30/11/2015 Victoria Derbyshire

I am Joanna Gosling in for Victoria.

This morning, would you back a 20% tax on sugary drinks?

The food and drink industry say it won't work and will simply

But a group of MPs this morning are calling on Government to introduce

I am the chair of the Commons health Select Committee and we feel it's

time for bold and brave action because the problem has become so

bad now for chirp particularly in primary schools.

-- children. We will speak to Sarah Woollaston

in her first TV interview All this week we're looking

at the best ways of tackling childhood obesity from

reducing the amount of sugar in food Today we report from

inside an anti-obesity class. Taking grapes to eat on the way

around made it easier to discourage the pretty flashing lights of the

chocolates. As Labour continue to fight

about air strikes against so-called Islamic State

in Syria, our audience of voters I am a kf councillor and I think two

weeks after the Paris atrocities the case for extending air strikes in

Syria has been made. I am from the Stop the War

coalition, we believe it's essential that we do not wage another war.

And coming up later, for the first time ever a court has

awarded damages to someone who felt pressured into sexting.

We will speak to the pupil at the centre of the case.

Just asked me to send him pictures of me with my underwear on or

something like that, that's how it started and it got worse and worse.

He said, yeah, can you send me a picture of you like naked and that.

We are on BBC Two and the BBC News channel until 11.00 am this morning.

Throughout the morning we will keep you up to

date with the latest breaking news and developing stories.

We'll be live in Paris where a climate change

conference gets under way and we'll bring you the result of a

case challenging Northern Ireland's abortion laws due at around 9.30.

Plus, in the next hour, we'll bring you an interview with a very

jubilant Andy Murray who has just helped Britain win the Davis Cup.

We really want to hear from you on all

Do get in touch in the usual ways, texts will be charged

Of course, you can watch the programme online wherever you are

You can also subscribe to our features.

A 20% tax on sugary drinks should be introduced as part of

bold and urgent measures to tackle child obesity in England. That's the

verdict of a new report by MPs who say there is now compelling

evidence a tax would reduce the amount of sugar people consume. But

critics say it would simply end up punishing consumers.

