South East Election 2017: Where You Live

Welcome to St Leonards, where we have an audience of 120

South East voters ready to question five leading politicians ahead

of next week's general election.

Good evening from the historic theatre.

We have parliamentary candidates from five main parties

on our panel tonight.

The Conservative Damian Collins is chairman of the Commons Culture,

Media and Sport Select Committee.

He is standing for re-election in Folkestone and Hythe.

Caroline Lucas is the co-leader of the Green Party, hoping

to retain her seat in Brighton Pavilion.

Peter Chowney is the Labour candidate for Hastings and Rye

and the leader of Hastings Borough Council.

Piers Wauchope is a member of the Ukip National

Executive Committee.

He's standing for the party in Dover.

Kelly Marie Blundell is the Liberal Democrat

candidate for Lewes.

APPLAUSE

Now, if you'd like to join in the debate at home, you can do,

using the hashtag SE vote.

Go to our Facebook page or look at our Twitter feed.

The BBC website is also running a live page rounding of your

comments as we go this evening.

Go to bbc.co.uk/ Kent Sussex or Surrey.

First of all, let's go to our first question from Bev Jenkins.

We are increasingly seeing the police, sorry, the army

being used on our streets.

Do you think we would be using the military if we had not

had cuts to our police?

I'm going to go to Damian Collins first of all because, obviously,

the fallout from Manchester has come a lot closer to home, to Sussex,

in the last couple of days.

Damian Collins, Kent has lost 17% of its police officers

and your government.

The border force has also been cut.

How exactly does that make us safer in the South East?

There have been, through the necessity for budget cuts,

the need to look at all areas of government spending.

The important thing is to keep operations in the front line strong.

So, with border force, what we have seen his savings,

mainly in back-office functions but keeping more officers

operating on the front line.

So much more of the police work now is intelligence levels of what we're

seeing around the terrible incident in Manchester, as we're seeing

around other would-be terror attacks, is so much

of the investment now goes into proper surveillance,

proper monitoring of known suspects.

To try to intercept a problem before it occurs,

much of the hidden work of our police and security

forces does that and does that very successfully.

Sadly, what we saw in Manchester was the terrorists only

have to get lucky ones.

We have to be on top of every single time.

So much of that now is invested in proper cyber security,

proper surveillance, as well as front line policing.

The role of the Armed Forces on the streets that we saw

was reflective of the fact that we were at a critical

level of threat.

That means a threat is considered to be imminent.

We were only at that critical level for a few days.

As has been the case in the past, that often does involve

the Armed Forces being deployed alongside the police.

The fact is though, as I mentioned, you've made significant cuts,

your government has, to front line policing.

The Police Federation, which represents rank and file

officers, they believe neighbourhood policing is the answer

to tackling terrorism.

What do you say to that?

Tackling terrorism, I think, is principally intelligence levels

of that's where we've had our successes.

We also see crime falling across the area as well.

Crime is falling across the country, across the South East.

We are talking about the security of the south-east at a time

when this is uppermost in many people's minds.

Theresa May, when she was Home Secretary, cut GCHQ funding by 5%.

What we have seen is more investment in both the Ministry

of Defence in particular, in cyber security and five

surveillance as well.

Also, the Government requiring new powers so it can look

at and monitor internet accounts and e-mail accounts

of people we would believe to be terror suspects.

This is very controversial.

There are politicians on this panel, Caroline in particular,

who are very against that.

I think we'd look at what happened both in the attack in Manchester

and in the attack in Westminster as well and say, we need

to have that capability.

We need to allow our security.

Monitor people we consider to be a threat and to stop them before

they identify their target and launch it.

Neighbourhood policing is incredibly important.

It's this intelligence-led policing, with proper

surveillance capabilities, but I think are essential.

Let's bring in Caroline Lucas.

As Damian just mentioned great you're opposed to mass surveillance,

the Prevent strategy, and the renewal of Trident.

How would the Green Party make us more safe than we are already?

Let me try to unpack some of that.

First of all with policing, going back to Bev's question.

Since 2010 but we have seen 20,000 fewer police in our police forces.

That is a huge number to take out.

Every year, when Theresa May was Home Secretary, 4% each year

of the police force was cut.

Damian keeps talking about intelligence led policing.

Yes, that's important.

Actually, the local intelligence of neighbourhood policing

is vital to that as well.

I am deeply worried about the level of those police cuts.

