David Gauke Sunday Politics

I'm joined now by David ual. -- Gaulk. The Tories had once abandoned

these proposals. Much of the benefits of that would go to those

inheriting the largest estates. And the second point is that the hope

was that a cap would stimulate a private insurance products that

would, if you like, fill the gap. There isn't really any sign that

those products are emerging. Without a cap you won't get one at all, now,

that's Chelsea. It doesn't look -- that's clear now. It doesn't like

that this proposal is fairer. It provides more money for social care.

It's right that we address those big, long-term issues. Social care

is one of those. Getting a good Brexit deal is one of those, perhaps

the most important. What I think this demonstrates is that Theresa

May has an ambition to lead a Government that addresses big -

Let's stick with social care. Under what you're proposing, if you have

assets, including your home of over ?100,000 you have to pay for all

your social care costs. Is that fair? I think it is right that for

the services provided to you, that that's paid out of your assets,

subject to two really important qualifications. First of all, that

you shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment if

you're in residential care, it can be wiped out to ?23,000. If you're

in Domiciliary Care it can be wiped out to ?23,000 plus your housing

assets. I don't think your assets should be wiped out. That won't

happen under our plans. I don't think anybody should be forced to

sell their house in their lifetime if they or their spouse needs

long-term care. Again, we've protected that within the proposals

that we have set out. But the state will basically take a chunk of your

house when you die and you sell. In essence, it's a stealth inheritance

tax of 100% on everything above ?100,000. We have two very important

protections. I've included that. We have two important protections. It's

a stealth inheritance tax. We have to face up as a country that there

are significant costs that we face as a country in terms of health and

social care. Traditionally, politicians don't address those

issues, particularly during election campaigns. I think it's enormously

to Theresa May's credit that we are being straightforward with the

British people saying we face this long-term challenge. You know our

whole manifesto was about the big challenges that we face. One of

those is intergenerational fairness, one of which was delivering a strong

economy and making sure that we can do that. But in the end, someone is

going to have to pay for this. It's going to be a balance between the

general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We think we've struck

the right balance with this set of proposals. But it's entirely on the

individual. People watching this programme if they've got a fair

amount of assets, not massive, including the home, they will need

to pay for everything themselves until their assets are reduced to

100,000. It's not a balance, everything is on the individual. At

the moment for those in residential care, which is a fairly substantial

number, they have to pay everything until they're down to their last

?23,000. They will now face more won't they? For those in residential

care are seeing their protection go up by four times as much. So I think

that is eliminating an unfarnings. Why should those in residential care

be in a worse position than those receiving Domiciliary Care. That

money has got to come from somewhere. We're setting out a

proper plan for it. I also make the point that we are more likely to be

able to have a properly functioning social care market if we have a

strong economy, to have a strong economy, we need to deliver a good

deal on Brexit and only Theresa May is capable of doing that. You've

claimed that before. If you have - It's a very important point. If you

have a heart attack in old age, the NHS will take care of you. If you

have dementia you have to pay yourself. Is that fair? It's already

the case that if you have long-term care costs, as I say, if you're in

residential care, you pay for all of it till the last ?23,000. If you are

in Domiciliary Care, excludeing your housing assets, all your other

assets get used up until you're down to ?23,000 a year. And I think it is

right at this point that a party that aspires to run this country for

the long-term, to address the long-term challenges that we have as

a country, to be clear that we need to deliver this. Because if it's not

paid for this way, if it's going to fall on the general taxpayer, you

know, people who already feel hard bresed by the amount of income tax,

national insurance contributions VAT that they pay, frankly, we have to

say to them, those taxes will go up if we don't address it another way.

They might go up any way. The average house price in your part of

the country, Hertfordshire, is just shy of ?430,000. Have you told your

older constituents that they may have to spend ?300,000 of their

assets on social care before the state steps in to help? Of course,

as I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during their lifetime.

Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We're providing that

protection because of the deferred payment. That makes it a kind of

death tax, doesn't it? The reality is - Which is what you used to rail

against. Well, what it is is people paying for the services they have

paid out of their assets. But with that very important protection that

nobody is going to be wiped out in the way that has happened up until

now down to the last 23,000. Your old boss George Osborne at the

Treasury called it a death tax. You are proposing a stealth inheritance

tax. No Labour's proposals were very different. It's the same effect.

