01/02/2016 Newsnight

It's that time again - the Iowa rush - 48 hours of global

And what is, this year, the wackiest presidential

We've been on the campaign trail with Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and

Donald Trump. We discuss whether what happens here tonight will

dictate the schisms of American politics on the right for years to

come. The smugglers give you your boat,

give a ten-minute training and a refugee has to man the boat and

bring it over here. People are completely left to their own devices

in the dark. Tory MP Heidi Allen

in Greece and in the studio. We'll ask her - is the Government

right to refuse to take in refugee children if they're

already in Europe? I never break the law. We have to be

very clear about that. I never break the law. I just stretch it a bit.

And MPs report on the collapse of Kids Company.

It's the people of Iowa - 1% of the US population -

who get first dibs on choosing the presidential candidates for each

party, and they're making their selection tonight.

For the Democrats they do it rather well.

In recent decades, their choice of Democrat has turned out to be

the ultimate candidate about three quarters of the time.

Iowa's not a great predictor of Republican nominations though.

It gets the final candidate less than half the time.

But never mind that, that's the contest everyone

I guess only a fool would leave one general election where the polls got

things so wrong and immediately start making predictions about the

next, but as things stand, the Des Moines register, the local paper,

perhaps the most trusted pollsters on the ground here, are suggesting a

comfortable lead for Donald Trump on the Republican side. Now on the

Democrat side, it's less clear. Hillary Clinton has been neck and

neck with Bernie Sanders, who has crept up on her and let's be honest,

on us, in the last month. What will swing things for both these

challengers, the outsiders tonight, is how many new comers actually show

up to caucus and caucusing is a long and it can be a cold and dreary

process. The weather today has been extraordinarily mild, which may

encourage more people out than usual. Tonight, we've been exploring

the battle for the heart and soul of American politics on the right, the

Republican party feels like it's being pulled one way by staunch aye

Diyalogs and the other by the larger than life characters and the

moderates are lost in the middle. We've been on the trail with the

front runner here, Ted Cruz, the Texas centre. We began our --

senator. We began our journey there. This is what Texas looks

like when it lets its hair down. It's a side of the Lone

Star State you don't often see, but once a year

Galveston, on the Gulf of Mexico, bursts into ten days of carnival,

bringing some 300,000 people out But this time around even

Mardi Gras faces stiff For sheer colour, excitement

and unpredictability, well, nothing beats the Republican

race for President. There's only one person

and that's the Donald. Because he has the

vision for America. He's going to tell the people

what he's going to do, Finally, we get someone

that's not a politician - Because he tells it

like it is, he's honest. To those on the right who feel

America has lost its way, become too liberal, too politically

correct or just too broken, Please welcome the next President

of the United States, And whilst it's hard to know

whether Trump is the symptom or the cause, his presence

is ripping the grand old party The Republican Party itself

is in the midst of an identity There is deep mistrust

of the institutions it espouses, government corporations, banks,

and of the people at its helm, the Bushs, the Romneys,

the Ryans, who are seen as too So the GOP's unenviable

choice at this point is between a candidate

hell-bent on destroying the party from within, and a candidate that

they pretty universally despise. That latter figure

is the Texas Senator, fiercely intelligent, with an appeal

to the evangelical right. He's been neck and neck

with Trump in Iowa. He prides himself on being

the one Washington hates. We're at the edge of a cliff,

and if we keep going another four or eight more years,

we risk doing irreparable damage to the greatest country

in the history of Ted Cruz appealed to this crowd

by telling them that Ronald Reagan was the candidate

that Washington hated. He said, "Don't trust any candidate

that tells you Washington's Yet this is a man who

worked for the Supreme Court, worked for Bush,

has attended the establishment in the form of Harvard

and Princeton. He calls himself

the antiestablishment candidate, and yet, some would say,

he is very firmly part of it. He perhaps lacks some

