again, actually having a strong

sponsor operating these hubs, working with other academies, that's

one of the exciting things we see in our system at the moment is the

collaboration between schools. The real raising of standards. You know

we have a million more children in schools rated good or outstanding

than in 2010. Our education reforms are making a difference. This is a

matter of social justice for these children who otherwise don't get

that great start in life they deserve. Understood. In his

conference speech, the Prime Minister said, "My next ambition is

this: 500 new free schools, every school an academy, yes, local

authorities running schools a thing of the past." You buy that?

Absolutely. In London you believe that? I think academies have proven

to be hugely successful. One of the reasons is bringing in an external

sponsor, bringing support, challenge, sharing of experiences -

you're going to leap in. You're going to fix the London schooling

system, which you've been telling me is so brilliant, what is broken

about the London schooling system that you want to change the status

of a third of the schools in London, which are run by local authorities,

apparently rather well and you want to move them across? We see that the

multiacademy trusts and sponsors are great at school improvement. Local

authorities do many things well, but actually it's not always in the

realm of school improvement. Sorry, are you saying that local

authorities in London are not running their schools well? We're

not saying, it doesn't have to be - You're proposing to fix a problem

and I'm asking you what problem it's fixing. It doesn't have to be an

either or choice. What we see in London is what we want to see

elsewhere in the country, people coming from outside, bringing that

challenge. The best people to run schools are the heads, teachers and

govern ors. We want to see what's happened in London, there are still

- Sorry what's happened in London is a third of the schools are run by

local authorities and they're very good schools. Are you proposing, if

you like, to completely change the system in London. Two thirds clearly

are not, benefitting from the independence and that's what we want

elsewhere in the country. Is this whole conversation we're having

about to be engulfed by a tidal wave called the Spending Review, which we

get this month, which I think the IFS is saying costs up by St % or --

12% in schools, funding rising by 7% over the Parliament. We have

committed, you're right the Spending Review is a huge issue for all

Government departments to know how much they're going to have to spend

in the next few years. We have already as a Government committed to

protect per pupil school funding. Sorry, you've committed in cash

terms not real terms? Absolutely. That's a 5% real cut. Because the

number of pupils is going up in the system over the course of the

Parliament, schools will be getting more. One of the other commitments

in our manifesto was to look at this issue of fairer funding. Because

there are some parts of the country where neighbouring authorities are

getting differing amounts. If we get that sorted that will also make a

big difference. School budgets like other budgets in the public sector

are under pressure. We will do all we can to support schools. That's in

three weeks. I want to ask you about a completely different story. The

Times loading on a story that the Government has abandoned the idea of

a vote on military action in Syria, bombing Syria. Is that correct? I've

only just seen the headlines as I came into the studio. I don't

recognise that. But the Prime Minister has been very clear that in

order to return to the House of Commons he wants to build a clear

consensus to win a vote there. But we are absolutely undimmed in our

commitment to defeat Isil. That's why we're taking military action in

Iraq. But as I say, the Prime Minister's been clear about the need

to build that consensus in the House of Commons. To be clear, no change

in policy? No, I don't think there is a change in policy. These are not

reports that I recognise at all. You'd only have a vote if there was

a consensus? The Prime Minister has been clear that he wants to build

that consensus in the House of Commons on any vote. Thanks very

much. A lot has been said about it

in the last few days, but we still don't really know what caused

a Russian Metrojet Airbus A320 to The airline says that it was quote,

an "external influence" for the crash, but at this stage, the cause

has to be said to be a mystery. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban,

has been looking In St Petersburg they're bringing

home the dead. And the relatives of those who perished in Sinai are

preparing to bury their loved ones. Most of the holidaymakers who died

came from this city and they want to know why this tragedy happened.

