East Election 2017: Where You Live

Hello and welcome to the King's Gate conference centre in Peterborough.

Next week we go to the polls in what is arguably the most important

election for generations and what's turning out to be an extraordinary

election too. Tonight, this audience gets the opportunity to ask our

panel the questions that matter to people here in the East.

Here with me are Brandon Lewis for the Conservatives, Martin Schmearer

for the Green Party, Norman Lamb for the Lib Dems, Patrick O' Flynn for

Ukip and Clive Lewis for Labour. If you want to join in the conversation

you can at #Bbceastdebate. First question from

Margaret Ridley? The three acute hospitals in Cambridgeshire have had

some of the worst declines in A performance and delayed transfers of

care in the country. What would you do about this? Brandon Lewis? I

think one of the key things is to remember with all of the Health

Service we've got some fantastic people working here, so we want to

make sure they've got the support there, making sure that we can get

the money into the NHS that it needs to be able to two forward. I'm very

proud of the fact we have seen that money in cash increase year on year

in the NHS and actually move power into the Clinical Commissioning

Groups. But also going forward, we need to be able to back the plan and

the requests to put that extra ?8 billion in as we go forward. To do

that, we have to make sure we have a strong economy to be able to do

that. It's teams and all of the Health Service teams can have that

stability and plan for the future. Clive Lewis? The Labour Party have

said we'll invest an extra ?30 billion over the next five years

into the NHS. We are clear the issue with the NHS isn't just about money,

as important as that is, it's also about staff and staff moshl and I

think anyone that goes into the NHS knows that it's start that are

holding our health care system together. That is why we've said

that we'll end the 1% pay cap which is in effect a real terms pay cut

for the staff and make sure they have the support they need and

deserve. I think it's frankly outrageous that nurses are forced to

go to food banks, it's unacceptable in the 21st century. Investment yes

but also making sure that elderly social care is taken care of. These

cuts aren't working, they are costing more as more pressure goes

on to the acute side of the NHS. So a unified joined up NHS and elderly

social care system and also reversing the cuts to local

authorities where so much of the care that is needed actually should

be taking place and that's I think quite important. You say you'll

commit ?30 billion to the NHS. If it's not about money, then that's a

lot of money isn't it? Last night we saw Theresa May talk and say that it

isn't just about funding when it comes to the police and the NHS and

schools. I think quite clearly money does come into it. It doesn't mean

you can't do things differently and better joined And unified. Patrick

O' Flynn. Clive should make clear that the figure is ?6 billion a

year. It's a bit odd coming from Ukip that I'm able to outbid Clive.

We'll put in by the final year of the next Parliament ?11 billion into

the NHS. On top of the ?350 million? Add on social care. Nothing to do

with the referendum in this context. We have a fully costed plan because

we are the one party that takes the tough decisions and makes the tough

calls in the public about unnecessary spending programmes so

we'll be reigning back the foreign aid budget which is due under all

these other parties to top ?15 billion at the end of the next

Parliament to about ?4 billion. We want to see the foreign aid budget

go down and the NHS budget go up. There's a massive capacity problem

in the NHS. If you lack at the statistics for the demand on

accident and emergency, it really is leaping forward hugely every year

and another part of that is, we are losing too many GPs, so the primary

care system is under a lot of pressure and we want to have some

innovative plans to bring back some of the GPs we've lost in recent

years into the profession. Martin? It's quite clear that the NHS is a

fundamental British institution, it is one of the great things about

Britain. It has been since its inception in the 1940s. It still is

today. But it is about money, about the billions that we need to invest

in our National Health Service to make sure that we deal with

prevention and then of course with cure. At the moment, under the

Conservative Government, there is not enough money to go around. In

the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, for example, the A department was

built for 60,000 people each year, it's now seeing about 120,000 people

and it's the staff, the doctors nurses, occupational therapists,

that are keeping the system afloat. ? You say that you will have an

immediate cash injection for the NHS. Yes. These people are at least

putting figures on it, what is yours? I believe it's about ?20

billion and I think that is absolutely needed. Is that over five

years? One year. I believe it's over the full five years. What we also

need to do is the percentage of GDP, we need to increase it. At the

moment we spend about 9-10% of our GDP on health care. Germany spends

about 11%, but what do they get more? At the moment, the figures say

that the UK has 2.7 beds per thousand people in this country, in

Germany, the figure is 8.2 beds per thousand people so a small amount of

money more does go a long, long way to ensuring that we have the health

system that we really need and deserve. Norman Lamb, you put a

penny on income tax? We would. Margaret, you are absolutely right

to highlight the massive pressure that the whole system is under.