of the interpersonal skills that Although family members, as we know,

can be notorious tricky to tame. On a one-to-one basis,

I am very fond of Ted, but I think his public persona,

on the campaign trail, a lot of people find

off-putting, because So adamant about his positions,

and he's reflecting the anger He was running for Congress

at the same time Cruz He's a guy that you wouldn't

necessarily want to go down the pub in England and have a point

with, but if you want him on your side - as a fighter -

you definitely would engage him. Those who engage with him

are predominantly those The anger of the most pessimistic

here are the ones we used to call middle Americans -

the middle-aged, middle-class, neither rich nor poor,

you can measure their pessimism in the polls when you ask

them about their expectations for their lives and

for their children. It's those blue-collar,

white workers who normally express In Texas that anger is intensified,

by a sense that Washington's doing Bob, a retired dentist,

now breeds Texas Longhorns. He thinks the party has

squandered its power. The way the vote has

gone in Congress, since we have a Republican

majority in Congress, they just don't seem to be doing

the job that we thought they were going to do

when they were elected. And so, there's a lot

of the crossing over between, crossing over between the lines,

that I don't think the Republicans We leave Texas and head

for the snowy plains of Iowa, and I start to understand the scale

of the party's dilemma. Republicans control

the vast majority of legislative posts in this country,

as well as the Senate and Congress, yet they don't feel

they have control. They see the country

moving to the left - gay marriage, Obamacare,

the softening towards Iran. They're scared, and they're divided

on how to get it back. We had this idea that

you had the establishment on one hand, and the

base on the other. There's the ideological conservative

base, and that is what Ted Cruz Then there's the base that has been

tapped into by Donald Trump, and by Sarah Pailin

before him, which is much more about attitudes,

about wanting to return to the past, about resentment

of social change, and that is not something that's really based

on conservative policy views, People have a right to be angry,

but anger alone is not And don't write off

the establishment friendly Marco Rubio, making a dig

here at his angry rivals. Mainstream conservatives are looking

to him to unify the party, but it's a big weight for relatively

small shoulders. There's a sense the flicker

of hope right now comes not from the prospective present,

but from ghosts of the past. In his inaugural

address, another Texas son, one George Herbert Walker Bush

spoke of a thousand points of light, the old ideas,

he said, are new again It was a speech of community,

of cohesion, a very different rhetoric from the kind

we are hearing from Donald Trump or Ted Cruz today,

who speak of exclusion, History may come to regard

the result tonight as a mere footnote, but that wider question,

whether the party can heal itself or must divide in two, well that may

not fade so fast. Eights' unpick a few of those ideas.

# With me now is the Washington Post's

political correspondent and lead reporter on the Clinton

campaign, Anne Gearan. We start by looking at what you

think is at the heart of this struggle in the Republican Party

now. Do you think the fractions are there to stay? The fractions are

much more on display in this cycle and right here in Iowa than they

have been in a while. The underlying divisions have been there for a long

time. There is a war within the Republican Party that has been there

in varying degrees through the last few cycles. We've seen it with the

Tea Party phenomenon. We've always seen it in Iowa, where there is a

dispour portionately -- disproportionately conservative,

Republican base and a democratic one. What's interesting from the

outside, we always think of religion playing a key role in US elections,

this time, here in Iowa, even with the evangelical vote being so

strong, it looks like Donald Trump may have the upper hand. Yes, Donald

Trump has never been a favourite of religious conservatives. But he's

claiming that mantle now, which is very interesting, since there are

two other Republicans in the race, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckerbee who are

creatures this afternoon very part of the Republican party and have

actually three, Rick Santorum is still in the race, each of them can

claim the mantle of evangelical favourite. However, Donald Trump is

running ahead of them and has been for the most part here for months.