As well as a tax, MPs are also calling for a crackdown on price

promotions of unhealthy foods. Tougher controls on marketing,

including the use of cartoon characters to promote unhealthy

food, and a ban on advertising unhealthy foods on television before

9.00pm. Clearer labelling of products showing sugar content in

teaspoons, a drive to force industry to reduce sugar in food and drink as

has happened with salt. As always, we are keen to hear from

you. Would you back a tax on suingary drinks? Get in touch. We

are looking at the best way of tackling childhood obesity and will

look at those things and investigate whether the industry can do more to

take sugar out of foods. Let us know what you think about all those

elements. Now our reporter looks at the

arguments for a sugar tax. One medical condition will soon cost

us more than smoking, war, The country's most senior doctor has

warned that overweight is fast becoming the norm in British

society. So the question for Government,

for doctors, for the food industry and for us -

how do we start to tackle what many think is the biggest threat to

public health of the 21st century? Like millions of us,

the Broomhill family in Swindon are Do you want the end

of this cauliflower? When Amanda's daughter Bernie was

still at school, a letter arrived from the local

authority - it was a warning that It's a controversial idea,

but Amanda says it did encourage her I was preparing the wrong food, my

portion sizes were well up there. We were eating too much and not

doing enough, simple as that. It was my fault, and I needed to

see where I was going wrong. She is at that age where I can nip

it in the bud, It's easier to deal with when they

are children than at 12 years old. Government figures out last week

showed that when they start primary school, a fifth of children

are now overweight or obese. By the time they move

on to secondary, that has shot up to I still want to have

the odd McDonald's, or order a few pizzas instead

of making pasta with vegetables. But you've just got to think, I

don't want to go back to how things were when I was having a whole pizza

to myself at 12 years old. I remember going into

the supermarket and looking around And normally,

that would be a big bottle of Coke, or going to the chocolate aisle

and finding the cheapest chocolate That substance, sugar, is now

at the heart of this whole debate. Our children are taking in nearly

three times the amount they should, and that, say doctors, is storing

up problems for later in life. Well, the Health Secretary in that

building behind me has talked about childhood obesity as the biggest

public health challenge of our time. A new Government strategy into

that is expected early next year. Before that, though, a powerful,

independent group Today's report from the Health

Select Committee backs restrictions on cut-price supermarket deals,

and possible regulation to force But perhaps the most controversial

recommendation is a new tax Set at 20%, that would take

a bottle of full-fat Coke or Pepsi It's an idea they have tried

in other places. In Mexico, a 10% tax lead to

a 6% fall in consumption. But the food industry hates it,

saying a tax will just push up If you start adding cost to tax,

you actually hit the lowest income consumers harder,

which doesn't seem fair to me. Isn't it basic economics that

if you make something more But why penalise responsible

consumers through price to If you look at the alcohol business,

excise duty has increased It rarely has a big impact on the

actual amount of alcohol consumed. The thing that changes the way we

drink alcohol is consumer choice, Today's report says that tax

on sugary drinks would send out MPs want it in place as swiftly

as possible, with all money raised But new taxes are rarely popular,

and for the moment, David Cameron is ruling it out, saying there are

better ways to tackle obesity. The other headline-grabbing change

wanted by the committee is They say the traffic light

system used on some products They backed the idea put forward

by the TV chef Jamie Oliver, shown here giving evidence

in front of the committee. Teaspoons

of sugar would be displayed on the front of the pack, giving

a clear idea of what is inside. If you want clear information that

is how much sugar is In fact,

the food industry is furious about this, saying MPs have swallowed

the agenda of campaigners and don't Today's report also says education

has an important role to play The problem is,

most of the schemes around at the So at this children's centre

in Haringey, On this eight-week course,

dreamed up by the charity Henry, toddlers and their families get to

sit down for a healthy lunch, Then parents are taken away,

while the kids are cared for. For an hour, there is an intensive

lesson in healthy eating. Everything from portion

size to reading the label. I tend to look at my own history and

my own background and how obesity sort of runs in our family, and how

I have a problem with obesity. There is a lot of stuff you think

you know, and then you try and put it in place and you're not sure

if you're doing the right thing. So coming here has made

me feel more confident. I take it with me that he can eat

on the way round. That made it easier to discourage

the pretty flashing lights obesity strategy next year, it will

target children at primary school. Here, they say that is not good

enough, and it's important to The earlier you can build

good habits, the better. And

if you are able to give your child a variety of vegetables and fruits and

different foods, and also get them into different activities from a

younger age, there are more likely Is there a danger that people who

sign up for courses like this end up being the ones who are engaged

to begin with, and want to change? Maybe in other programmes,

but in Haringey, most of the parents who come onto

the programme are not experts. They come on because they are

not sure and really need help. Some doctors have warned that rising

obesity means this generation may That fact, like many in this debate,

is heavily disputed. Very soon,

we find out what the Government Doctors, politicians and parents all

say the scale of the problem means At the moment a fifth of children

start primary school overweight or obese. That rises to a third by the

time they leave. Would a sugar tax help to tackle childhood obesity? Dr

Sarah Woollaston is a former GP and now a Conservative MP, who is the

chair of the Commons Select Committee. She joins us now in her

first TV interview since the publication of the report. 20% tax

on drinks what difference would it make? It will help to nudge people

to make healthier choices, if you choose a sugar-free product, you

wouldn't have to pay tax at all. If there is a small price

differentential you can nudge people into taking a different choice and

taking out sugar from children's diet. Nearly a third of children's

sugar intake coming from suingary drinks. A lot of people don't like,

it because it will hit the poorest the hardest? What's regressive is

the fact at the moment the most disadvantaged children are leaving

primary school obese, not just overweight but obese and that's got

huge consequences for their whole lives. What we feel is it's

unacceptable gap opening up here and that's the regressive part as we see

it. We think it would be irresponsible for the Government not

to take urgent and bold action and of course a sugary drinks tax would

be one of many measures, there are many other components to this

parents will know. But a sugary drinks tax doesn't need to be

regressive and you can always choose an alternative, so nobody naedz to

pay this tax but we feel any money raised could go directly to

programmes to help children's health so there is much you could achieve

with it as well as nudging healthier choices. It looks like you are

pinning the blame on sugary drinks, though, why not have a tax on

chocolate, cakes and other snacks? There would be a case for saying

that could be regressive, there are products like chocolate, it's

difficult to make with sugar substitutes, they don't taste the

same. Whereas if you are a sugary drinks levy that's something where

nobody needs to play it if you choose a directly alternative

product. We recognise that we don't want to hit people in their pockets

and that's not what this tax is about, it's about trying to make

healthier choices and take real wasted calories out of children's

diet. What do you think about the parents who are giving their

children these drinks? That are causing children problems and

storing up problems for the future? What I say to any parent watching if

they want to make one single change to cut sugar out of your children's

diet take them off sugary drinks, water, water down fruit juices. They

know the message but they're obviously consuming the drinks for a

reason, what do you think about that? Of course we all like the

taste of sugar. What we would say is that you can make a switch to a

product that will taste the same but won't have all the sugar in, it's

not just about obesity, if you think of the commonest reason for

admission to hospital for young children it's actually to have

rotten teeth taken out, there are other reasons to try to take that

raw sugar, the wasted calories out of children's diets, if you can.

Matt on Facebook, why do I have to suffer because some stupid people

can't control sugar intake? I would say to Matt, you don't have to

suffer. You could carry on buying the same product with a small extra

premium or even if you are not overweight, switching to a product

without sugar in would be good for your health too. This isn't just the

only measure we are recommending. There are many others in the report.

By taxing sugary drinks, are you effectively equating them with

tobacco? No, because there is no level of tobacco that is of any use

to you. Tobacco is harmful at any level. We know that sugar is great,

as part of a balanced diet. But what we know now is that you should

restrict that to 5% of your intake. Do you think 20% tax is enough?

Would a 20% tax stop you buying something

If I one was 20% more pensive, I would

think about buying the cheaper product. It will nudge change in

people's choices. This is not designed to be punitive, just a

people's choices. This is not gentle nudge in a healthier

direction. I know you said there is no level of tobacco that is safe to

take, so you are drawing a clear distinction with sugar. But in

general terms, would you say sugar is the new nicotine in terms of the

potential health implications and where the debate goes from here? We

know that children who have high sugar diets are also likely to be

having high calories from other products like fat in their diet. So

we know it is a huge part that is driving the obesity epidemic. That

is the risk. We know that lifetime risks of that, things like a greater

is the risk. We know that lifetime risk of developing diabetes and

heart disease, greater risks of being bullied in school, this

affects children's life chances. There is a serious problem that we

need to get to grips with. David Cameron has said he does not see a

need for a tax on sugar. You said that before he had seen the report.

Did that annoy you, that he was reaching a judgment before seeing

the evidence? There is a wide range of views on this. The point about

whether it will unfairly penalise people on low incomes is an

important part of the debate. But our point is that what really

penalises the most is advantaged children in Britain today is that

one in four of them are leaving primary school not just overweight,

but obese. We cannot carry on ignoring that. The industry say this

is about education and exercise. We accept that those are important. But

in themselves, they will not be enough to tackle this. You need

other measures as well, and not just a sugary drinks tax. Things like

deep discounting make a difference to people's choices, and they tend

to all be on the unhealthy products. So we would like a shift to

discounts being on healthier products. A view on Facebook says it

tax would work if it was levied on the food manufacturers rather than

the consumers. Well, this is about nudging a behaviour change at the

point that you make your purchase. If you had a levy on the

manufacturers themselves, that wouldn't introduce that price

differential at the point of choice. If the costs for them of

producing a product go up because the costs of the ingredients go up,

it would knock on to the consumer and it might also make them decide

to reduce the level of sugar because it would reduce their costs of

production. No, because you would find manufacturers who make both the

diet and the sugary product. So just hitting the manufacturer at source

will not introduce the differential. At the point you

choose the product off-the-shelf, if one of them is slightly cheaper, it

guides you in that direction. Nobody needs to pay a sugary drinks tax if

you have an equivalent. That is why we chose sugary drinks rather than

other products. So the debate stops at sugary drinks? Absolutely. It is

not about taxing the sugar you buy off the supermarket shelf, or taxing

cakes and biscuits. You can't see that being something you would

want? No, because we are not saying that sugar should not be part of our

diet. We know people enjoy sugar as a treat. It is about getting rid of

those wasted calories. We must leave you. Sarah Wollaston, thank you. We

are going to hear now from Prince Charles, addressing the climate

change conference in Paris. TRANSLATION: I express my great

grief and condolences following the events in Paris two weeks ago, and

my compassion for the bereaved families, whose family members'

lives were so appallingly ended. I am with the French people who have

shown their courage, faced with this terrible event.

Rarely in human history have some only people around the world placed

their trust in so few. Your deliberations over the next two

weeks will decide the fate not only of those alive today, but also of

generations yet unborn. So I can only urge you to think of your

grandchildren, as I think of mine, and of those billions of people

without a voice, those for whom hope is the rarest sensations. Those for

whom a secure life is a distant prospect. Most of all, I urge you to

consider the needs of the youngest generation, because none of us has

the right to assume that for our today, they should give up there

tomorrow. On an increasingly crowded planet, humanity faces many

threats. But none is greater than climate change. It magnifies every

hazard and tension of our existence. It threatens our ability

to feed ourselves, to remain healthy and safe from extreme weather, to

manage the natural resources that support our economies and to avert

the humanitarian disaster of mass migration and increasing conflict.

In damaging our climate, we become the architects of our own

destruction. While the planet can survive the scorching of the Earth

and the rising of the waters, the human race cannot. The absurd thing

is that we know exactly what needs to be done. We know we cannot adapt

sufficiently to go on as we are, nor can we build ourselves a new

atmosphere. To avoid catastrophe, we must restrict climate change to less

than 2 degrees, which requires a dramatic reduction in carbon

emissions. Ladies and gentlemen, this can be done. We have the

knowledge, the tools and the money. Only 1.7% of global annual

consumption would be required to put us on the right low carbon path for

2030. We lack only the will and the framework to use them wisely,

consistently and at the required global scale. Governments

collectively spend more than $1 trillion every year on subsidies to

energy, agriculture and fisheries. Imagine what could be done if those

vast sums supported sustainable energy, farming and fishing, rather

than fossil fuels, deforestation and overexploitation of this --

overseas. It is the premium we need to pay for our collective long-term

insurance policy. We are always hearing nowadays that all our

actions must be based on good science. We have that science. Why,

then when it comes to climate change, is this apparently no longer

applicable? We have also seen how fast innovation and investment can

drive low carbon energy technologies, and we are learning

how to develop secular economies in which everything we previously

regarded as waste becomes the feedstock for future growth --

circular economies. So I pray that in pursuing national interest, you

will not lose sight of the international necessity. In 2009 in

Copenhagen, I remember trying to point out that the best scientific

projections gave us less than a hundred months to alter our

behaviour before we risk the tipping point of catastrophic climate

behaviour before we risk the tipping change, beyond which there is no

recovery. Have we really reached such a collective inertia that

ignores so clear a warning? 80 of those hundred months have now

passed. So, ladies and gentlemen, we must act now. Already, we are being

overtaken by other events and crises that can be seen as greater and more

immediate threats. But in reality, many are already and will

increasingly be related to the rapidly growing effects of climate

change. The whole of nature cries out at our mistreatment of her. If

the planet were a patient, we would have treated her long ago. You,

ladies and gentlemen, have the power to put her on life support, and you

must surely start the emergency procedures without further

procrastination. The today, after far too long interval, you are all

here to set us on the road to a saner future. If, at last, the

moment has arrived to take those long-awaited steps towards rescuing

our planet and our fellow man from impending catastrophe, then let us

pursue that vital goal in a spirit of enlightened and human

collaboration. Ladies and gentlemen, I wish you well in your endeavours,

and I shall pray for your success. STUDIO: Prince Charles, telling the

climate change conference in Paris that there is no greater challenge

facing humanity than that of climate change. World leaders and

negotiators from 195 countries try to reach a deal to tackle climate

change within two weeks. Prince Charles also expressed in French his

horror at the recent terror attacks, and he expresses sympathy

for the families and loved ones of those killed. We will be back later

in Paris. the issue of air strikes

against the Islamic State terror group in Syria is threatening to

split the Labour party. The government supports bombing.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn doesn't - but many

