:00:10. > :00:25.I'm joined now by David ual. -- Gaulk. The Tories had once abandoned
:00:26. > :00:29.these proposals. Much of the benefits of that would go to those
:00:30. > :00:34.inheriting the largest estates. And the second point is that the hope
:00:35. > :00:37.was that a cap would stimulate a private insurance products that
:00:38. > :00:41.would, if you like, fill the gap. There isn't really any sign that
:00:42. > :00:47.those products are emerging. Without a cap you won't get one at all, now,
:00:48. > :00:54.that's Chelsea. It doesn't look -- that's clear now. It doesn't like
:00:55. > :00:58.that this proposal is fairer. It provides more money for social care.
:00:59. > :01:02.It's right that we address those big, long-term issues. Social care
:01:03. > :01:06.is one of those. Getting a good Brexit deal is one of those, perhaps
:01:07. > :01:11.the most important. What I think this demonstrates is that Theresa
:01:12. > :01:14.May has an ambition to lead a Government that addresses big -
:01:15. > :01:18.Let's stick with social care. Under what you're proposing, if you have
:01:19. > :01:22.assets, including your home of over ?100,000 you have to pay for all
:01:23. > :01:30.your social care costs. Is that fair? I think it is right that for
:01:31. > :01:35.the services provided to you, that that's paid out of your assets,
:01:36. > :01:40.subject to two really important qualifications. First of all, that
:01:41. > :01:43.you shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment if
:01:44. > :01:50.you're in residential care, it can be wiped out to ?23,000. If you're
:01:51. > :01:53.in Domiciliary Care it can be wiped out to ?23,000 plus your housing
:01:54. > :01:56.assets. I don't think your assets should be wiped out. That won't
:01:57. > :02:00.happen under our plans. I don't think anybody should be forced to
:02:01. > :02:04.sell their house in their lifetime if they or their spouse needs
:02:05. > :02:08.long-term care. Again, we've protected that within the proposals
:02:09. > :02:14.that we have set out. But the state will basically take a chunk of your
:02:15. > :02:20.house when you die and you sell. In essence, it's a stealth inheritance
:02:21. > :02:24.tax of 100% on everything above ?100,000. We have two very important
:02:25. > :02:28.protections. I've included that. We have two important protections. It's
:02:29. > :02:33.a stealth inheritance tax. We have to face up as a country that there
:02:34. > :02:39.are significant costs that we face as a country in terms of health and
:02:40. > :02:42.social care. Traditionally, politicians don't address those
:02:43. > :02:48.issues, particularly during election campaigns. I think it's enormously
:02:49. > :02:51.to Theresa May's credit that we are being straightforward with the
:02:52. > :02:53.British people saying we face this long-term challenge. You know our
:02:54. > :02:58.whole manifesto was about the big challenges that we face. One of
:02:59. > :03:02.those is intergenerational fairness, one of which was delivering a strong
:03:03. > :03:08.economy and making sure that we can do that. But in the end, someone is
:03:09. > :03:12.going to have to pay for this. It's going to be a balance between the
:03:13. > :03:16.general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We think we've struck
:03:17. > :03:20.the right balance with this set of proposals. But it's entirely on the
:03:21. > :03:26.individual. People watching this programme if they've got a fair
:03:27. > :03:30.amount of assets, not massive, including the home, they will need
:03:31. > :03:34.to pay for everything themselves until their assets are reduced to
:03:35. > :03:38.100,000. It's not a balance, everything is on the individual. At
:03:39. > :03:41.the moment for those in residential care, which is a fairly substantial
:03:42. > :03:47.number, they have to pay everything until they're down to their last
:03:48. > :03:52.?23,000. They will now face more won't they? For those in residential
:03:53. > :03:57.care are seeing their protection go up by four times as much. So I think
:03:58. > :04:02.that is eliminating an unfarnings. Why should those in residential care
:04:03. > :04:05.be in a worse position than those receiving Domiciliary Care. That
:04:06. > :04:09.money has got to come from somewhere. We're setting out a
:04:10. > :04:14.proper plan for it. I also make the point that we are more likely to be
:04:15. > :04:18.able to have a properly functioning social care market if we have a
:04:19. > :04:21.strong economy, to have a strong economy, we need to deliver a good
:04:22. > :04:25.deal on Brexit and only Theresa May is capable of doing that. You've
:04:26. > :04:31.claimed that before. If you have - It's a very important point. If you
:04:32. > :04:35.have a heart attack in old age, the NHS will take care of you. If you
:04:36. > :04:39.have dementia you have to pay yourself. Is that fair? It's already
:04:40. > :04:45.the case that if you have long-term care costs, as I say, if you're in
:04:46. > :04:50.residential care, you pay for all of it till the last ?23,000. If you are
:04:51. > :04:56.in Domiciliary Care, excludeing your housing assets, all your other
:04:57. > :05:03.assets get used up until you're down to ?23,000 a year. And I think it is
:05:04. > :05:06.right at this point that a party that aspires to run this country for
:05:07. > :05:11.the long-term, to address the long-term challenges that we have as
:05:12. > :05:15.a country, to be clear that we need to deliver this. Because if it's not
:05:16. > :05:19.paid for this way, if it's going to fall on the general taxpayer, you
:05:20. > :05:23.know, people who already feel hard bresed by the amount of income tax,
:05:24. > :05:27.national insurance contributions VAT that they pay, frankly, we have to
:05:28. > :05:31.say to them, those taxes will go up if we don't address it another way.