TRANSLATION: Without any doubt everything has to be done to make

sure we have an objective description of what happened. We

have to know what happened and to react in the appropriate way. So

what are the possible explanations? When locals affiliated to the

Islamic State group claimed to have downed the Russian plane, attention

briefly focussed on missiles. But while insurgents in Sinai have shot

down low-level helicopters, hitting a jet at 30,000 feet requires a big

missile, like the BUK system, with its associated fire control radars

and equipment and nobody thinks IS in Sinai has this type of kit. The

only weapons we know about in that area with a surface-to-air

capability are man portable. They have an altitude they can reach

between 10 and 15,000 feet maximum, nowhere near 30,000 feet. Anxious to

protect the country's tourist industry, Egypt's president tonight

ruled out the possibility that IS could have brought down the plane

with a missile. TRANSLATION: This is one way to nail

the security of Egypt. The plane was at 35,000 feet altitude, believe me,

the situation in Sinai in this limited area is under our full

control. Given that the aircraft broke up at 31,000 feet, and

wreckage was scattered widely across 20 square kilometres, a bomb might

have been smuggled on board. Certainly, that is more likely than

a missile but still hard to pull off. And IS itself did not actually

claim it had planted any device. But the possibility that someone did is

why people will not rule out terrorism. We don't have any direct

evidence of any terrorist involvement yet. IS in a Tweet

claimed responsibility for this and there is a very aggressive chapter

in Sinai but we really do not know and I think that once the black

boxes have been analysed, then perhaps we will know more. So,

leaving aside terrorism, what about structural failure? Effect that the

tale came down relatively intact, some way from the rest of the

wreckage, has led attention to focus on a previous tail strike when the

rear of the jet hit the tarmac on landing. But it did, however, pass a

safety inspection six months ago in Ireland. This particular flight we

are talking about did have a tail strike at Cairo airport in 2001. So

I would expect accident investigators to be holding in on

that as something that they would need to eliminate from the

investigation. The flight recorders have been recovered and the nations

involved with this disaster must agree who will take charge of the

investigation. The pressure on investigators to give answers to

leaders as well as families will be intense. Mark Urban reporting.

When it comes to consent to sex, no means no.

The answer to that in law is no.

But is it clear-cut when consent is given and when it is not?

The question has been tested tonight in a fascinating BBC Three

It took a dramatised scene of oral sex between two teenagers,

an uncomfortable scene in which the girl is barely awake.

She ultimately accuses the boy of rape, and we see clips

What is clever is that the documentary stops the action

at key points to ask a panel of real teenagers - and the audience

Have a look at this six-minute version

of the film, which starts with the party after which the sex occurs.

It also includes some of the comments

Did the boy think she'd given consent?

I thought you had fallen asleep in the kitchen or something.

There was absolutely no consent so it definitely,

It was a horrible case of miscommunication.

If she definitely did not want it, she would have pushed him away.

It could have just been because she couldn't be bothered to say no, and

we have all been in a situation with a boy trying to force himself on us.

In the end, you just kind of go, fine, whatever.

Unwanted sexual contact is unwanted sexual contact.

She didn't show that she was up for it.

But at the same time, she didn't do anything to stop it.

I'm not saying it was right, what happened, but I do not think it

The girl was awake and she didn't exactly consent

And I don't think it would even end up in court.

This guy I know, he did something to me.

The two of you had a previous relationship, is that correct?

We went out for about three months or something.

Honestly, when I got the text, I thought she was still interested.

You were very happy when Mr Morris came out of the kitchen.

You were very happy to give him oral sex?

Then why didn't you put a stop to it?

All you needed to say was no, it all would have been very simple.

You could have called out to a friend in the upstairs room.

Now I have realised that she really didn't want that to happen,

I kind of look back to the actual situation and think, if you really

didn't want it to happen that bad, then you should have said no.

She has taken it this far when she could have stopped it right there.

His life is going to be ruined for a misunderstanding.

Rape is usually when you are intending to sexually assault, yeah?

He did it with intent and rape is a big word for it.

You can flirt and you can flirt and you can flirt.

If he was my friend I wouldn't call the police but he would be shunned,

I wouldn't like him as a person but I wouldn't call the police.

If we could say that Tom could be charged with a sex offence rather

than rape, we would prefer that, but because it comes under rape,

although it is such a strong word, it is classed as that.