of his shadow ministerial team do. The issue could come to

a crunch this week with a Commons vote - which could see Labour MPs

and members of Mr Corbyn's cabinet voting against their own leader

in favour of air strikes. If we bomb in Raqqa,

we will take out civilian lives. We may not in effect do much damage

to Isil, and may make We have yet to see the motion that

the Prime Minister may bring That is why I say I am convinced of

the need to take effective action, but we will only be able to make

a final judgment about the nature of that when we see the opposition

put before the House of Commons. The Shadow Cabinet had a long debate

about how we can support the Prime Minister in his attempts to

keep the country secure. Hilary Benn gave a clear explanation

that he thinks there is an imminent security threat to the

UK, and I agree with him on this. But we will come to our decision

on Monday. We are discussing it with

our colleagues over the weekend, We are working at it

and we need to keep working at it. There are lots of questions

about this. You shouldn't extend

military operations lightly. There are legitimate questions to

answer, and we are doing Jeremy Corbyn insists he's

representing the views of Labour How much support is there

for air strikes? With us now a group of viewers -

and voters - Labour members Shadia Edwards-Dashti, you are from

the stop the war coalition. Why are you so convinced that air strikes in

Syria would be wrong? From the stop the war coalition, our perspective

is the caves old. We have seen the same sort of strategy in the last

ten years. When it comes to air strikes in Syria, we have been

presented with no clear strategy. We have been given no realistic

strategy that could ever result in defeating Isis. The idea of just

bombing a nation at the height of a refugee crisis, which cannot be

forgotten, we do not believe that waging yet another war could ever

destroy Isil. It's never going to be easy to

commit armed forces to a war situation. But you have to recognise

that Isil represents a unique challenge. This is a regime which

saws off people's heads, British aid workers' heads on television and

posts them on the internet and was responsible for the atrocities in

Paris less than two weeks ago. We are already fighting Isil in Iraq at

the invitation of the Iraqi Government. And the French President

last week invited us to be part of an international coalition to extend

strikes into Isil's heartland in Syria, in that situation really

there could be no choice. We have to extend air strikes into Syria. You

talk about atrocities of Isil and that's all well and good focussing

on that, let's us not forget our ally Saudi Arabia is about to

orchestrate beheadings. What the UK have done, it's all well and good

describing what Isil is doing and putting in the media and press

everything they're doing, but it has to be remembered what's going on

right now and look how awful refugees on borderlines are being

treated, with tear gas. What are we bombing? Just introduce yourself. A

Labour councillor in Ealing. My worry is there is no target. What

are we bombing? It's all very well saying let's bomb them but who is

them? It's a complete sort of concept that is wishy-washy we can't

go after it, if there was a definite target we could say let's take out

this thing there, at least we would have reason to go in and bomb them.

We are told there are precision warheads that can take out

particular targets without great risk of collateral damage. Are you

not convinced? They hide as soon as they hear the planes, what are we

hitting? It needs to be a sensible strategy that goes in and just

bombing isn't the answer. I agree a little bit. I am Hani and I am

Syrian. You left as a dissident, your family is in Syria. Yes. I want

to say that first of all I think that the world and Europe has a big

responsibility and they failed in responding to Isis expansion but I

still think that fighting from air will never help. We have already,

the US example, they already been bombing Isis but nothing happened.

Instead, Isil was expanding gaining more land and resources for oil to

get money and I think that the effort should be focussed on another

alternative that could be more effective. What would you say the

alternative would be? I would say, I mean we have some facts. We know

Isil was expanding on rebel or Free Syrian Army-held land and this is

where they gained power from, they have oil now and they can sell oil.

Expanding on land has a symbolic power that exists and that's

encouraging other Isil members around the world to show in their

movement. I think that supporting the people on ground who can defeat

Isil is the way, supporting people who already on that land and had to

leave because of Isil coming and I think there was a long, from a very

long time there was discussion about the no-fly zone, I think that will

help people in there to fight their fight and instead of the Arabian and

the whole world trying to come from the air, which I think is just in a

way that psychologically work, it's OK we are doing our thing and our

job and we are fighting. But it's not effective on the ground. Simon,

you think air strikes are a good idea, tell us where your perspective

is coming from. The point you are making, talking about other

countries, the record with Iraq is obviously makes it harder to some

extent but the point is what happened in Paris could easily have

happened in London and these people are a threat to our nation, to our

livelihood and our values. I really think that to sit back and let other

countries take that responsibility, I think it would be shameful to be

perfectly honest. We have a proud record in this country of staenning

up for human rights - standing up for human rights. Do you think that

Britain joining the bombing campaign would make us safer or is it being a

good ally? Both. It would make us safer. We need to do something to

remove Isil. The way things are I accept that air strikes alone will

not remove them from power but we need to think about what the end

game is and there is a certain naivety about what the alternatives

are and I think that goes back to Iraq, when we invaded Iraq we went

in thinking we will create some enlightened liberal democracy that

would perpetrate across the rest of the Middle East and that clearly

didn't happen and wouldn't happen. I think we need to be realistic about

our end game and the alternatives. To be honest, most alternatives

would be better than what we have at the moment. What is your

perspective, tell us where you are from. I am from Syria, my family are

still in Syria and I chair the Syrian Civil Coalition. The

atrocities did not start after the Paris attacks, we have about five

years now, about 100 civilians being killed a day, 90% killed by the

regime and not Isis. Let's look at the progress of what's happening in

Syria, it's going in the wrong direction, completely the wrong

direction. More people are being killed, Isis is expanding, it's

becoming a threat to the whole world. When things are going in the

wrong direction the last thing you want is a bit more of the same

failed strategy, a bit more air strikes, the same thing you have

been doing. We need completely new framework. The route of what's

happening in Syria is first the lack of political legitimacy, we had a

regime that was not legitimate and that forced its people, confronted

people with force and that led us into a war, the rest of the world is

part of as well by funding and arming. So what we need to do is

first put a very strong framework for a

first put a very strong framework and do everything to end the war,

without a war there will be no Isis, there is no way we could have

imagined this terrorist organisation he can banding in Syria had there

been no war, no collapse of state, Isis comes in, offers security,

believe it or not, their areas are more secure than the rest of Syria.

What do you say to that? One of the things that concerns me is that the

position taken by Jeremy Corbyn and others is that we are already

fighting Isis in Iraq, at the invitation of the Iraqi Government

and with the support of an international coalition. The logic

of opposing any extension into Syria is that we shouldn't be helping the

Iraqi Government either and that we should stand down our forces in

Iraq, as well. What about the argument that the rise of Is in

Syria has happened because of that Government and what the past policy

has been? That's a recipe for doing nothing at all for fighting Isil.