What the Green Party would do, when it comes

to Prevent, for example.

We're not saying scrap Prevent.

We are saying is there is a lot of evidence from the Muslim

community and others, the human rights committee

of the parliament as well, have all said there should be

a review of Prevent, because it's seen very

much as a toxic brand, particularly in

the Muslim community.

It's seen as something that's top-down.

Something...

Putting one part of the community against another.

Let's have a review of Prevent let's make sure it works.

Let's make sure it has the confidence of everybody involved.

I'd like to bring in Peter Chowney on theirs.

There's been a lot of criticism of your leader,

Jeremy Corbyn, in recent days, on this security issue.

Many people don't trust him because of his history of supporting

terrorist organisations.

How do you...

That's the criticism from a lot of people.

How do you convince people he is up to protecting this nationality?

I think that's a good example, actually, of how

he is up to protecting it.

If you look at what Jeremy Corbyn did, in terms of talking

to who were believed to be terrorists at the time

and were responsible for the bombings, and the Government

has been having secret meetings with the IRA right

back through the 1970s.

They didn't speak at commemorations to honour dead IRA terrorists seven

years running all lay wreaths for Palestinian terrorists.

It was by speaking to the IRA that we managed to get this

to the negotiating table.

Jeremy Corbyn wasn't involved in those negotiations.

He was one of the first people to do that, publicly, to speak to them.

After that, it was followed with John Major in the peace process

in the Good Friday Agreement.

Now, thankfully, with free from IRA bombers.

He was in conversation with them, arguably supporting them,

before they laid down their arms.

That's when they got involved in peace talks.

This is the suspicion about your party.

He was supporting the idea of negotiating with them.

He said we had to get to the negotiating

table to talk to them.

Why then are 100 members of the Labour Party in the House

of Lords saying that he, your leader, shows a disturbing

pattern of behaviour when it comes to his consulting with people who've

been involved in terrorism question that's what they're saying.

I don't agree with that.

That's just wrong.

I think Jeremy Corbyn was part of the process whereby the IRA came

to the negotiating table.

If it had not been for him and others were talking to the IRA,

we would not have had the peace agreement.

Andy Burnham says he's wrong to link UK foreign policy to terrorism,

which he did in a speech last week.

Charles Clarke, a former Labour Home Secretary, says,

when it comes to security, Jeremy Corbyn is not

Prime Minister material.

Why are you getting all criticism from senior members of your party?

How can you not linked foreign policy with terrorism?

That doesn't make sense.

We are talking about terrorism...

How can you not linked foreign policy with terrorism?

Of course it's part of the same thing.

Of course it's associated.

That's the sort of things we've got to talk about.

Piers Wauchope, do you agree with what you've just

heard from Peter Chowney, it's just something

we have to talk about?

I profoundly disagree with what Peter has just said.

Just going back to the question before about whether it's a good

idea to have soldiers on the streets.

To me, it's a complete nonsense.

What happened was, there was an unexpected attack

on the Monday of last week and then, suddenly, the whole security

situation is said to go to severe and then we had this great show up

and down the country, in all parts of the country,

of armed police, all police leave cancelled, so that police then stand

in high viz jackets on towns, big towns, small towns,

everywhere, to show we're doing something.

We weren't doing anything, we were making a show.

A pointless gesture, in my view.

What's happened and what we really have to face up to,

all of us have to face up to, that there is a growing

problem in this country with Islamist extremists.

That is a fact.

If you want to stop these sorts of attacks happening

again in the future, you've got to think something a bit

more imaginatively than putting more people out in high viz jackets

to make a point.

Hang on a minute.

That is actually your policy.

Of all the parties got your promising 20,000

more police officers.

More than anyone else.

As Damien mentioned at the beginning, many experts say

it is about intelligence, not boots on the ground

of the that's what you're offering.

What's happened is the police budget has been cut.

Of the cut police budget, more of that has been put into terrorism.

The ordinary policeman on the beat and the general police work has

suffered even further because of it.

It hasn't been successful either way because, in each case,

what we are doing is facing this tide and trying to shovel it

back with pitchforks.

The only offered being given by the Home Secretary in theirs is,

give us more pitchforks.

We've got to think more severely about how we deal with people

who are in this country, many of them British passport

holders, who have views that allow these sorts of things to happen

and give succour to the terrorists when they detonate themselves.