So is it fair that he would get the same sentence

as someone who randomly approached a woman, attacked her

With the current justice system, the whole thing would fall apart

You cannot say it's not that bad because the next thing is not that

If it comes under rape, it comes under rape.

We had slept in the same bed loads before so I

She didn't say anything like stop or anything.

But she didn't do anything to indicate that she

She definitely would have said if she wasn't into it.

I know people who have been in situations where they haven't

given consent to their boyfriends, even, for sex for that particular

time but their boyfriend has gone ahead with it anyway.

And body language, as we have seen in that video, is

You can't brush things off, it is not a case of, he is quite nice.

He has done this and he has to pay for it.

But you say the word rapist to someone

and they think of a vile monster of a person and Tom isn't a monster.

He is a boy who did a bad thing, but he is a boy.

What the actual hell are you people talking about?

I don't understand how anyone can verbalise that this isn't that bad.

Have I actually done something and not known that I have done it?

Because that boy, Tom, he knew what he was doing was wrong

Because there are hundreds of different possibilities, you know?

What's the chances that 24 people haven't done one of them?

That was a six-minute version of a one-hour film.

I gave you the three key questions - you may have just

These are the results of the teenage panel and the voters.

No, consent was not given, the teenagers and

Well, we'll hear from the Director of Public Prosecutions for England

and Wales in a minute, but I'm joined by two of the teenagers who

A manual and Rosie. Thank you both. How did you vote? You voted for

rape? And you thought it was rape? How do you feel about the sentence

because at the end, he gets seven years. Did you feel that was a lot

or not a lot for that to killer defence? I thought that it was

justifiable. I thought that seven years is what he should have had and

any more would have been too much because he is only a teenage boy

after all but then loads of other teenagers thought it should have

been longer. And some even thought he should not have any connection at

all. What about you, Emmanuel? I thought, therefore doubly longer

because seven years is not a short time, it is a long time in prison

but for what he did, it comes back to the whole thing, whether it was

rape. Once classified as rape, that means a proper sentence, not like

six months or something suspended, it means appearing in jail. Even

though most of you in the room thought that he probably believed he

had consent, I do not know what you thought on that particular issue,

but does that mitigate things at all? Well, I don't know, I changed

my opinion so many times but in the end I did think he thought he had

consent, which makes it a lot harder to see him as a rapist and as a

criminal because he could justify his actions. I changed my mind the

most, at first I was very firm on the fact that it was rape. Rosie, at

some point, do you say that this is a familiar scene? But boys to

themselves or try it on in some way? Yes. People might be surprised to

think these rather unpleasant awkward scenes that end in something

that could be called rape might be happening a lot? Teenagers will not

be surprised. It happens at every party, you will see this time of

thing happening. Kissing upstairs and downstairs. But there is a

difference between guessing that grow in that situation in the video,

but does happen because people do stay around but... The difference

is, whether it gets taken to court and whether it then... Tell me this,

if you had been Gemma, would you have gone to the police? No, because

first of all, before I went on the show, I did not even know that oral

sex could count as rape? You need to know that. It can. Would you go to

the police, having seen that film? Yes, I would, with the knowledge I

have got but I know that loads of girls would not because they would

not think they would get anywhere with that, they would be asked, what

were you wearing? Were you drunk? They would get blamed. I remember

saying, if she went there, she would be treated as a suspect, you had

your clothes taken off, and it is true, it does come down to things

like that and for some women it can be treated like that but it should

go to the police. One of the things that really struck me in the full

version is how many of you talking about this were grappling for the

word which was effectively half rape. Some of the courts, she did

not consent but did not say no, he is not a rapist, even though he did

rape her. I wonder if you see a spectrum? That is my point, it is

not like saying someone is a murderer but they did not murder

them. It is not 90% and 10%, that is why I answered the question in full,

she was. Do you see this in black and white? I have to disagree, there

are definitely different degrees of rape and it is so difficult because

you do not know where to draw the line because it is not black and

white but then, what do you call it? Thank you both very much indeed. And

for that film, it was really good. Alison Saunders, the Director of

Public Prosecutions, is here now. It is quite unacceptable to

entertain the possibility that there are degrees of rape. Do you accept

that lots of people who are not school in the law or history and

debate the subject, they naturally do see that you can have a the %,

20% or 50%? It's difficult, where do you draw

the line? The impact on the victims is very much the same. I think

that's really difficult. That's why we have one offence of rain and in

order to change it, there would have to be a real adult debate about it.