There are consequences for real people here. I've been dealing with

a case recently where a couple have been left with the wife in enormous

pain waiting for a hip operation, told she'd have to wait 26 weeks.

Now, that couple have paid nearly ?20,000 for a private operation

because they couldn't stand the wait any longer. Many people can't afford

that. I don't want to live in a country where people who have money

can get access to health care quickly and everybody else is left

waiting. I think that's a shameful situation and it undermines the

basic fundamental principles of our NHS that everyone gets access to

care when they need it regardless of their ability to pay. I do also

think, just like Clive, that we cannot sustain the NHS year after

year on the basis of nurses taking a real terms cut in pay. That's what's

happening. I don't think you can justify that. I think we must be

willing to pay our public servants properly and to ensure that their

pay isn't cut year on year. So we would make that investment. We would

increase tax by a penny in the pound. That's equivalent to less

than two coffees for someone on average earnings per week. But I

think that probably if we all think about it for a moment, we all want

to ensure that health care is there for ourselves and our loved ones

when we need it and we shouldn't have these appalling long waits.

When you talk about mental health as well, the waits there are appalling

and we have to address that as a matter of priority.

APPLAUSE. Let me come back to Margaret. Does

that answer your question? Well, we've heard views from the different

parties, but I would just like to say if this Government gets in

again, that is the end of the NHS. APPLAUSE.

The gentleman in the front row in the shirt there? We have a lot of

people using our NHS service. We've got people coming from all over the

world to use our service and they're not paying anything into it. It's a

National Health Service, not an international Health Service. The

lady behind you? Can I just say that I'm recently retired as a social

worker and to hear the Tories talk about in real terms they're putting

in extra money, I can assure everybody here that the cuts have

been made to social care over the last seven years have been

absolutely devastating for social care and the knock-on to the NHS

because people are waiting over a million waiting for social care at

the moment in this country, it's a scandal in the sixth wealthiest

country in the world. This also has a knock-on. Austerity has a huge

knock-on effect on the mental health of the nation I believe. I think

that's something that's not being addressed and needs to be addressed.

APPLAUSE. Brandon Lewis? Margaret Ridley said

the Conservatives will be the end of the NHS. Unsurprisingly, I don't

agree with that. We believe in investing in it and having an

economy that is strong enough to deal with it. We have got to deal

with the point the lady raised about social care. We have to also

understand that we are not living in a vehicle European Union where there

was never an economic crash. We have had to make some very tough

decisions, Local Government took its fair share of the changes and cuts.

We are the party that is coming forward with a clear plan and being

upfront. We need to be able to provide for people. We have two

million more people going into social care in the next decade or

so. The crash was ten years ago nearly, nine-and-a-half years ago.

APPLAUSE. Absolutely. Let's remember how bad

it was. We ended up with a deficit of ?151 billion. We've now got it

down to ?50 billion was still have it. That's how bad it was. A quick

word from Norman Lamb then the next question. The Conservatives are

planning to spend on health and care and whenever you are that makes no

sense at all. The plans for care for elderly people which will mean that

very many people receiving care in their homes, their own homes, will

start to have to pay typically ?15,000 a year or more if you have

complex needs, I just think it's incredible. It's a total betrayal of

older people. I introduced a cap on care costs when I was minister with

Conservative support. They committed to implement it and they've gone

back on it and that's outrageous. APPLAUSE.

We will move on. Our next question from Hano Kakosh. Is it not

important for an economy to offer free access to universities for the

best people to be able to compete on a global market? Patrick O' Flynn

Yes it's important. That's why we need a points-based immigration

scheme which sorts out the very best most able and highly skilled people

and prioritises them to come into this country. That is why we in Ukip

believe we need a moratorium on low skilled and high skilled people

coming into work who may work very hard but their tax contributions

simply don't cover their consumption of Public Services and consumption

of in-work benefits too for that matter. We in this country a are

adding to our population by at least 250,000 ofry single year and we have

been doing that since 2004 really since the turn of the century. That

is unsustainable, it's had a terrible pressure on access to

Public Services, on social cohesion too and I'm proud that Ukip is the

one party in this election that really is the low immigration party.