So that's actually one thing that a lot of Republicans are watching, is

this election the end of the evangelical Christian dominance of

the Iowa caucuses. The more favoured candidate is Marco Rubio, possibly

Jeb Bush. Can Marco Rubio come through maybe from third place here

and still become the nominee? Yeah, as you know, one thing, The

interesting thing about Iowa is that the person who places second or

third often is really judged the winner, because of the way the

caucuses work and the expectations that they set up. So if is as we

expect a close contest between Cruz and Trump at the top, whoever is

number three, will be able to say it's two races, it's those guys and

then it's the establishment candidates and I, whoever the person

is that is number three, have the establishment mantle. Rubio would

very much like it to be him. I think Jeb is too far down for it to be

him. One thing that would stop us dead is if Bernie Sanders wins here

tonight against Hillary, could he? He could win here. It's looking less

likely that he does than a week or ten days ago, when he was running

ahead of her outside the margin of error in most polls. Now he is even

with her, slightly ahead in one or two polls. She's slightly ahead in

the most recent gold standard poll, but still within the margin of

error. They are neck and neck. He's taunted young people in his crowds

by saying, we can prove the pollsters wrong. They say young

people don't come out to vote, you can. Do you think he'll get the new

comers in bigger numbers than anyone can imagine? He will definitely get

a lot of new comers. He's banking on getting enough to really change the

dynamic that seems to be set, where Clinton has a better, more

organised, more established operation here, which historically

has been the key to actually making it work on caucus night. It's a

labour-intensive process. It's a very organisation-heavy process.

It's a hands-on process, where each campaign calls people over and over

and over again, drives them to the caucus, stands outside the caucus

doors, tries to ensure that their people gets in there. That takes a

lot of people, volunteers. It usually takes a lot of older,

established Democrats that are willing to do that. That's not what

Sanders has in numbers right now. Great to have you here, thank you

very much indeed for your thoughts. It is a complicated business that

lies ahead of us, both the counting and indeed the caucusing itself. We

go from here to a rural farmhouse in Iowa, where we're invited into a

home to watch the Democrats caucus there. It could take a few minutes,

but it's more likely to take several hours. A snowstorm is forecast for

later tonight. We'll see just how many people turn out. From there,

Donald Trump is holding a celebration Iowa caucus party. If he

doesn't win, that all becomes a bit more problematic. We'll have a

better sense of that this time tomorrow.

Back in Europe, a process not quite as lengthy as the US presidential

selection, but that looks every bit as carefully stage-managed,

It takes us from potential president, Donald Trump,

to the less colourful EU Council president,

He's said he'll table proposals tomorrow noon,

after a lot of talking in recent days.

Does that mean it's settled?

It's really hard to know what's real and what is expectation management.

But broadly, the rule is that the odds are against us,

and the situation is grim, but magically,

In this case, on the hot-button issue of curbing benefits

Now we're all focussing on that like it matters.

Here's our political editor, David Grossman.

For the purposes of this EU referendum there are really two

One has the job of negotiating a deal with the EU, the other,

the job of selling it to the British people.

The chances of David two being successful,

depend on David one playing the part of someone who fought hard,

banged the table even, threatened to walk away

but ultimately pulled off a spectacular victory in the teeth

So it was last night in Downing Street that the Prime

Minister held talks with EU Council President Donald Tusk,

These were the photographs handed out to the media.

And look, they didn't even have time to eat

It's all with helpful for the sense of spectacle on these occasions

if one of the parties can rush out proclaiming that there's

And I suppose a tweet wouldn't hurt either,

encouraging signals were run up the EU flag pole.

What do you know, the deal has been done - a draft text will now be

It's already clear that whatever this text says when it is published,

will be a long way from what the Prime Minister said

he was looking for when he began the renegotiation process.

Initially, David Cameron wanted to tackle EU migration into Britain

There were, he said, two distinct problems.

One is movement to claim benefits, we need to crack down on that.

But I think secondly what's gone wrong, and I don't think the people

who founded the EU ever believed this was going to happen,

is the scale of the movements have been so big.

So as well as stopping EU migrants claiming in-work benefits for four

years to tackle the first problem, he said he needed to get fundamental

reform to the EU's free movement of people.

No longer would EU citizens, he said, be able to come to Britain

We want EU job-seekers to have a job offer before they come here,

and to stop UK taxpayers having to support them if they don't.