The idea that there's murder one and two in the states, and murder and

manslaughter here. But murder and manslaughter are very different.

Different intent. You don't see any reason to have a difference between

a rape where someone says no and a rape where someone, if you like, is

not saying no, but is not saying yes. She's saying no and that's a

myth. People don't fight, they freeze and if you don't fight that

somehow you're to blame. So she wasn't saying yes. She wasn't

consenting in the video. That is rape. It's about sexual intercourse

or some form of sexual activity with consent. In the film one of the

things the defending barrister says to her is, "If you had just said no,

this would be very clear cut." I'm sure a lot of guys will be thinking,

I would like to know if this is not acceptable to you, then just you

know can't I expect to you tell me and then I will... There are ways in

which people react. That's a myth that people put up a fight. People

always say no. Some people just freeze. That's their natural

reaction. They just can't help it. That's what they do. They think it

will be over and done with, I think as the girl said in the film, she

would just stay there hoping it would be over and done with, if she

did nothing. That is not giving consent. Sexual activity, have you

to have consent. Tell me how you would have voted in the three

things. Did she give consent? No. Because she was basically half

asleep. Mostly asleep. Yes. Did he believe she'd given consent, that's

the hardest question of the three. That's not the test, did he believe.

It's about objectively would consent be given and was it given freely and

with the capacity to give consent? If you look at it objectively. How

did he think consent was given. She was asleep. Half asleep when he

started kissing her. She didn't react. She lay there. So how did he

believe that was consent? Isn't the question then that wouldn't a

reasonable person believe he would have had consent. A reasonable

person wouldn't have believed, so then it definitely was rape. Yes.

Tell me, because it finishes the story, would you have imagined a

sentence of seven years for an offence of that kind? There's lots

of things we don't know, his previous convictions all those sorts

of things. It may not have been quite seven years. So seven years is

not unthinkable. It possibly would have been a bit less. In the film,

the youngsters see a lot of, a few witnesses come, in a man accused of

rape, who was the case was thrown out by a judge. Are you in any way

ever sympathetic to the idea that defendants Shh... Should have

anonymity. In that category it can be a great deal more damaging to the

defendant than in other offences. I can understand why people would not

wish to be named. We don't name people up until the point of charge.

We never disclose their identity for obvious reasons. Once they're

charged, it's a matter of public record. I can see how it would be

quite traumatic for somebody especially if they're not convicted

at the end of the day. I think you once said a myth persists that

establishing whether someone is a willing sexual partner is

complicated. The film, in Wei -- in a way, you don't think it makes it

complicated at all. Is it really clear cut snrchlts I think the law

is clear cut. There are misunderstandings around it. The

film has shown that. That's why we did the social moda campaign to

explain and get the debate. It's really good to see the film

provoking that. What was reassuring was how close the public vote was

around yes, it was rape and around the consent issue. Thanks very much.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, is in Germany to discuss efforts to

renegotiate Britain's relationship with the European Union.

It's all part of trying to get a better deal for the Britain ahead

of the referendum on the EU, the details of which are still

And our political editor, Allegra, has some new details.

It's news on the timing of the referendum. We're picking up

information that suggests a referendum in all of 2016 could be

pretty tricky and it leads back to the House of Lords again. Let me

explain. It looks like the Lords are on the verge of giving 16 and

17-year-olds the vote. The Labour leader in the Lords has told us this

evening that it's likely this will go through. They have the support of

the Lib Dems, some cross-benchers. They're hopeful it goes through.