:05:32. > :05:35.They might go up any way. The average house price in your part of
:05:36. > :05:40.the country, Hertfordshire, is just shy of ?430,000. Have you told your
:05:41. > :05:43.older constituents that they may have to spend ?300,000 of their
:05:44. > :05:49.assets on social care before the state steps in to help? Of course,
:05:50. > :05:53.as I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during their lifetime.
:05:54. > :05:58.Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We're providing that
:05:59. > :06:02.protection because of the deferred payment. That makes it a kind of
:06:03. > :06:06.death tax, doesn't it? The reality is - Which is what you used to rail
:06:07. > :06:12.against. Well, what it is is people paying for the services they have
:06:13. > :06:16.paid out of their assets. But with that very important protection that
:06:17. > :06:21.nobody is going to be wiped out in the way that has happened up until
:06:22. > :06:26.now down to the last 23,000. Your old boss George Osborne at the
:06:27. > :06:29.Treasury called it a death tax. You are proposing a stealth inheritance
:06:30. > :06:33.tax. No Labour's proposals were very different. It's the same effect.
:06:34. > :06:40.Labour's was hitting everybody with an inheritance tax. What we're
:06:41. > :06:43.saying is that there is a state contribution, state protection, but
:06:44. > :06:50.that the public who are receiving the services will have to pay for it
:06:51. > :06:54.out of assets which in many cases have grown substantially. Which they
:06:55. > :06:57.may now all lose to social care. I'd also say that people in
:06:58. > :07:00.Hertfordshire pay a lot in income tax and national insurance
:07:01. > :07:04.contributions and VAT and you know, this is money that is going to have
:07:05. > :07:08.to come from somewhere. They're now going to pay a lot of tax and still
:07:09. > :07:13.have to pay for their social care. Let's turn to immigration. You
:07:14. > :07:16.promised to get net migration down to 100,000 in 2010. You failed. You
:07:17. > :07:23.promise again in 2015. You're failing again. Why should voters
:07:24. > :07:27.trust you a third time? It's very clear that only the Conservative
:07:28. > :07:30.Party has an ambitious to control immigration and to bring it down.
:07:31. > :07:35.There are - An ambition you've failed to deliver. There are factors
:07:36. > :07:39.that come into place, for example, a couple of years ago, we were going
:07:40. > :07:42.through a pyre yod -- period where the UK was creating huge numbers of
:07:43. > :07:46.jobs but none of our European neighbours were doing anything like
:07:47. > :07:52.it. Not surprisingly that feeds through into the immigration numbers
:07:53. > :07:56.that we see. But it is right that we have that ambition because I don't
:07:57. > :08:01.believe it is sustainable that we can have hundreds of thousands net
:08:02. > :08:04.migration year after year after year and only Theresa May and the
:08:05. > :08:08.Conservative Party are willing to try to address that. It's gone from
:08:09. > :08:13.being a target to an ambition, I'm pretty sure in a couple of years it
:08:14. > :08:19.will be an aspiration, an untimed aspiration. Is net migration now
:08:20. > :08:22.higher or lower than when you came to power in 2010? I think it's
:08:23. > :08:28.higher at the moment. Let's look at the figures.