But perhaps there was an omen as he delivered that speech,

as he got to the section on reforming free movement

But freedom of movement has never been an unqualified right,

and we now need to allow it to operate on a more sustainable

basis, in the light of experience in recent years.

That doesn't mean a closed-door regime.

An alarm also went off in the chancelleries of

The Government's original proposal was to limit free movement,

but it was quite clear that that was simply not acceptable

to a majority of our European partners, so they've falled back

on this divisive limiting access for migrants to the benefit system,

which may save a small amount of money, but is unlikely to have

And that conclusion, that limiting in-work benefits

will do nothing to dissuade EU migrants from coming to the UK,

is one shared by other economists, including Sir Stephen Nickell

at the Office for Budget Responsibility.

You're asking me what impact that's likely to have?

And for MPs who want to leave the EU, the benefits issue is just

What they want to do is control immigration from the EU,

allowing who they want to allow in and stop people who they don't

It's a numbers game, it has nothing to do with benefits.

It's really a sideshow to the argument that is actually out

Conservative MPs who want Britain to remain in the EU are not

Instead, their case is about Britain's

I'm a reluctant inner, if you like...

I think the vast majority of the Parliamentary party

are Eurosceptic, but will, in the end, decide that

for strategic regions, geopolitical reasons,

that Britain's best interests' are served at the heart of Europe,

ensuring France and Germany don't dominate foreign policy or diplomacy

or even trade policy, so the majority I think will vote

The question is, how much will the public care or notice

the continuing shifting emphasis of these negotiations?

Indeed, how much will voters focus on substance at all,

Well David is here to give us the latest.

In case there is any late news. Tomorrow at noon, Donald Tusk

bringing forward his offer to the UK. Is there any briefing tonight?

What we have tonight is one aspect of what will be on that, which is

about something the Prime Minister and others in Europe are pushing

for, a wave of national parliaments getting together and blocking

something they don't like. Something addressing the crisis of legitimacy

in the EU. At the moment the EU's responses to strengthen the role of

the EU Parliament, but fewer people vote in the EU Parliament than vote

for national parliaments. What they have this idea is 55% of EU

parliaments can come together and block a measure. Downing Street this

is a big move for them and a victory for the Prime Minister, in terms of

that low threshold. The question is, is 55% going to block much? People I

have been speaking to suggest it may not. At the moment we already have

35% as a blocking minority in the Council of ministers. 35% as opposed

to 55%. Also one think tank suggested last year it should be

lower than a third, even lower than 30%, if you want to get a real red

card system. In a word, benefits, the one everyone is talking about.

Any word? I'm afraid not. We will wait until tomorrow. Thank you.

The sad story of Kids Company has been written up

The children's charity carried so many hopes and promised so much

Its fate was substantially sealed by reports on this programme

The Public Adminstration Committee report tries to point some blame

We will look at some of those shortly. First more on Kids Company

itself from Chris Cooke. The tale of Kids Company's collapse

is now in its final chapters. This week on Wednesday a BBC

documentary on Camila Batmanghelidjh, its Chief

Executive, will air. We have to be very clear about that,

I never break the law, And today, the House of Commons'