There is no realistic alternative that has been suggested for

degrading its military capacity and for removing its ability to raise

the many millions of dollars in petrol money that it relies on in

order to fund its international terrorism. Surely that's where we

are able to do something about it, that's the kind of intelligent,

shall we say, warfare that we need to go into, we need to cut off money

streams, cut off their social media sort of appearance. Pause for a

moment everyone. Refineries are in sir why and the

oil goes through Syria. We will come back to this. Other countries have

been taking out the supplies, the trucks and so on to go through

Syria. All right, we are coming back. I want to hear from the Shadow

Chancellor. He has been speaking. There is obviously the debate going

on within the Labour Party about what the party's position will be on

the vote on Wednesday. And whether there will and free vote. He hasn't

given any indication of the decision on the process. His position is not

to bomb, yes. I think that's the position, looks as though the

majority of our party members and a few Conservative MPs now, because

doubts are being expressed by people like David Davis and Julian Lewis

and Conservative MPs. What do you think, are you bracing yourselves

for resignations in the Shadow Cabinet? I don't think anything

around the issue of resignations or anything like that, I think we will

arrive at a common position and people will hold together. James,

you are a Labour member. What did you think of what John McDonnell is

saying? I didn't quite catch it, I am guessing he is talking about the

Labour pro-war within the Shadow Cabinet. I think that these guys are

antidemocratic forces, there is a clear mandate for Jeremy Corbyn

support - for Corbyn to maintain the line that he won this landslide

victory on. These Shadow - these Labour MPs or so-called Labour MPs

are defying a clear mandate by the people and I can only see they're

making a mommery of representative democracy. What do you think about

the way it has been handled in party political terms? Has it meant there

has been a proper debate? I disagree, I think actually forming

our foreign policy disagree, I think actually forming

precedent that we have. It hasn't been around for long and I think

it's risky, when we make big decisions, I think we need more

decisiveness. Placing it in the hands of Corbyn supporters... You

mean decisiveness from your speck he can if it's in favour of air

strikes? The Prime Minister, it's his power, if he wants to go to war

he can. It's a recent precedent where they say you have to have a

parliamentary vote every time. Go to war on Royal programmetive

essentially? The Syrian Government did not request intervention. You

want the Prime Minister to use our taxpayers' money to drop more bombs

on Syria without consulting parliament? They are a threat. Isil

is a threat to us and we need to stand up. Obviously they didn't

attack us but it could easily have happened in the UK and we need to do

everything we can and I don't trust Corbyn, he has influence in the

decision we go to war or extend strikes, I don't trust him to

protect our country's security. The argument of security is shameful,

how would bombing possibly make us more secure nation? How does that

make sense in your opinion? We just lie back and let them carry on and

taking over large swathes of the Middle East. We have been bombing

since twun. We created Isis. They expanded, since the bombing started.

Something obviously is wrong. 95% of the people are civilians. How are

you going to end Isis with air strikes from the air? We need to do

something. I am not saying air strikes is the only... Give them

more missiles like we have been doing? It's one aspect. We were

saying earlier there are - there is a military strategy, there is

political strategy, there is economic. Other strategies clearly

are the ways to go in trying to figure out something more solid if

we need to go in with bombs later on. But you can't just go in and say

we are going to indiscriminatory bomb everybody because there is is

women and children and vulnerable people that always get hit and the

refugee -- crisis is getting worse and when you talk to people this is

what they're saying, don't bomb us, we are trying to get things working

down here on the ground, so possibly more intelligence on the ground,

possibly more aid on the ground to try and help people who are helping

themselves in the fight against them because we haven't even identified

what it is we are fighting. It's like fighting a ghost. It pops up

here and there. You chop off its head, ten more appear in its place.

We know what it's like to be under fire, 7/7 happened in London, we

know what it was like during the IRA bombings of London too. So London,

number one target. Always has been. Thank you all very much. You all

have more to say but we are out of time for this debate. The vote is on

Wednesday. Jeremy Corbyn will be letting his party know later on

whether or not the Labour Party will get a free vote on that issue. We

will keep you up to date with developments. Stay in touch via

social media for your thoughts on the debate. Breaking news right now,

we are getting reports that gunshots have been heard in a university in

the capital of Kenya, Nairobi. It's The Strathmore University in

Nairobi. I am hearing an update, it's part of a mock security

exercise. Obviously there were initial reports of concern that it

was witnesses hearing those gunshots in that university, cleerm they were

concerned, but it's -- clearly they were concerned but it's an exercise.

It does seem it's nothing to worry about.

Coming The most senior transgender officer

in the British army will be here to talk about her experiences

and those of colleagues who have up:

Let's catch up with the weather. The weather is active at the moment,

lots going on. First of all, before we get to all the stuff going on

right here I will take you to the other side of the world and

Australia. Amazing pictures of a dust devil, this is at a music

Festival in Australia. Think of it as like a tornado. It's a spiralling

column of air going all the way up. It's happening, clear blue skies and

they're enjoying it! How common is that? You do get them in the outback

often. When it gets hot the air rises up rapidly and can spiral.

Then it picks up the dust. That's why it looks impressive. It's not as

damaging as a tornado it's why you are able to get closer. They're

braver than I am. This is a music Festival in Australia. It's the heat

rising and it starts to rotate and it picks up dust. It's like a

tornado but it's happening with clear blue skies on a hot day.

Tornados you need a thunderstorm and they can be more violent.

Our weather was wild over the course of the weekend. This was the storm

that came across during the weekend, bringing strong winds, gusts of 70

miles an hour through parts of Cumbria. We had big waves. And

behind it, we had snow as well. There was a bit of coastal

flooding, and a bit of damage. There was snow in the Highlands

yesterday, all thanks to an intense area of low pressure, the third

named one of the season. We are cracking through them. We were

having Desmond before you know it. That system has now moved away. But

it did bring some gales to Scandinavia. Closer to home, we are

back with the wet stuff. It is a soggy Monday morning. It is still

windy, but not as windy. It will be lively again, especially along the

south coast. Further north, something brighter. Across northern

Scotland, we have some sunshine. There will be a few wintry showers

across the far north, but through Scotland and Northern Ireland, after

a wet morning, it should brighten up. It will be a decent St Andrews

Day afternoon in Scotland. In England, it is not cold, but it is

wet and blustery. The black Arrows show the wind gusts. We could have

gusts of 40 or 50 miles an hour. It stays damp overnight across the

South. The rain pushes back to Northern Ireland. We have warm

conditions in the south, much colder conditions further north. Further

north, we will be down to freezing and in fact well below freezing

through parts of central Scotland. Where there is snow on the ground,

we might get as low as minors 10 Celsius tonight. With the cold air

and wet weather, it is a cocktail for snow and we could see snow

tomorrow morning for several hours in Scotland. That could be an

issue. But it then turns to rain, because milder air is wafting up

from the south-west. So the cold air finally gets ousted. Look at the

temperatures. Tomorrow, we are up into the teens and the snow is

disappearing. So there is a lot going on for the rest of this week.

It will stay blustery. Gusty winds coming and going. And there will be

more rain over the next few days. And more snow as well, particularly

potentially tonight across parts of north-east England and central and

southern Scotland. And with the rain, the ground is pretty soggy.

More bouts of rain to come over the next few days. All the weather

warnings are on the BBC website. Is a 20% tax on sugary drinks the

solution to obesity? If you saw two equivalent products and one of them

was 20% more expensive, I would seriously think about buying the

cheaper product. But the food and drink industry say it will end up

punishing poor people. All this week, we are looking at tackling

could have obesity. Today we report from inside an anti-obesity class. I

take grapes with me that he can eat other way round. It may give easier

to discourage the pretty flashing lights of the chocolate is.

Also today - as Labour continues its internal debate over whether to back

air strikes against the Islamic State terror group in Syria - voters

We have been presented with no clear strategy. We have been given no

realistic strategy that could result in defeating Isis. The French

president last week invited us to be part of an international coalition

to extend strikes into Isil's heartland. In that situation, there

is no choice. The Shadow Chancellor has said he

does not think there will be mass resignations if Jeremy Corbyn does

force MPs to vote against Britain launching air strikes on Islamic

State group targets in Syria. John McDonnell said he believed the

Shadow Cabinet would arrive at a common position on the issue. It is

understood the Labour leader, who opposes military action, will make

his decision later today after consulting with party members.