We are offering people a choice to vote for lower immigration. What

about access to free universities so you get the best students? Well, I

took the questioner as talking about academics and experts but in terms

of under-graduates, absolutely not. We cannot offer that. When we leave

the EU, we'll be able to come away from that system of having to offer

every European student the same support package we do for British

students and so in Ukip that's led us to put forward a costed plan to

take stem students all together out of tuition fees and to bring back

maintenance grants for low-income students in this country. We'll put

British students first. Norman Lamb? First of all on the point about

students coming from overseas, we should absolutely be open to

ensuring that we get the best students from around the world.

APPLAUSE. I just find it frankly extraordinary

that the Prime Minister seeks to restrict the number of foreign

students. This is an enormous export earner for our country. People come

to our universities and go back to their own countries and they think

well of the UK as a result of being here so it's good soft diplomacy as

well. In terms of the funding of students for university, well, we've

got the scars to show for this whole issue in Government. The truth is

that this is difficult and if you offer free university education, the

danger is that you then in terms of being able to fund it start to

refund reduced access to universities -- start to fund

reduced access to universities. We had a choice in the coalition,

change to increased fees repayable on the basis of your ability to pay

or we reduced funding for universities and we thought that

that would be a big mistake because it would always be youngsters from

poorer backgrounds who lost out as a result of that. So with the changes

we made, we have ensured that repayments are strictly based on

your ability to pay, so if you are rich, you pay a lot, if you are on a

low-income as a graduate, you pay much less. But we have ensured

continued funding for universities which has ensured that they remain

world class. That is incredibly important for our country's future.

Would you charge anybody who comes from overseas? Yes, of course.

Anybody? Whether they are from a poorer background with great

intellect or not? Well at the moment students from other countries

sometimes funded by their own Governments pay fees to come to our

universities and I think that's rite. The gentleman on the front row

in the brown shirt? Yes. Why not a graduate tax? I think in effect the

system now is akin to a graduate tax because your repayments are based on

your ability to pay so that bankers and lawyers and accountants and so

forth on very high earnings pay a huge amount back but people, care

workers and so forth who receive low earnings as a result of their

following their degrees, actually pay back less than they used to. So

it's strictly based on your ability to pay and it was deemed to be a

progressive system when it was independently analysed. Martin you

were shaking your head? I was because with respect Norman I think

that's trying to rewrite history. It was never a graduate tax, it was

simply ?9,000 a year being forced on to all students. We in the Green

Party think that education is a right, not a privilege, that is not

a cliche, it's a fact, whether you are eight years old or 18. Education

should be free and remain free. That is something we in the Green Party

would be campaigning for. Yes it would cost us ?8 billion, but the

simple fact is that by investing in young people, by educating people

like British universities which include Cambridge, Oxford and some

of the greatest institutions in the world, we are creating a new

generation of people who're going to be paying more tax and be creating

the economy that we all would like to see.

APPLAUSE. The lady in the red dress? I want to

ask Norman, you said you'd support education and it should be free. I

can give you an example of myself. I'm over 40. I wanted to be a

professional chef just for my education in this country but I

couldn't afford it because of the course, it was ?9,000 to do it. I

couldn't afford ?9,000 to do it. Then I had to drop it. I had to look

for something else. So this one is not true that it's free, it's not

free. Brandon Lewis? We haven't heard from you? Aagree with quite a

bit of what Norman said. The reality is, if someone goes to university,

they repay the loan effectively afterwards, based on what they earn.