Before I come to Kelly Marie.

Let's go back to Bev.

You asked the question.

It's been a terrible time.

It's been an absolutely awful atrocity.

I don't think most people want to see the military

being used on the streets.

You, sir.

The reason why there's cutbacks on all the police forces

is because the last Labour government bankrupt this country.

We don't want it to happen again.

Kelly Marie Chowney...

Sussex Police is cutting 100 jobs in the next few years.

Blundell would you, as a party, reverse those cuts?

Absolutely.

The cuts to East Sussex and Sussex Police are

absolutely devastating.

We're looking at having less than 20 actual police officers

on the ground in neighbourhoods.

Given that the Conservatives have a commitment allegedly

to neighbourhood policing and that is an absolute farce.

You haven't put a number on it.

Would you, personally, I to see a party that a number

on how many officers they'd introduce back onto the streets

because Piers is offering 20,000, or rather his party is?

I would very much like to see investing more money into policing.

To go back to the question...

That's not in your manifesto.

It's not.

Specific numbers are not in our manifesto but that doesn't

mean we are not committed to it.

To go back to the specific question, what happened in Manchester

was an absolute tragedy.

It genuinely was.

However, any act of terrorism should never, ever be an excuse to ramp up

military on our streets and ramp up invasion of our Civil Liberties.

I do not want to live in a country where, when I catch a train,

I have to face people with guns stop the have to, as a society can stand

up and be more robust and so terrorism must not be allowed

to change our way of life.

That would do it, would it?

That's the first step in the right direction.

OK.

Another question from the audience.

Lady down here in black.

Once again, a discussion about the police, which is obviously

relevant to terrorism.

We're bringing up this thing about Jeremy Corbyn and his very

modest involvement in the peace process, despite the fact that he is

a very well-known peace activist.

Once again we hear, we hear that Jeremy Corbyn is somehow, from you,

that somehow associated with the IRA.

I was trying to make the point.

There were many people in the party who are unhappy about it.

Let's go to our next question.

James Butler.

During the Brexit negotiations, what is more important -

border controls or free trade?

Go to Peter Chowney first.

The answer to the question is free trade.

You know, unquestionably, in my view.

I don't think immigration targets make any sense.

To set an arbitrary number and say, oh, will allow this many

or that many, or whatever.

It doesn't make sense.

It depends on what the demands and needs are of the NHS,

of agriculture, of manufacturing, tourism round here.

The hotel and hospitality sector, 25% are from people who have come

over here, mostly from the EU, but other countries as well.

So, I mean, to keep the economy running, we are going to need

people coming in here.

It's silly to set targets.

It depends on what the demands are.

Let's put it another way.

Is there a number of people coming into the UK that

would be too much for you?

And a cricket depends, no.

-- It depends.

It depends on what the demands are.

As I say, if that aren't the jobs here, people won't come.

It's about...

People want to come here because they want to work it,

because they're better paid than they are in their home country,

and because there are employers here who need those people

for those jobs.

OK.

If like me to remind you, I'm sure, that many voters in Kent

abandoned your party after EU migration trebled in the South East

under the Labour government.

The people you need to win back, to get into Number 10,

many of them turned to Ukip in many constituencies in Kent,

particularly because they were concerned about immigration.

How on earth are you going to win back those people

when you are telling us there is no such thing as too much immigration?

As I say, I think it is determined more by what is needed in terms

of jobs that are available and what industry and

the hospitality sector and so one actually need in the UK.

Also, within the EU, obviously, at the moment,

we've got free movement anyway.

The commonest e-mail I've actually had, and one

of the commonest e-mails I've had, is actually from people

in Hastings who live in Spain.

There very worried about the ending of their rights to live there.

You go to some parts of Kent.

Kent County Council did a big report into this last year.

They concluded that EU enlargement has put pressure on our schools,

particularly accommodating peoples who don't have English

as a first language.

Now, for many people, you would concede I'm sure,

this is a serious issue.

They're looking to your party to address it.

You don't seem to be.

It is a serious issue but it's also a serious issue that the NHS

would work without people coming in from abroad.

They simply got it wrong.

In order for our schools to be able to plan, wouldn't it be

sensible to have a target, even if it's a much higher

target than other parties might want to have?

You could have an estimate, I suppose, based on what

the demands are four.

It makes no sense to have a target because, what would you do?

If it was above what was actually needed, the number of

people who come here...