David Cameron has joined 146 other world leaders at the latest climate

conference in Paris. Negotiators want to reach a binding deal within

two weeks to limit global carbon emissions. Prince Charles has

already described climate change as humanity's biggest threat. It

magnifies every hazard and tension of our existence. It threatens our

ability to feed ourselves, to remain healthy and safe from extreme

weather, to manage the natural resources that support our

economies, and to avert the humanitarian disaster of mass

migration and increasing conflict. humanitarian disaster of mass

party chairman Lord Feldman in connection with a row over alleged

bullying. Senior Tory figures meet today to discuss claims that a youth

organiser bullied a young activist who apparently took his own life.

There was more backing for a sugar tax, this time from an

There was more backing for a sugar cross-party group of MPs.

There was more backing for a sugar committee says soft drinks should

have an extra committee says soft drinks should

part of a range of measures against childhood obesity. It says there is

compelling evidence that it would cut sugar consumption.

Let's cut up with the sport now. Still celebrations for Andy Murray

and the others? Yes, an amazing weekend for Great Britain's tennis

fans. Leon Smith's team put in a great performance to take the Davis

Cup for the first time since 1936. Andy Murray became just the third

man to win eight Davis Cup singles ties in just one year. This morning,

Smith told us what victory means. The journey we had come from,

starting at such a low ebb of the competition five or six years ago,

and approaching the world, we had Andy Murray come into the team and

since then, we have not looked back. And to share it with the

team-mates and fans, the nature of the competition, with the home and

away element, creates an amazing atmosphere. Yesterday will live for

us for a long time. There was another stunning British

victory this weekend in boxing as Tyson Fury backed up all of the talk

and bravado to end Wladimir Klitschko's nine-year reign as world

heavyweight champion. Now the suitors are lining up, including

former WBA heavyweight champion David Hay, who has just announced a

return to the ring after a three-year absence. It says a lot

about the new champion, the fighter who has generated the most

interest. It will be the biggest fight on the planet for him. I will

work my way up the rankings. I have done it before at cruiserweight. One

I wanted to fight another guy who was a Don King promoted fighter, I

could not get a deal out of him. So I got to the number one position and

he had to fight me. Hamburgers one of the five cities

which was hoping to host the 2024 Olympics -- Hamburg will now be

withdrawing its bid. Residents of the northern German city voted

against the idea in a referendum over the weekend. It leaves Paris,

Los Angeles, Rome and Budapest in the race to host against. The IOC

will make a decision in the autumn of 2017.

Kobe Bryant, widely regarded as one of the greatest basketball layers in

the history of the game, has announced that he will retire at the

end of the season. The five-time NBA champion has played for the Los

Angeles Lakers for his entire career and is ranked third on the NBA's

all-time list. He has averaged more than 25 points per game in over 1200

appearances. But in recent years, he has struggled with injuries. He was

also a key member of the United States' basketball teams at the 2008

and 2012 Olympics, where he won gold.

A public the more real for New Zealand rugby great Jonah Lohmann,

who died earlier this month at the age of 40, has been held at

Auckland's Eden Park stadium. The former all Black was capped 63 times

by his country and is considered one of rugby's first global superstars.

Thousands of people were at the event, including many from New

Zealand's Pacific island communities. That is all the sport

for now. I will be back with the headlines after 10.30.

Thank you for joining us. We are on BBC Two and the BBC News Channel

until 11. You have been telling us if you back attacks on sugary drinks

-- if you back a tax on sugary drinks. John says, yes, tax sugary

drinks. I cringe when I see kids drinking them. I used to add fizzy

water to squash for my kids. Don't give it to your children and they

will not develop a sweet tooth. Carroll says taxing sugary drink 's

will make no difference. People will switch to a cheaper alternative. Too

many obese people just eat too much. Andy says it is time people forgot

about a sugar tax and made it compulsory at schools to have

activities and to do sport three times a week. Parents should control

what their children eat and drink. These MPs are out of touch with

common sense. And an anonymous viewer says, they should make the

firms putting sugar into the food they are fine. There is no need for

that sugar. Sharon says, I am size six and I have trouble keeping

weight on. I have to eat a lot of sugary snacks. Why should I be

punished with higher tax because others cannot have a moderate diet?

It is not a third of pupils are obese by the time they leave

preschool. Now MPs have been calling for a tax of 20% to be introduced on

sugary drinks as a way of combating it. Sarah Wollaston is the chair of

the health select committee behind the report.

equivalent products and one of them was 20% more expensive, I would

seriously think about buying the cheaper product.

It would nudge change in people's choices, and that is what this is

about. It is not punitive, just a gentle nudge.

This week, our reporter was given access to anti-obesity classes in

the London borough of Haringey in this report.

Like millions of us, the Broomhill family in Swindon are

Do you want the end of this cauliflower?

When Amanda's daughter Bernie was still at school,

a letter arrived from the local authority - it was a warning that

It's a controversial idea, but Amanda says it did encourage her

I was purchasing and preparing the wrong food, my portion sizes

We were eating too much and not doing enough, simple as that.

Government figures out last week show that when they start

primary school, a fifth of children are now overweight or obese.

By the time they move on to secondary,

that's shot up to a third of all kids.

I remember going into the supermarket and looking around

And normally, that would be a big bottle of Coke,

and finding the cheapest chocolate bar, which would be the big one.

That substance, sugar, is now at the heart of this whole debate.

Our children are taking in nearly three times the amount they should,

and that, say doctors, is storing up problems for later in life.

Well, the Health Secretary in that building behind me has talked about

childhood obesity as the biggest public health challenge of our time.

A new Government strategy into that is expected early next year.

Before that, though, a powerful, independent group

Today's report from the Health Select Committee backs restrictions

on cut-price supermarket deals, and possible regulation to force

But perhaps the most controversial recommendation is a new tax

Set at 20%, that would take a bottle of full-fat Coke or Pepsi

It's an idea they have tried in other places.

In Mexico, a 10% tax led to a 6% fall in sugar consumption.

But the food industry hates it, saying a tax will just push up

If you start adding cost through tax, you actually hit

the lowest income consumers harder, which doesn't seem fair to me.

Isn't it basic economics that if you make something more

But why penalise responsible consumers through price to

Some doctors have warned that rising obesity means

that this generation may not live as long as their parents. That fact,

like many in this debate, is heavily disputed.

Very soon, we find out what the Government

Doctors, politicians and parents all say the scale of the problem means

As well as a 20% tax, MPs are also calling for a crackdown on price

promotions of unhealthy foods, tougher controls on marketing,

including use of cartoon characters. A ban on advertising on unhealthy

foods on TV before 9.00pm, clearlier labelling of products, a drive to

force industry to reduce sugar, as has happened with salt. Loads of you

are getting in touch. Do you think the tax is a good idea. Get in

With me now Chris Askew, the boss of the charity Diabetes UK and Julia

Manning from the think tank 2020 health, who have done research into

this and Ian Wright, the head of the food manufacturers body, the Food

Drink Federation. What have you done? We produced two reports at the

beginning of 2014, and a lot of our recommendations mirror the

recommendations in the health Select Committee report today. We made 17

recommendations, they made nine. But they were for 13 different sectors,

if you like. I think what's common to both this report and the country

out today is that it has to be a holistic cross-spectrum, long-term

strategy, nothing else is going to solve the obesity problem, there is

no one solution going to do it. The evidence shows we need to tackle

this at every level from the top of Government to what we do as

individuals. What about the 20% tax on drinks? That was something we did

look at what other countries had done. At the time that we brought

out our report the Danes just repealed a fat tax, the French had

just introduced... Not because it didn't work but it was having an

impact on the economy, wasn't it? There is an economic side to this.