The higher earners pay it back, the low earners don't pay it back. I've

always thought there was a second benefit from this as we move

forward. Let's be clear about the facts firstly, more people from

deprived backgrounds are going into university since this scheme came

in. There is another thing for the students going into it. It's about

making sure, and I paid to go to university as well so I've been

through this and had to pay for it. You think about, not just what you

want to study but the place you are going to study and what they offer

you as a consumer choosing where to go and what kind of division time,

what face Time you get with your tutors and lecturers so you can make

a conscious decision about how you invest in the money that you get for

your own. -- your loan. Which is exactly the problem. I'm proud of my

party and the manifesto because we now see education, not as a

commodity but as something that everyone is entitled to. We have

said that if you want to have an education, whether a university

education, a further education at college, whether you are an adult

learner or want to go back to college, we'll make it free at the

point of use. You are making a decision to invest in yourself and

the future of this country. We are saying if you want to invest in the

infrastructure of this country, its people are critical to that. If you

want to pay back more and have a higher education, you will pay back

more. I kind of think moving away from the concept of education as a

commodity and consumers, I'm happy with that because I think the vast

majority of people in this country understand that education is a

right, not a privilege and it's something that will benefit our

economy and this country and I'm proud of the fact we'll make

education free at the point of use. APPLAUSE.

The young lady there? I would like to say that I do feel like some of

you are treating this as if us students, we are leaving university

with only a couple of grand of debt. The average student is leaving

university with ?44,000 of debt, OK, so we are having to basically work

for a couple of years just to pay that off. The majority of us don't

even get the chance to pay that off because we are entering low-paid

jobs. I believe the only party that are going to get us out of this mess

are Labour. The person behind you? Is the

Conservative Party pledging to introduce more grammar schools, a

step back to the days of inquestion quality? I would be interested to

hear the Conservative Party on that? No, I don't agree. I will answer

this, but also the lady's point, it's not how the system works. So

when you leave university, you'll pay that loan back as, when and if

you earn the money to be able to pay it back. That is why it works as a

good structure that funds it. In terms of grammar schools, it's

absolutely the right policy. Particularly when you look at some

of the opportunities that can come through from having that opportunity

of better and better schools coming through and some pupils who've got

that ability having the chance to access that, particularly if they

don't have the ability to pay for private education or don't have that

option available which in my part of the world is the case. A last short

comment from you? All the evidence suggests that increasing grammar

schools around our country will increase inequality, not reduce it.

Hear, hear. APPLAUSE.

At the age of 11, I failed the 11-plus, deemed a failure at that

age. Had I lived on the other side of town from where we did live, I

would have gone to an old-fashioned secondary modern school. I would

have been written off at the age of 11. As it happens, I was lucky

enough to go to a new comprehensive that had just been built, and then I

managed to do all right for myself. I don't want a return to the days

where children are written off at the age of 11. That's what the

Conservatives planned. Pleaseth

APPLAUSE. . Next question from Cameron? Hole?

How does your party propose to tackle immigration? It's all about

getting the right balance. We have to listen and accept and understand

what the message was from the referendum campaign and one of the

things that I think we have to focus on in this country is giving skills

to youngsters who don't have the benefits of going to university but

are too often written off when they leave school with no qualifications

and it's been too easy to get low-cost labour. We have to give our

own youngsters the chance to get the qualifications they need so they can

compete in a competitive market. They have to recognise that there is

a need for workers from other countries to come here to work for

example in our health and care system. In the Norfolk and Norwich

Hospital that serves my area of Norfolk, there are around 400 people

working there from other EU countries. Now, these people have

chosen to come to this country to give of their best, to serve our

citizens in this country and not to have guaranteed their right to stay

here now I think is outrageous. We should guarantee their right to stay

so that they have security and knowledge that they and their

children can stay? On that last point, it's a rare moment of

agreement. It's in our manifesto, 160,000 EU NHS workers we'd

absolutely give the right to stay, no conditions whatsoever. But

really, we've had added to our population about four million since

the turn of the century. It's an unsustainable position, I was glad

to hear Norman acknowledge the pressure on low-paid workers in

their job opportunities and their stagnant wages that's gone on. We

need to grasp this nettle. It demands political will power and

Ukip's oftening a policy of balanced migration over a five-year period.

Roughly law of large numbers, we have 600,000 people a year coming

here and 300,000 people a year leaving, so we are not saying pull

up the draw bridge but we are saying there has to be a much greater

degree of discernment about who we let in, people with the right apt

Tuesday to add to our economy but also people with the right attitudes

to blend in with our society and values -- right aptitudes to add to

our economy. You would, would you not, if somebody breaks the law,

they would not be allowed to stay, is that right? Well, if it was a

significant criminal offence. So who would decide what kind of level that

is at? Well, you are talking about the admittedly prospect of a Ukip

government, that would be set in the Home Office by civil servants in

terms of it being a kind of perhaps a crown court level offence. OK.