Public Administrations Committee The MPs are scathing

about the charity's management, but also about the auditors

who looked at its books and the regulator for

the charity sector. But they are most critical

of the charity's trustees. In fact, they go as far to suggest

that the Charity Commission should look at whether they should be

banned from ever being It just feels like such a huge

shame, because so many of the relationships,

especially that key workers had, with their clients were really

important and had huge benefit, and it just seems, the way

that it closed down, as well as the fact it closed down,

just seems like young people The report rehearses the familiar

rap sheet of inflated client numbers, generosity to a few

favourites, and weak This footage from the documentary

shows cash and vouchers being delivered and then

handed out to clients. The charity blamed its collapse

on a police investigation into abuse allegations, triggered

by a report by this programme, and dropped by the police

without charges brought. But the MPs say the charity

collapsed because it was just so financially feeble,

unable to cope with any shocks. The trustees had failed to rein

in their Chief Executive. In fact, in late 2014

Ms Batmanghelidjh refused financial help from a big multimillionaire

donor because she said the potential At the time Kids Company had

a ?4 million deficit, a gap eventually covered

with public money. The MPs also said that they believed

the charity had problems safeguarding its clients,

and that is an accusation that is particularly

galling to the trustees, because just last week

the Metropolitan Police dropped an investigation into the charity

and stated it found no evidence MPs listened to different people,

they spoke to government officials and former employees

and they reached The MPs were exercised by poor

whistle-blowing practice, as in the case with Helen Winter,

who tribunal found gave a Class A drug to a

client in a nightclub. A colleague attempted to blow

the whistle about it. Camila directed me to confront

Dr Winter at the Academy, that same day, in order to try

and get her to admit to what she had After that HR instigated

an investigation into what had happened, and they employed somebody

who was meant to be an independent investigator, but who actually had

strong ties to Kids Alan Yentob, Chair of the Trustees,

gets particular blame from the MPs. Notably for his attempts

in the summer to influence BBC journalists, including on Newsnight,

while he was BBC Creative Director. They say that a senior figure

could act in this way, and it could take so long

for action to be taken, reflects poorly on

the BBC's leadership. The MPs were also critical

of ministers at Kids Company who received more than ?40 million

of public money during its life. They are particularly interested

in a ?3 million grant made by the Cabinet Office

to Kids Company just days A grant signed off by Oliver Letwin

and Matthew Hancock The committee hint that

the political preference for Kids Company came right

from the top. They note, in letters

to Camila Batmanghelidjh in 2011, 2013 and 2014, the Prime Minister

expressed his personal support for the charity, and ministers

struggled to invent a rationale If I was a minister assessing

Kids Company for a grant, I would have been looking

for accurate monitoring, so good use of numbers,

clearly reported, using sound methodology, and I would have been

looking for outcomes measurement. I would have been looking for them

to show, in some way, not causal, but at least correlations,

between the work that they were doing, and the effects

that was having an young You repeatedly said that

Kids Company were doing good work. As I say, I had personal and direct

experience of talking Now the trustees say

the MPs report is biased, partial and ignored their evidence,

but the committee is clear - they don't want

another Kids Company. And you saw some clips of a BBC

documentary into Kids Company there. That'll be shown on BBC One

on Wednesday at 9pm. I'm joined now by Bernard Jenkin,

chair of the Public Accounts The Independent columnist who has

seen first-hand some of the work Kids Company did. Some people think

that if it hadn't been for that police investigation, Kids Company

would still be operating now. The police did in the end to save no