Labour's was hitting everybody with an inheritance tax. What we're

saying is that there is a state contribution, state protection, but

that the public who are receiving the services will have to pay for it

out of assets which in many cases have grown substantially. Which they

may now all lose to social care. I'd also say that people in

Hertfordshire pay a lot in income tax and national insurance

contributions and VAT and you know, this is money that is going to have

to come from somewhere. They're now going to pay a lot of tax and still

have to pay for their social care. Let's turn to immigration. You

promised to get net migration down to 100,000 in 2010. You failed. You

promise again in 2015. You're failing again. Why should voters

trust you a third time? It's very clear that only the Conservative

Party has an ambitious to control immigration and to bring it down.

There are - An ambition you've failed to deliver. There are factors

that come into place, for example, a couple of years ago, we were going

through a pyre yod -- period where the UK was creating huge numbers of

jobs but none of our European neighbours were doing anything like

it. Not surprisingly that feeds through into the immigration numbers

that we see. But it is right that we have that ambition because I don't

believe it is sustainable that we can have hundreds of thousands net

migration year after year after year and only Theresa May and the

Conservative Party are willing to try to address that. It's gone from

being a target to an ambition, I'm pretty sure in a couple of years it

will be an aspiration, an untimed aspiration. Is net migration now

higher or lower than when you came to power in 2010? I think it's

higher at the moment. Let's look at the figures.

You are right, it is higher. After six years in power, promising to get

a 20 100,000, it is higher. If that's an ambition, you haven't

succeeded. We have to accept a number of factors, the UK economy is

growing and creating a lot of jobs, that is drawing people. We are

outperforming a lot of other countries anyway I don't think we

could have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors that has drawn

that. If you look at a lot of the steps we have taken over the course

of the last seven years, dealing with bogus students, for example,

tightening up on a lot of rules. It would have gone up by a lot more had

we not taken those steps. But we can't forever, it seems to me, have

a net migration numbers at the hundreds of thousands. If we get

that good a Brexit deal, one of the things we can do is tighten up in

terms of access here. From the EU. You have always had control of

non-EU migration, you control immigration from outside the EU.

Have you even managed to get that below 100,000? No doubt he will

present new numbers. I don't think we have. You have got it down a bit

from 2010. Even non-EU migration is still a lot more than 100000 and

that is the bit you control, 164,000 on the latest figures. There's no

into voters when we get control over EU migration we will get a time when

the big thing you have control over you fail to get that down into the

tens of thousands. And nothing is the only answer, but your point is

the general trend has gone up. Actually, non-EU grew migration we

have brought down over the last two years. Not anywhere near your

100,000 target. We have more tools available to us following Brexit. At

this rate it would be around 20 or 30 when you get non-EU migration

down. I've come back to the point I've made in the last six or seven

years, particularly in the last for five, we have seen the UK jobs

market growing substantially. You only promised the net migration

targets because you didn't think you would be running the economy well? I

don't think anyone expected us to create quite a number of jobs we

have done over the last six or seven years. At a time when other European

countries haven't. George Osborne says your target is economic and the

illiterate. Here's my old boss, but I disagree with him on that point.

The reason I say that is both looking at the economics and also

the wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to

have hundreds of thousands year after year after year. UID Chief

Secretary, you no promising spending on health will be 8 billion higher

in five years's time than it is now. How will you pay for that? From a

strong economy. Two years ago, we had a similar conversation because

we at that point said we would increase spending 8 billion. We are

more than on track to deliver it because it's a priority area for us.

Where will the money come from? It will be a priority area for us. You

haven't been able to show us a revenue line for this 8 billion will

come from. But we have a record of making promises of spending more on

the NHS and delivering it. If one thing I would say is that the only

way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy

and the biggest risk... Where were the 8 billion come from? Because you

are noticing that perhaps you may increase some taxes, people are

right to be suspicious. You won't tell us with this 8 billion will

come from but you have to jimmy lock off on tax rises. Andrew, a strong

economy is key to delivering more NHS money. The big risk to a strong

economy would be a bad Brexit which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we

have a record of putting more money into the NHS. And that past

performance I think we can take forward. Thank you for joining us,

David Gauke.