Martin? I speak as a first generation immigrant myself, born in

Germany, lived here all my life, hence why you probably can't tell it

through my accent. I'm one of those people left in limbo and uncertainty

because of Brexit. I would like to make the case that immigrants play a

positive role in our society. Most of whom do come here, do work hard,

do contribute to the economy, and contribute about ?2 billion surplus

every year. Why should we jeopardise them? Why should we put their

livelihoods and question that? Why should we question their commitment

to this country? Gentleman in the third row in the middle? I've got

children who graduated from university, massive shortage of

housing, the oldest one's 28, he's still living with me. Can't save

enough for a deposit. What are the parties going to do about this for

the future? Gentleman down the front mere with his hand up? Why can we

not train our only youngsters to go into the hospitals and they're

getting degrees, why aren't we training them. Nursing training was

cut back in the 90s I think I'm correct in saying. Brandon Lewis? We

have more nurses coming into the NHS, but I actually do think going

back to the original point and I'll touch on the point made about the

gentleman's child coming out of university as well. We have got to

recognise that the country made a clear decision in this part of the

world, a very clear decision around Brexit and wants to leave the

European Union and we have been clear about, first of all we'll

respect that, we've delivered Article 50 so started that process.

As we leave the European Union, that gives us opportunities to get much

more control back, full control back of our borders with countries who

we've not had that control with over the past years in the European

Union, the free movement of Labour that Labour itself wants to

continue. We'll have that opportunity coming directly to the

point about what we can do. We have got to deal with the issue. This is

why we have outlined what we have done about increasing the

opportunities for councils to build more social housing. We have seen

housing go from what was its highest level, 75,000 in 2009. The gentleman

was making a correct point about training people at home. We have got

to make sure we are upskilling people to take jobs, not just in

Public Services but in the opportunities we see all over the

country, as businesses are growing. We have nearly two million more jobs

in this economy with 1,000 a day being created. We want to upskill

people for universities. You have ended the nursing bursary which

makes it difficult for any mature nurses to train to qualify? The lady

in the front row? I spent 33 years in social housing and we are

building far less than we've ever done in my whole 33 years in housing

and the poverty that I've seen on the streets and in living in slum

landlord conditions are just terrible. It's to do with a total

failure of housing policy and of planning that you're just not

building and you have no intention with your current manifesto to build

enough houses for our children. APPLAUSE.

Actual I, can I respond to that? We are on immigration. That's not

correct factually. We have built more social housing under 13 years

of Labour. That's a fact. Our manifesto's very clear about how we

want to deliver more housing and more social housing as well. We are

on immigration. The lady in the middle? But surely isn't the

economic success of this country due to the immigration, due to the

people working in the fields and people working in the hospitals and

paying their taxes? APPLAUSE.

Clive Lewis The lady made a very important point. If you want to

build more houses and Seoul the housing crisis, putting an arbitrary

cap on immigration isn't going to solve that problem. The Labour Party

said we'll make sure we put the economy first, the needs of the

economy first and whilst we'll invest in housing, in Public

Services, we'll also make sure we train young people. That's what the

national education service is for. Adult education where everyone from

birth to death can actually access education and training because

ultimately in the long run yes I want to see young people, people

from this country trained up to do the jobs that we need to do in this

country. But for now, we need an economy that works. If we want to

have the Public Services we all want, if we want the social care,

that means putting the economy first and not arbitrary caps on

immigration which, I'm afraid to say, when they have been put in

place by Theresa May, like you heard in the debays last night, she

admitted they'd missed. They cannot be here because ultimately it's the

economy stupid that counts. Once you have trained all those

people to do all the jobs that migrant workers are doing, we don't

need any more migrant workers, is that what you are saying? There are

two sides to this. First of all, as the economy grows, you need more

people. You would like to think that domestically you can cope with that.

There is another side to immigration, we are often pulling in

people from some of the poorest under-developed parts of the world.