:08:29. > :08:38.You are right, it is higher. After six years in power, promising to get
:08:39. > :08:43.a 20 100,000, it is higher. If that's an ambition, you haven't
:08:44. > :08:49.succeeded. We have to accept a number of factors, the UK economy is
:08:50. > :08:56.growing and creating a lot of jobs, that is drawing people. We are
:08:57. > :09:00.outperforming a lot of other countries anyway I don't think we
:09:01. > :09:04.could have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors that has drawn
:09:05. > :09:09.that. If you look at a lot of the steps we have taken over the course
:09:10. > :09:14.of the last seven years, dealing with bogus students, for example,
:09:15. > :09:23.tightening up on a lot of rules. It would have gone up by a lot more had
:09:24. > :09:28.we not taken those steps. But we can't forever, it seems to me, have
:09:29. > :09:31.a net migration numbers at the hundreds of thousands. If we get
:09:32. > :09:38.that good a Brexit deal, one of the things we can do is tighten up in
:09:39. > :09:43.terms of access here. From the EU. You have always had control of
:09:44. > :09:46.non-EU migration, you control immigration from outside the EU.
:09:47. > :09:53.Have you even managed to get that below 100,000? No doubt he will
:09:54. > :09:59.present new numbers. I don't think we have. You have got it down a bit
:10:00. > :10:05.from 2010. Even non-EU migration is still a lot more than 100000 and
:10:06. > :10:09.that is the bit you control, 164,000 on the latest figures. There's no
:10:10. > :10:13.into voters when we get control over EU migration we will get a time when
:10:14. > :10:24.the big thing you have control over you fail to get that down into the
:10:25. > :10:26.tens of thousands. And nothing is the only answer, but your point is
:10:27. > :10:29.the general trend has gone up. Actually, non-EU grew migration we
:10:30. > :10:33.have brought down over the last two years. Not anywhere near your
:10:34. > :10:39.100,000 target. We have more tools available to us following Brexit. At
:10:40. > :10:44.this rate it would be around 20 or 30 when you get non-EU migration
:10:45. > :10:49.down. I've come back to the point I've made in the last six or seven
:10:50. > :10:55.years, particularly in the last for five, we have seen the UK jobs
:10:56. > :10:59.market growing substantially. You only promised the net migration
:11:00. > :11:05.targets because you didn't think you would be running the economy well? I
:11:06. > :11:08.don't think anyone expected us to create quite a number of jobs we
:11:09. > :11:15.have done over the last six or seven years. At a time when other European
:11:16. > :11:20.countries haven't. George Osborne says your target is economic and the
:11:21. > :11:26.illiterate. Here's my old boss, but I disagree with him on that point.
:11:27. > :11:29.The reason I say that is both looking at the economics and also
:11:30. > :11:35.the wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to
:11:36. > :11:41.have hundreds of thousands year after year after year. UID Chief
:11:42. > :11:44.Secretary, you no promising spending on health will be 8 billion higher
:11:45. > :11:51.in five years's time than it is now. How will you pay for that? From a
:11:52. > :11:54.strong economy. Two years ago, we had a similar conversation because
:11:55. > :12:00.we at that point said we would increase spending 8 billion. We are
:12:01. > :12:04.more than on track to deliver it because it's a priority area for us.
:12:05. > :12:10.Where will the money come from? It will be a priority area for us. You
:12:11. > :12:15.haven't been able to show us a revenue line for this 8 billion will
:12:16. > :12:18.come from. But we have a record of making promises of spending more on
:12:19. > :12:23.the NHS and delivering it. If one thing I would say is that the only
:12:24. > :12:29.way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy
:12:30. > :12:35.and the biggest risk... Where were the 8 billion come from? Because you
:12:36. > :12:40.are noticing that perhaps you may increase some taxes, people are
:12:41. > :12:44.right to be suspicious. You won't tell us with this 8 billion will
:12:45. > :12:49.come from but you have to jimmy lock off on tax rises. Andrew, a strong
:12:50. > :12:56.economy is key to delivering more NHS money. The big risk to a strong
:12:57. > :13:00.economy would be a bad Brexit which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we
:13:01. > :13:05.have a record of putting more money into the NHS. And that past
:13:06. > :13:06.performance I think we can take forward. Thank you for joining us,
:13:07. > :13:17.David Gauke.