Also in the House of Commons, there are Tory MPs who says if it came to

it he would vote for it. In the face of such support, the Government

would be able to set their face against 16 and 17-year-olds getting

the vote in the referendum. How does that affect the timing? Indeed, it's

complicated. Today the Electoral Commission has told this programme

if it were the case that you had 16 and 17-year-olds able to vote, it's

a huge influx, hundreds of thousands of new voters. If that's the case,

they expect 12 months to be put in place to allow registration,

promotion to get the new voters into the system properly. If you imagine,

what most people expect is that this legislation, referendum becomes

legislation early next year, you could be looking at all of 2016

knocked out. Now it's likely the Government will take the Electoral

Commission seriously. They have done previously about the referendum.

This will deeply irritate David Cameron and George Osborne. They

didn't want this to dominate the first half of the Parliament. We

should ask about this story, in the Times, Cameron backs down. And the

Guardian. Backs down over plan to bomb Syria. A half denial from Nicki

Morgan earlier, doesn't recognise the story. Downing Street have said

to me this evening that it's nonsense, to use a technical phrase.

That's their phrase. I should say, I have spoken to a source this evening

that says the situation is very fluid and that these stories may not

be too far off the mark. But they make the point that the Prime

Minister's view back in the day, when we all thought he was certain,

may not have been completely certain. Now it may be more fluid

than we had been led to believe. Crispin Blunt, the chair of the

Foreign Affairs Select Committee in Westminster, joins me now. Can you

throw any light on this? It will be a humiliation for the Government

having been pushing this quietly for months, retreating from it. Well,

what's being said on the basis of unattributed briefings is up to the

Government and whatever's happened in terms of briefings coming out of

the Government. I can't speak to that. Alm I can say is that -- all I

can say is my committee is publishing a report in 45 minutes

giving our view on the merits of the Government coming to Parliament and

asking us whether or not we should authorise the extension of air

strikes into Syria from Iraq. What is your view, give us the top line,

not the detail, just the top line? You know, I can't. It would be a

breach of the embargo if I did. I would be quite properly in trouble.

My concern is this story has developed this evening, is that it

looks as though the Government may, might have been reacting to an

embargoed copy of the report, which they've had during the course of the

day in the same way that the press has. I think you're regarded as

someone who's been sceptical of a Syria campaign. The report might say

you're against it and they may now realise there can be no consensus in

Parliament to support hay war in Syria. Would that be a reasonable

version of events? That would be a reasonable interpretation of the

positions of, public positions of members of the committee taken to

date include myself and the comments that I have made. We'll have to wait

45 minutes exactly what the agreed position of the foreign affairs

committee is. We're very clear in our conclusion, I hope people will

believe we are clear in our conclusion. People will have to take

their view on the merits of the case as to whether or not Britain's going

to make a useful contribution, if it extended its air strikes into Syria.

If the Government can't persuade you, there's never anything close to

a vote in the Commons that would get that through, is there? Effectively

the line they've taken tonight which is - we remain committed to this if

we can get consensus, just means we're not going to pursue a vote. It

has to mean that. We need to get out of the view of looking at this from

the House of Commons and from London. It's a little issue about

whether the United Kingdom extends the operations of eight planes from

Iraq into Syria. What's a big issue is whether or not there's

international consensus on bringing the contesting Syrian parties and

the Civil War to a settlement and whether there's then consensus on

how to progress an operation to defeat ISIS, taking an occupying a

territory they currently hold in Syria and Iraq. Those are the big

questions. And those big questions are now beginning to shift. We have

saw it quickly, the Russian intervention has changed the

dynamic. They've now got an interest in getting a settlement. Otherwise

they're in for the long haul of defending the Syrian government in

the region. We've seen this developing over the weekend in

Vienna. The committee agreed this report on Thursday. The line I've

been taking on an embargo basis today and will be taking tomorrow

with the media has to take into account what happened in Vienna over

the weekend and what's developing in Vienna is quite hopeful. Thanks

vouch. -- thanks very much. That's about it

for tonight. It's 46 days to the release of the

new Star Wars film, and, of course, we'll be tracking the countdown

with the fans, every chance we get. Starting with this from Mister James

K Crowther and his hoverboard. Still some nasty fog out there

tonight and indeed into the morning as well.