That's a brain drain on their economies as well. So look, if we

can educate and train people in this country, so much the better, and

keep them in their countries to develop their countries, that's

good. Immigration has been good for our country but ultimately I

understand that people want to ensure the jobs and housing in this

country is enough for people in this country. I get it, everyone gets it

and that's what everyone wants. Patrick? I disagree. Everyone's

carrying on with the population scheme. We are never going to get a

grip on our housing crisis if we keep needing to build a house for a

new arrival every seven minutes, it's all the new houses pretty much

taken up just through migration. We have to start training our own

people, we have to be more discerning about who comes into the

country. England is the sixth most overcrowded country in the entire

world. I think most people need a breather from mass immigration. Let

us move on. Next question from Joe McKierney. Is there a fairer way to

deal with the health care cost for the elderly, other than the

introduction of the dementia tax? APPLAUSE.

Clive Lewis? Yes and it will start by not electing a Conservative

Government and electing a Labour Government.

APPLAUSE. That would be a good starting point.

One of the reasons you are seeing a negative hostile campaign where

Jeremy Corbyn is being spat on by Conservative MPs day in and day out,

we are seeing it again this week, is because the wheels on their wagon on

their manifesto have come off initially on the dementia tax. When

Theresa May announced the tax, the uncapped level of pay and costs that

people with assets of more than ?100,000 would pay, it was her

manifesto. When it began to unravel, it was our matter-of-fact and Jeremy

Hunt's contribution. So you can quite clearly see that if you

actually want to see genuine adult social care in this country, where

we look after those who've worked all their lives and paid into the

system and then get told hold on a second all of your assets for your

care if you happen to have long-term care, will be spent on your health

care. I think that's unacceptable and the British people do. They'll

make their voice made loud and clear on June 8th.

APPLAUSE. . Brandon Lewis, have you been

spitting on Jeremy Corbyn? Not that I've noticed but I'm sure Clive will

jump on me if I have. Metaphorically. The reality is,

Theresa May's stood up rightly and said one of the great challenges we

have got in this country, we need to do it. Clive hasn't mentioned a

solution to the problem. We do need to deal with this with two million

more people every decade coming into this bracket. We are creating a

fairness across the system, increasing the protection on assets

that's there at the moment from ?235,000, from ?14,000 up to

?100,000 and it's a cap. It's a way of dealing with a growing issue

that's going to get more pressured. Everybody gets treated and nobody

losing their home while they're alive. How are you going to pay for

it? They don't have a solution at all. Our manifesto's been costed.

It's different to your 88-page blank cheque which even the IFS has said

is outrageous. We have a costed manifesto. When it comes to elderly

social care, we are saying we'll collectively provide. I don't

understand why you feel an individual older person must pay the

price of their own social care when we are saying actually as part of a

civilised society you pay for it collectively, look after one

another. That's what our manifesto says and I'm proud of it. Is it in

your manifesto? Yes. What does it say about how you will pay for it?

We've said we'll adopt the Dilnot Report which is that it will be

capped. The cap will be? I think Dilnot's put it at about ?72,000. So

it will be about ?75,000. Compared to the Conservatives, we don't know

what the cap is going to be, it could be ?200,000 or ?300,000.

Brandon Lewis? Clive's still not dealt with the programme. The

gentleman earlier on said his son can't get on the housing ladder.

Young people struggling in their first few jobs earning ?20,000 to

?30,000, their tax is paying for the social care in somebody in a ?1.5

million house. ALL SPEAK AT ONCE.

Gentleman in the front row? The Labour are talking about their great

well-costed manifesto. I am an operations manager for a water

company and just in my area of expertise, how are you going to

nationalise water companies? The nationalisation of just one company

the size of Thames Water is going to cost probably more than the Brexit

divorce bill. How are you going to nationalise ten more of them? Where

are we going to get the money for all of that? It comes back to the

costing. The gentleman there? Surely with nationalisation, we should be

talking about compensation only on the basis of need. We are on about

social care, Sir? In terms of social care, if the banks were

nationalised, if we had a proper wealth tax, then the people

supposedly the lady living in a ?1 million house, if she's got millions

as well, we have a civilised society where people who can pay pay and

people who need need and you have universal benefits for everybody no

matter what the situation. Gentleman on the left? I do recall that

Margaret Thatcher actually increased us all, something along the words of

"we want you to buy your own homes so that you can leave assets for

your children". Have the Tories now detrayed their heroin Mrs Thatcher?