The public really didn't like it. The example that you use in your

video, Mexico, is really interesting. They introduced sugar

tax two years ago. But not only did they introduce a sugar tax, they

taxed unhealthy food, as well, so crisps and snacks. They also have a

very different cultural environment because people don't drink water

there. 10% of the population don't have access to running water, most

don't drink tap water so part of what they were trying to do was make

water less expensive than cans of soda and pop and that was

fundamental to what they were trying to do. The other thing they did,

they forced 65,000 restaurants across Mexico City to introduce

water filters so those restaurants could start offering water. Loads of

measures elsewhere. Chris Askew, do you think 20%

measures elsewhere. Chris Askew, do impact? We welcome all of the

findings of this report. We recognise this needs a range of

measures, specifically on the soft sugary drink tax we think it does

have a place within the full range of measures, of all children's

intake, for example, of calmers, a third come from soft drinks --

calories. We heard already this morning on average around a fifth of

children when they arrive at school are overweight or obese, when they

finish it's between a quarter and a third. A third of us as adults are

third or obese. We have to understand the role of overweighting

-- overeating, certainly in the world of diabetes, type one diabetes

is different from type two, type two diabetes which represents 90% of all

diabetes cases, we know that weight is a large driver of risk in type

two diabetes. Is it sugar the key factor? Sugar is a part of it. If

you want to prevent type two diabetes we know it's a mixture of

eating a good healthy balanced diet and good exercise, of course. So

it's a range. We see the measures in this report really helping us to

tackle some things we know make it very hard for people to choose that

healthier diet. Ian Wright, we heard from you in the report. You are from

the Food Drink Federation. You are opposed to this 20% tax, why? We

don't think it would work first of all. Why not, you don't believe it

will change behaviour? I don't think it would long-term. There is some

evidence from Mexico that it changed some consum initial the short-term

but actually -- consumption, actually it's our members seeing the

sales figures in Mexico right now and they're pretty close to back to

where they were a year, 18 months ago. It doesn't have a long-term

impact on behaviour. The key thing here is we all accept there is a

massive obesity crisis. We all believe there must be action. I

think there is a range of agreement here on the fact that there should

be multi-layered, multi-levered action. We need to pull the levers

that work. What could producers of the food and drink do, when you look

at a can of a fizzy drink and it says 13 teaspoons of sugar, if you

were measuring it out, it's an extraordinary level of sugar to be

in any products. First of all, people have a series of choices. In

the UK market right now more than two-thirds of the soft drinks sold

are no or low sugar, that's not something we hear much about. It's a

massive increase in the last ten years. It's an increase because

consumers have demanded it. I heard the doctor talking about the nudge

idea, take people slowly. I agree with that and we have done that. We

have reformulated thousands of products, we have changed portion

size on things like Mars Bars and chocolate bars so that people have a

healthier and smaller choice. That's the best way to do it. It's not

working, is it? I am not sure that's true, all the evidence is figures

are flattening out now and the Government's own figures show that

childhood obesity has plat toed and in some social groups is on the way

down. Would you agree with that analysis? What we see in diabetes is

the figures, the incidents of diabetes is going up and that's

largely driven by a rise in type two diabetes, currently, we believe

about four million people in the country have a - have diabetes,

about three-and-a-half million are diagnosed, we think half a million

undiagnosed and that figure is set to rise we believe by five million

to 2025. The effects of unhealthy living are continuing to drive

incidents in the case of type two diabetes so I think we would

challenge the fact that we are over the curve here and don't need to

take actions. Other measures in the report, promotions, for example, 40%

of the food in our cupboards and shelves we buy on promotions and

they tend to focus on foods that are high in salt, fat and sugar. We

really have to address that balance. That's twice the level of

promotional activity than anywhere else in Europe. I important, we need

to all these measures brought in together. Thank you all very much

for joining us. Do stay in touch with your thoughts on this today.

Throughout the week we will look at the best ways of reducing childhood

obesity with a series of films looking at key issues like price

promotion and marketing and tomorrow we will speak to Jamie Oliver.

Still to come a court has awarded compensation to a woman pressured

into sexting we will hear from her. We can talk to our political

correspondent Norman Smith now. This is a huge, huge day which may

well decide whether we bomb Syria because if Jeremy Corbyn tells his

party I want you to oppose bombing, Cameron may back off a Commons vote,

but it's a huge day too for Corbyn because if he insists his party back

him, I have spoken to Shadow Cabinet members who said we will walk, we

will quit. Not just one or two, there are signs ten, 11, 12 could

walk. You could see Shadow ministers quitting, you could see his entire

defense team quitting, so by the end of the day, depending what happens

at the Shadow Cabinet meeting of Labour Shadow Cabinet members at

1.00, and a full meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party this

evening, we will know whether Labour is going to be plunged into open

civil warfare and whether we are going to bomb Syria perhaps. It's

truly a very big day here. A difficult time for Jeremy Corbyn in

terms of trying to keep his party together. Can he keep the party

together? That's such a difficult question. They're so divided, it's

very difficult. The one way it seems which he can put a sticking plaster

over the divisions at the moment is to allow a free vote and many in his

Shadow Cabinet are saying let's just acknowledge there are differences

and have a free vote on this issue, even some of his close allies are

suggesting it, this was John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor

leaving his house this morning. Hasn't given any indication of the

decision on the process. But his position is not to bomb, yes. I

think that's the position - looks as though the majority of our party

members and a few Conservative MPs now, because doubts are being

expressed by people like David Davis and Julian Lewis and Conservative

MPs. Are you bracing yourselves for resignations? I don't think anything

around the resignations or anything like that, we will arrive at a

common position and people will hold together. I have been talking to

some of Mr Corbyn's aides as they've been arriving and my sense is very

haven't made up their mind what they're going to do. MrCorbyn's team

are at the moment going through some of the 70,000 e-mail responses he

had to a consultation to see whether balance of opinion in the broader

party is. The expectation is that will show overwhelming opposition to

war. I think it is quite possible MrCorbyn will go to the Shadow

Cabinet and say I was elected as leader on an antiwar ticket, I have

the backing of the party to oppose war, I have the backing of the big

unions, I have the backing of the National Executive Committee and

parliamentary opinion amongst Labour MPs are moving my way. Therefore,

never mind what you and the Shadow Cabinet think, I am going to insist

you back me and oppose military intervention. Interestingly, one of

his close allies, Diane Abbot, suggested he may indeed suggest that

there is a three-line whip, a compulsory vote to oppose military

action. It's a matter for the leader what the whipping will be. But we

are a party of Government and a party of Government has to have a

position on matters of peace and war. The problem about a free vote

is it hands victory to Cameron over these air strikes. It hands victory

to him on a plate. I don't think that's what party members want to

see. We are, it seems to me, in a game of incredibly high stakes bluff

between MrCorbyn and his opponents, with both sides waiting to see who

blinks first at the Shadow Cabinet meeting. But MrCorbyn's people are

adamant they are not going to back down because of the threat of a few

resignations, they believe, frankly, at the end of the day cometh the

hour, not many will resign and if they do resign, I was speaking to

one of MrCorbyn's aides who said there are plenty of people who have

resigned and then regretted it. No one is irrepoliceable, in other

words, they're prepared for people to walk. -- irreplaceable. It will

be We wanted to get a sense of what

people inside Syria think of air strikes. .

We have spoken to two people anonymously. This man lives in

Raqqa. He gave us his account of life inside there via e-mail.

