01/02/2016 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis. Newsnight is in Iowa for the first primary. Will it be Trump and Clinton?

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.

Newsnight is in Iowa for the first primary. Will it be Trump and Clinton? Also looks at Britain and the EU rulebook, more Kids Company details, and migrant children.

Download Subtitles