-- betrayed their heroin Mrs Thatcher?

APPLAUSE. This is the oppositement this is

making sure wrote you do have the ability to pass on. The threshold is

increasing... There's more protection than there is now.

Margaret Thatcher is no heroin of mine or probably anyone else in the

Green Party. The simple fact is that there is a problem here. The funding

gap according to the Local Government Association say that it's

about ?2.6 billion that's going to be the shortfall by 2020. How do we

pay for it? What we need to do is look at the kind of system that

we've got. We've got a national insurance system whereby you pay so

that if you lose your job you have got that security. If you do get

ill, you do have that security. That is the basis of our health system,

that was the basis of it in the 1940s and it should be that way now.

The way that you pay for it is by simply ensuring that the rich pay

more so that the needy have got the services that they deserve and

everyone needs. That is a big increase on income tax is it? For

the wealthy, yes. How much? I believe it's something up to about

50% or those earning over ?100,000. So that would pay for all of this,

would it? It would pay for an awful lot. ?2.6 billion when looking at

budgets in the British Government of about ?800 billion is a small

percentage. What's certainly not enough is that small supplement that

is going on to council taxes. Council taxes alone are a very

aggressive form of tactsation. That small increase is not going to do

it. What we need to do is fundamentally look at our tax

service so that those who're on the most pay the most. Norman Lamb? Can

anyone justify the fact that a millionaire who gets cancer gets

everything paid for, all their health care paid for under our NHS

because that's the principle that binds us all together. But if you

get dementia, you lose most ofwhat you have worked for your working

life. That's intolerable. You can't possibly justify it but the Tories

are going down the route of making that a reality for everyone. Let me

just put this to you. At the moment, many people get care at home for

free because their home is not taken into account in the assessment of

their assets. The Tories are proposing that that will now be

taken into account. So for the first time, there are very many people

across our country who'll be faced by very high care bills. Now, I

think that is intolerable, many older people are both angry and very

anxious about the implications of this. My great personal frustration,

as the minister who introduced the cap on care costs, to protect

everyone from catastrophic loss with support from the Conservatives, they

committed to implement it in their 2015 manifesto, they've now

abandoned it and I think that's shameful. The gentleman with the

pink shirt? The way I see it we've got a Tory Government who's going to

make the many suffer, or you've got a Labour Government who're going to

spend, spend, spend and bankrupt the country. Gentleman in the middle and

the back row? My question is to Brandon - how can we trust a weak

and wobbly Theresa May if she can't stick by her decision and keep doing

U-turns? Fair point. A couple of people in the back row as well?

Labour and the Green Party seem to want to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Surely in a society we want to encourage people to do well, but

raising taxes at a ridiculous amount that still even with Labour's policy

it's about ?85,000 earners, that's not even the wealthy, that's head

teachers. Surely in a society we want to encourage people to do well

and not have to give a ridiculous amount to the state who waste the

money anyway. Patrick O' Flynn I would like to go back to the

original question. I think you asked, is there a fairer way of

doing it. There is certainly not a more unfair way of doing it than the

Conservatives have proposed. To be fair to the opposition parties, even

Labour, as Norman said, we all thought the Conservatives had

broadly adopted the Dilnot solution, the cap around ?72,000. Then they

walk into this election with a back of the envelope plan completely

uncapped maximum liability for people who're unlucky enough to

develop dementia, acute arthritis, any other debilitating condition and

Theresa May was forced I think by the wroth of the older vote to say,

oh, we will have a cap after all. I would like to ask Brandon Lewis the

question that Amber Rudd failed to answer at the weekend - could it be

?300,000, ?400,000, give us a ballpark figure What is it? As the

Prime Minister herself outlined last night, we are going to consult on

that. It's important we do this in a proper way. We have a right to

know... We have a right to know before we vote. I'm afraid we have

to leave it there. All of you thank you very much. That's it for now, we

go to the polls in just over a week. The conversation continues on

Twitter at # BBCeastDebate. Thank you to the

panel, our audience and to you for watching. Good night.

Hear the arguments from the politicians themselves.