Another man told us what life is like President Assad. As civilians

here, all the people are seeking for a better place to be protected from

the attacking of aircraft, maybe from Russian aircraft or from Syrian

aircraft. Actually, people here have adapted to maybe generating

electricity by using renewable sources. Or maybe by purchasing

something for charging their mobiles, laptops or watching TV for

two hours. We have adapted to such a thing. Everyone here is just trying

to be safe, making a little money to buy some food to be alive. The Assad

regime prevents us from going out or encouraging businesses to make

money. Our aim here is just to be safe. The civilians here just want

to be safe. All the people here think as I am thinking, that the

British may attack Syria, as other countries like Russia, and nothing

will happen to help the Syrians. We can talk now to a blogger called

Khan is being sorted -- Raqqa is being slaughtered silently. How are

you able to get the stories out of Raqqa? It is so difficult to get

stories from Raqqa, because Isis have banned any media organisation

to work in Raqqa. They want to have their own media to spread their

ideology to the people. So it is risky to work under Isis, because

anyone working in the media will get arrested and executed. What is life

like in Raqqa? You spoke about IS trying to spread its ideology. On a

day-to-day basis for a regular civilians living in Raqqa, what is

it like? For the civilians, Isis are on the ground and there are many

warplanes in the sky. You can say there is no life in Raqqa.

Everything is expensive in the city. Can't do anything. No jobs, no

schools, no university. They don't have anything to do. If they do

anything, Isis will punish them. They will arrest and executed them.

Could the civilians just leave? They only want to live to stay alive for

the next day. They can't change anything. Most of them did not find

a chance to escape from the city. So they are still living there. What

impact are the air strikes having on IS in Raqqa? A lot of aeroplanes are

bombing the city, so it is complicated. A lot of civilians got

killed, and a lot of Isis fighters got killed. So is it weakening IS in

Raqqa? Sorry? Is it weakening IS in Raqqa? Kind of, because some of the

planes targeted IS leaders. But some of the air strikes have bombed empty

headquarters. Thank you for joining us.

The Shadow Chancellor has said he doesn't think there will be mass

resignations if Jeremy Corbyn forces MPs to vote against Britain

launching air strikes on Islamic State group targets in Syria.

John McDonnell said he believed the shadow cabinet would "arrive

It's understood the Labour leader, who opposes military action, will

make his decision later today after consulting with party members.

David Cameron has joined 146 other world leaders at the latest climate

conference in Paris. Negotiators want to reach a binding deal within

two weeks to limit global carbon emissions. Prince Charles has

already described climate change as humanity's biggest threat.

The French president said the stakes had never before been so high.

TRANSLATION: What is at stake is the future of the planet, the future of

life. And yet, two weeks ago, here in Paris, it was death that a group

of fanatics brought to the streets. Here, I want to express to you the

gratitude of the French people for all of the shows of support, all of

the messages, all of the signs of friendship that we have received

since the 13th of November. Tragic events represent an affliction, but

also an obligation. They force us to focus on what is important. Your

presence has generated immense hope, which we do not have the right

to disappoint. Questions are being raised over the

position of Conservative Party chairman Lord Feldman in connection

with a row over alleged bullying in the party. It follows the suicide of

a young party activist who claimed There's more backing for a sugar

tax, this time from an influential The health committee says soft

drinks should have an extra 20% tax imposed as part of a range of

measures against childhood obesity. It says there's now

"compelling evidence" that it would Let's catch up with all

the sport. Hello again, the main

stories in sport this morning: Andy Murray and the rest of the

Victorias Davis Cup team are due home later today from Belgium. It is

the first winter in the tournament since before the Second World War.

Britain's new heavyweight world champion Tyson foray might have said

he doesn't want to fight David Haye. But David Haye has told this

programme he will do everything he can to get his hands on the title,

even if that means making Mac fury hand over the belt without a fight.

Hamburg, one of the five cities which was

hoping to host the 2024 Olympics, will be withdrawing its bid.

Residents voted against the idea in a referendum over the weekend.

It leaves Paris, Los Angeles, Rome and Budapest

A public memorial for New Zealand rugby great Jonah Lomu,

has been held at Auckland's Eden Park stadium.

Thousands of people were at the event,

including many from New Zealand's Pacific Island communities.

A private family burial service will be held in Auckland tomorrow.

More sport on BBC news throughout the day.

A pupil who was asked by her vice-principal to send

explicit pictures of herself has won a landmark legal

William Whillock began texting the pupil, who we're calling

Hannah to protect her identity, when she was a teenager asking her

He was prosecuted for possessing indecent images and given

Now, some years later, "Hannah" has sued and won damages,

including ?25,000 for the sexting alone.

The High Court ruling establishes that anyone manipulated

into sending or receiving a sexually explicit message or

image, known as sexting, and who suffers psychological harm as a

"Hannah" has been speaking exclusively to

our legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman, who began

by asking her how the relationship with William Whillock developed.

He always said that if there is any problems, just give me a call.

He used to build up my confidence by saying, "Hello, Princess,

you look lovely today," and all that type of stuff.

What sort of photos did he ask you to send him?

He used to just ask me to send him pictures of me with

like, my underwear on or something, that's how it started, and then it

just got worse and worse, because he said, yeah, can you send

It took a few goes to get used to it at first,

When I used to see him after school, he used to, like,

Is that how you were able to tell that he was pleased

Yes, he would say, "Can you send me another one, that was lovely."

I used to just send them and think, OK, I haven't sent that, really.

So I used to feel pressurised into sending them,

I used to just think to myself, just forget about it, it's nothing.

How has it affected your life and your relationships?

I went to school to build up my confidence.

I remember I made loads of friends there,

and when all that happened, I lost all my self-esteem and confidence.

And I suffer now long-term with, like, anxiety.

I'm not sure why, but whenever I go walking through

town or whenever someone looks at me, I always think they are going

So whenever I have relationships, it is always stuck in my head.

I feel like they're going to abuse me again.

David McClenaghan is "Hannah's" solicitor.

How did this become an issue of compensation? It is the first time

compensation has been awarded for sexting. Yes, it is a landmark

ruling, the first time in the UK that an award of compensation has

been made for something like this, an act of sexual abuse that stops

short of physical contact. I was contacted by Hannah several years

ago. In my firm, we felt that the law needs to move forward with

technology and society, and that we would bring this case and try and

secure this decision so that people like Hannah who have been through

these things and secure compensation for the harm they suffer as a

result. Would you potentially expect this case to be the first of many?

Absolutely. People who suffer abuse tend to take many years to disclose

the abuse, or talk about it. This sort of technology, smartphones,

phones with cameras, is relatively modern. I feel that there will be a

plethora of these cases over the coming years. The NSPCC is concerned

that there is a danger that young people could use this as a way of

getting cash, suing people over this. Frankly, I think that is an

absurd assertion. To put this case into context, it took over three and

a half years from a Hannah instructing us to take the case

through to court. This is not some kind of get rich quick scheme. It is

bringing legal proceedings, and incredibly daunting and can be

traumatic and difficult for people, especially those who have been

through sexual abuse. So what is the threshold of what has to be proved

for someone to be successful? This case focused on the grooming and the

manipulation of my client that this teacher did. So that is very

different from sexting with young kids sending each other images. Yes,

it is very different. It focused on the grooming element. This teacher

manipulated her into sending explicit photographs to him. It

could open the door to further similar cases involving what is

regarded as revenge porn, where, for instance, a spiteful ex-partner

uploads private images of their former partner onto a website. It

could also open up cases for compensation where somebody has been

overtly filmed in an intimate position. For example, my firm are

currently acting in the Miles Bradbury cases, which was a child

cancer specialist who secretly filmed his patience was they were

undergoing treatment in his care. So all those sorts of cases are

potentially opened up by this landmark decision. Thank you very

much. Prince Charles has warned that the

human race will become the architect of its own destruction unless it

takes serious action to limit climate change. He was addressing

the opening of a two-week conference that hopes to reach the first ever

global, legally-binding deal on carbon emissions. It's happening in

Paris and around 150 nations are taking part. Another speaker was

President Hollande of France who said the battles against global

warming and terrorism are closely linked. What are the key sticking

points likely to be? This film tries to explain.