need to take action, is that your view? Yes. In the post-Jimmy Savile

era as soon as there is a whiff of scandal to do with sex and children,

of course everybody, and quite rightly, begins to go into

overdrive. But it did unfortunately set something up, which in the

end... I'm just so sorry and sad for those kids who really depended on

the work that was being done. I just don't buy this idea that whatever

was going on was exaggerated. I talked to a lot of those kids. I

went one morning just before seven, I have never had a single cup of

Coffey with Camila or Alan Yentob, I am not in their circle. I am often

accused of being a lovely, I don't know them and they are not my

friends. But the thing that really struck me was the kids came last, if

they ever came at all. And the committee should have spoken to some

of the children, the older children. On that one specifically? I think

they were very mindful of the fact that at the end of this, there were

children in very difficult circumstances. I promise you, this

was something that occupied us. It was very easy to get carried away

with all the things that went wrong. We kept reminding ourselves, this

charity probably did a lot of good work and we heard from a lot of the

employees who had done a lot of that good work. One of the things we say

in our report is what has been learned by this charity must not be

lost. We met some people who were setting up some sort of continuation

of the good things that the charity did. We referred to that in our

report, because we think that is an important message. You think the

charity would have collapsed anyway, if it wasn't for the police

investigation? About the doubt. It was living a completely hand to

mouth existence. Every time any money came in, the evidence we

received was that the money just went out the door, one way or

another it was spent, because the priority of the charity was always

the kids. That was understandable, that was noble, but if your priority

is so much the case, you're not actually thinking about the

interests of the charity, the interests of the employees. The

interest of your creditors. You have to think about that as well. I think

you are right, of course. There were a lot of short cuts taken. Camila

Batmanghelidjh, got swept away, but at the end of the day this was about

children who nobody could love. I couldn't love them. They were not

easy children. How do you measure, how do you measure giving hope to a

person who is ripped apart? How many of them? I don't know, I

don't speak for them. I know that the kids I met - and I met a lot

over the years - were the kind of kids nobody else could help. They

were unloved by their own families. Local authorities couldn't reach

them and although I completely understand what the committee was

trying to do, if I may say so, sometimes Select Committees which is

a great system, become theatrical themselves. I think yours did. Were

you part of the echo chamber? Clearly there was a lot of media

attention going on. Have you just howled back to the media what they

were telling you? I was more worried about the evidence session with

Allan Yentob than any other session I have sat on. I was worried it

would become a circus. So we decided that our questions were going to be

very practical, very down to earth, quite forensic, just looking for the

information. That, in a way, kept the thing sensible, because it was

always in danger of going off track that evidence session. It didn't

feel like that if you were watching it. Also, before you'd had the

LSC... But it was our witnesses. The justice, whatever it's called. The

social justice commission. Academics, practitioners and

including civil servants, who had looked at the work of the

organisation. There's a long history of civil servants looking at this

and thinking, this is very difficult to assess, whether the outcomes -

exactly what we heard on that film that from the former employee that

there wasn't a proper assessment of outcomes. The reports you're

referring to - The LSC report was amazing. The LSC report, social

justice commission report, they identified individual cases where

good work was being done and you could argue there was a gap in the

statutory provision which is what the charity was about. But it didn't

address the failing that's the trustees should have known about.