One sticking point in Paris dividing rich and poor nations is the loss

Around the table to argue for the poorer countries are Mr Maldives

They think loss and damage caused by our changing climate must be

On the other side, representing the world's biggest

economies, are Mr Norway, and Mr USA, who still won't comment.

These guys will only discuss loss and damage as part of what's

already on the table to help countries adapt to the problem.

Where the disasters have cost $3 trillion over the last 30 years,

they are also responsible for most of the 20 million people

displaced, and they affect the poorest countries the most.

So, the negotiation boils down to money.

The biggest emitters of the greenhouse gases that cause

climate change, most of the countries in this group, will resist

At the other end of the table, some small island states say climate

Let's cross live to Paris and talk to Ruth Davis, an

international climate change advisor to Greenpeace, and Chandra Bhushan,

who is Deputy Director General of Centre for Science and Environment.

First of all, to you Ruth Davis, what are your hopes for this

conference? I think my hopes are that we are going to build a regime

here, a deal which is capable of dealing with this problem in the

long-term. I think we have come into the conference knowing that whilst

there's a really significant amount of effort going on out there in the

big world and that the costs of renewable technologies are falling,

the impacts of climate change are becoming more understood, we still

don't have enough on the table to fix the problem. We have to come up

with a direction of travel, a long-term goal, get a system for

coming back on a regular basis to increase the level of ambition, and

also make sure that the resources are flowing to enable this

transition to renewable, clean energy economy to happen. What's

your perspective, Chandra? In the last few weeks we have heard John

Kerry talking about problems... Prime Minister talking about

problem. There are differences to be resolved here. I don't think all the

differences will be resolved but I believe that we need a fair deal in

Paris which allows every country to come together and work together to

solve this challenge. Whatever is on the table, is just not sufficient.

Therefore, I think compromise is important from both sides. If there

are flexibility on both sides we might get a deal which will be

insurance for the future. Right now it's... Ruth, there are people who

doubt that climate change is manmade and therefore question the efforts

being made to try to impact on it. What do you say to that? I think

this is a problem that has been known about for quite a long time

now and there's been a huge scientific effort to explore and

understand what's going on with our climate. Every year the

conclusion... Unfortunately we have lost our communications with Ruth.

Let's go back to Chandra. I hope you heard the question and can give us

your view. I think thoet debates are over, we have now scientific

evidence linking extreme weather with climate change, the global

temperature is rising, we are seeing increase in sea levels, I think that

debate is over. If soap people - this is a side story, I think in

Paris today most people believe in all the parties believe that this is

a serious challenge, that even degrees is not sufficient. Two

degrees we will have huge impact on water, and farmers and a lot needs

to be done so we can save the poor and the most vulnerable of the

world. That is acceptable largely by everyone here. For a country like

India, which does have a much lower energy consumption per head than

other countries which obviously are much greater users, I think the

United States consumption per head is 15 times more than India, does

India feel it's being penalised at a time when other countries have

benefitted? I don't think India feels it is being penalised, what

India is asking that there has to be fair space for India and other

developing countries, you must understand that Africa is in a much

worse situation as far as energy access is concerned. India believes

that there has to be a deal which will allow parts of the poor world,

needs with food, housing, infrastructure, and energy, I don't

think we feel a victim as much as we believe that there has to be a deal

which is based on rights of every individual. I think that is India's

position on this issue. Thank you very much for joining us. Some

breaking news about the former New Zealand cricket captain Chris

Cairns. He has been found not guilty of perjury at South Warwick Crown

Court. The jury decided he had not been lying when he said under oath

during a libel trial that he had never cheated at cricket --

Southwark. Next,

the most senior transgender officer in the British army tells this

programme there's been an increase in the number of trans soliders

coming out over the last year. 28-year-old Hannah Winterbounne,

who's served in Afghanistan, This week she's picking up

Cosmopolitan magazine's Woman Thank you very much for coming in

and talking to us. It's a pleasure. Take us back over your past history

when you first went into the Army, it was as a boy, I think at 15,

wasn't it? it was as a boy, I think at 15,

after that. Yeah, I signed up to join the Army when I was 15, 16 and

didn't physically go to Sandhurst until I was 23 and at the time I was

identifying as male in my life, even though I knew that something wasn't

quite right. After a couple of years the feelings cemented and got

stronger and I realised I could no longer live in that way and I

decided to come out to the Army, come out to my friends and family

and start my transition to become the woman that I knew I was. What

was it like going through that transition in what many would

perceive to be a macho environment? It was good, the Army, no one can

perceive to be a macho environment? are... You mean the hierarchy?

Everyone in general, there is a perceived kind of idea that the Army

are a very sort of masculine, macho organisation but they're

forward-thinking. Whether it be the people who work Father me, my peers,

my colleagues or people who command me, they've all been really positive

and seen it as something that allows me to be who I am and plea frees up

my emotional energy to concentrate on work and do the yob they employ

me for. You are the most senior transgender person but not the only.

Not at all. You work with other transgender people within the Army.

How many do you get involved with? So, I am the transgender

representative for the British Army which involves mentoring all our

transgender soldiers as well as providing education to the people

who command them and also advising the Army on its policy to make sure

it's fit for purpose. We have a spectrum of people across the ranks

and the different types of being transgender within the Army and all

of them are just getting on with their lives and just doing their

jobs as a soldier. I want to bring you an e-mail from Clare. She says

the Army still has no support for transgender veterans. I spent 15

years being bullied physically punished and tighted -- treated like

a freak because of my genderer, that's not gone away, the age group

I live with feel the same. What today's society has achieved is

fantastic but many forget how we were treated in the 80s and 90s,

what do you think the MoD can repair the damage done to veterans what

served this country but lived in fear of their lives from colleagues

more than the enemy? It's probably not my place to say what the MoD

should do in terms of transgender veterans but I am acutely aware we

live in a generational age where things are much better. I have been

on record thinking -- saying I wouldn't be here telling you about

this positive experience if it wasn't for the people who came out

in the military in years gone by. And had to suffer hardships because

the education wasn't there in the wider society and the wider UK that

the Army could tap into and so, you know, the Army is very much leading

the way as it is now in making sure transgender employment is possible

but at the same time they've taken that from the entire society which

has moved on. There will always be a generational thing, I think. What do

you credit for the change that there has been, has it been high-profile

transgender people just taking the issue out there in a way that wasn't

there before on the general radar? I don't think in terms of society, in

general? Yeah, and obviously specifically to your experience, as

well, and you talk about it being a generational thing, what's changed?

It's like we got our foot in the door, there was a lot of going back,

in the media it was a bad representation, sensationalised,

whereas now we are starting to hear much more true representative

transstories and seeing the full spectrum of being transgender which

isn't just male or female but people in the middle who consider

themselves who don't identify with male or female. Because we are

getting true representations of people, people are starting to

understand and once you understand something you can start to accept it

and we are not all the way yet, we are still seeing sensationalised

stories and misrepresentation and people not understanding there is a

long way to go in terms of transgender civil rights, but we are

getting there. The fact that we are having more people visible, more

role models and more people to look up to and go I can identify with

that person and that's like me, therefore, they can feel comfortable

knowing their identity is valid. I think that is something that will

always take time and we are victim to our beliefs and things we are

taught as children and I think the children of today's generation are

seeing a much more open and understanding view of what gender is

and what it means to be male or female. A final thought, you are

getting this award, how important is that to you? It's obviously a huge

honour for me, I am very grateful for it. I think it's a nice marker

in the sand that trans-women are being recognised along with other

women. Good for you, thank you very much.

Thank you for joining us. On the programme tomorrow,

the latest in our series of reports on how to tackle

childhood obesity, including This week, everybody's been loving

The Great Pottery Throw Down... a little bit too much.

But who isn't potty for clay? You were so nervous,

and you've just excelled yourself. This is a good sign, by the way,

when he reacts like this.