You have said the trustees or it should be looked at whether they

should be trustees of charities again, I want to can you a question

- what about Oliver Letwin, who OKKed money, overroad civil servants

and wanted to give taxpayer money to this charity, they said not unless

you have written instructions. What's the sanction for him? In a

way, we've tried not to cast blame on individual trustees. What's your

personal view? I will explain this. We wanted to learn owons. In the

same -- lessons. In the same way we approached what civil servants did,

we wanted to learn lessons. You gave lessons out to the trustees and not

willing to give it to the politicians. No, where there is a

close political relationship with a high profile charity, ministers

shouldn't have anything to do with the decision to funding to those

charities. There were conflicts as interests, just as we complain about

it in the BBC, there were conflicts of interest that ministers had that

should have prevented their making these decisions. Do you think there

are other charities, other kids companies out there, very good at

raising money... Thgs the main message for them, in all these

organisations, there are powerful people who are very persuasive and

the one thing the Charity Commission says is you shouldn't allow your

judgment as a trustee could be swayed by your personal prejudices

or a powerful and influential person. And you shouldn't

characterise, sorry, you've described the kids company in a way

that I would argue is terribly biassed. Ive don't agree with that

characterisation at all. Fair point. Point made. Thank you both. It's a

very sad story from which we should learn a lot. It will come back. She

will come back. All right. OK. Have the British done their bit

for refugees that have Or is it better to help those

stranded nearer Syria? The Conservative MP

for South Cambridgeshire, Heidi Allen - elected

for the first time last year - has been taking a close interest

in the refugee situation and she's just spent the weekend

on the Greek island of Lesbos with Save the Children,

getting a close look at life in camps there, particularly

for the unaccompanied children. This is the first thing that

struck me, actually. Some of these boats from a distance

look like they are in really good condition, but when you get

up close and personal, I don't know whether you can see

in there, but that is the most evocative thing I have seen

so far, just the discarded There is a little kid's shoe over

there, and this is a boat I can't even imagine how many

people have crammed onto, on a journey that would take

anything from an hour to ten hours Here's the thing, the smugglers give

you your boat, give someone a brief ten-minute training,

and then a refugee themselves has to man this boat and bring

it over here. And that I find staggering,

that people are completely left to their own devices,

in the dark, they have no idea where they are going and just hoping

to reach land on the other side. So this is Kara Tepe camp,

on Lesbos, which is where families come once they have been

registered on arrival. Some people will be here

literally just for a day, and then they are on boats

to the next point of their journey It is a tremendous facility,

actually, and the loveliest part is that Save The Children managed

to find a small space for children to play, toys -

they can draw, they can paint. Some really beautiful paintings,

but some very, very But that's part of the process here,

to try and help the children come Great facilities, lots of Ikea huts,

which are great, but we need to have Some of them don't have heating

in them, that is so important. Today is a lovely sunny day,

but we had snow last week, so getting the right

equipment and facilities Well, Heidi Allen met

the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, before she left

and will meet him again But he won't need to wait

to hear her view, because she's written it up for The Sun,

and is with me here. Goning to you. -- Good evening to

you. You knew it would be bad before you went, did anything surprise you?

The overall scale and the inability of the Greek authorities to deal

with it. I didn't expect it to be a wonderful experience. I knew it

would be very upsetting, but just the pressure, it seems to me, being

placed on the Greek authorities to just deal with it. Every charity you

can think of is there, everybody is trying so hard. From a coordination

point of view it's overwhelmed. They can't deal with it. Who should take

responsibility, particularly for the children, in a Greek island, kids

who don't belong to any European family? I think it's, what's become

very clear to me, is that this is more than just a local problem, more

than a European problem. This is a global problem. Everybody that's had

a role in trying to defeat Daesh, that's what's fuelling a lot of

these migrants moving across, has to play their part. For me, it's

operational. The issues to solve the problem in Syria etc are huge and

more complex. Right here and now in the Italian islands, this is about

administration, bodies on the ground. I feel that every European

country, America, should come together, contribute and have some

real organisation there. They could really transform the situation. Us

as well? Absolutely, yes. We are doing that. That's something I'm

very proud of. We're doing it, though, we're doing it to people out

nearer Syria, aren't we? That's our policy. We don't want to pull people

to Europe. Correct. We're not helping people in Europe. That is

the British Government approach. Broadly speaking and overall I would

agree with that. What I saw the levels of people coming through,

some days 7,000 people per day arriving on these coasts, it's

absolutely right that we try to keep people that are economic migrants, a

lot of the time, staying in the countries they come from. Once they

arrive, it becomes everybody's problem. So the Government has

announced that they will invest money directly in the administration

processes. We can't help all those children without bringing some of

the children to the UK, presumably. They can't live on a Greek island

forever, that's not going to happen. There will be some who can't be sent

back as economic migrants. Some of them are children. What sort of

number do you think we should take? Is it 25,000 unaccompanied kids

arrived last year? That's the estimate. Even Save the Children

would say it's difficult to get a feel. The real reason why it's hard

to know how many there are is because of the administrational

break down. A lot of these children will have estranged family members,

distant cousins, already in Europe. We need to go through the process to

identify who they are and then it's who's left behind. In Italy, we have

a much clearer picture of that, because the processes there are more

developed. You're painting this as just an admin problem. Do you think

it's actually also about bringing youngsters... It is, yes. What

scale, 5,000 for the UK? 3,000 is the figure people have said? I don't

know if it's clear-cut as that. If it was me championing that meeting

and bringing European leaders together, I would want a grown up

conversation. Germany have opened their borders beyond all recognition

and probably some would say too far, within the huge numbers that they

have taken, by default there will be a lot of unaccompanied children that

have come part of that. It's a sensible conversation of leaders

talking about human beings saying, "What can you manage? Until we do

the work to understand the number of children who are there

unaccompanied, because nobody should try to find a home for a child in a

foreign country if there is the opportunity to find their family

that. Process has to be gone through first. Thanks very much.

I'll be back tomorrow. We will know the results from Iowa. Until then,

very good night.