You then allow for too much in terms of education.

If it was too high, sorry, if it was too low, then

you would not be able to plan for that.

I think it has to be demand led.

It has to be according to the people who are needed here,

he will come here to do the jobs.

One more question.

Would it concern you if EU migration to this country travelled again?

-- trebled.

We're coming out of the EU anyway in a couple of years' time anyway.

Not out yet.

I think it's unlikely that EU migration trebled during that time

because I think people are more worried about the fact they won't be

allowed to stay here after we come out of the EU

and I sincerely hope they will be.

Piers Wauchope, we've just heard Peter raise the whole subject

of what our economy needs.

Under Ukip's policy, it's a one in,

one out immigration policy.

How would you support those hospitals who rely so heavily,

particularly in the South East, on EU nationals?

It's marvellous to hear Peter speak.

He's sounding as if he's the chief executive officer of some

enormous building company, who's just saying, look,

there's plenty of demand.

What about the NHS? I'm coming to that.

There's plenty of demand for low paid workers.

Let's get them into this country and undercut any wages anyone

is going to earn over here.

Now, as far as the National Health Service is concerned but there's

something like 13,000 people from the EU working

in the National Health Service.

Well done them.

They're very welcome.

They're working for us in the NHS.

To have those 13,000 in here, we have to have something like half

a million a year in new people coming into the country defeats me.

Most of them aren't working for the NHS.

Most of them are working in low-paid jobs that

are undercutting our own people, who can't get work, particularly,

if I may so, in construction.

Because of the old tax loophole, so many people are employed

through agencies on the minimum wage, or twice the minimum wage,

as it is in Romania to come and work in this country and,

of course, our own people can't compete with that which is under

the EU rules as they stand at the moment.

Let's bring in Kelly Marie Blundell.

The Liberal Democrats want to continue to freedom of movement.

We do.

You also want to offer sanctuary to 50,000 Syrian refugees over

the next five years.

Again, many people will be concerned about that.

I think there were a lot of misgivings around immigration.

Take the NHS, for example.

When we leave Europe, if we say you have to go home,

our NHS is going to collapse.

We need those people coming in.

We need those people supporting our health service.

Why?

You talk about schools, and we referred to the Kent

County Council report, actually the problem is not that

we've got immigrants coming in, the problem is that the Conservative

government has restricted councils from opening new schools

and expanding new schools, so all our schools

are at breaking point.

That's even before you take into account the education cuts.

That's nothing to do with immigration.

That's to do with the fact our schools are underfunded

and that this is often the case with many of the industries

that we see around the country.

People blame immigration and they don't actually

look at the facts that are in front of them.

Immigrants bring a fantastic amount of money to our economy

and contribute a huge amount.

Going back to the question from Jamie.

Ultimately, border controls, free trade, the two are interlinked.

If you look at the European union, you need to have free movement

of people to ensure free trade because they're part

of the same economic system.

Therefore, we would balance the equally make sure we remained

in the single market and remained accessible to our

neighbours and friends.

Why do you think that 56% of people, according to a survey

carried out last week, feel their culture is

threatened by the level of migration into this country?

Feeling that their culture is threatened does not necessarily

make it a bad thing.

There is a real thing about integrating and further

integration across the UK.

Doesn't that also need to be an ability to plan for the schools?

If they don't know how the people are coming.

Targets are sensible surely if it only allows local authorities

to plan for the number of people who might be arriving at the school.

We're not seeing huge amounts of people coming

into the UK on that level.

It would be any more than planning according to current birth rates.

Unfortunately, what we see from schools at the moment is,

they're not even looking at the birth registers to see how

many children are coming up to know what they've got to spend.

Let's go back to James, who asked the question.

Well, you bring up a lot of valid points about immigration but,

I was thinking more about actually being in the negotiating room.

They may be two mutually exclusive options, having freedom of movement,

or having free trade.

You have to prioritise one or the other.

I'm wondering what your parties will be prioritising

in the rooms, if you got there?

He's got a point, hasn't he, Damian Collins?

It's a great question, as well.

At the heart of it is trust.

This is the biggest challenge, the biggest peacetime challenge,

this country has set itself since the war.

Who do you trust?

Who has the experience to lead these the negotiations?

Can we trust the Conservatives?

In some ways, the first point is, with free trade, we want free trade.

What will happen legally as result of leaving the European Union

is that Parliament will decide what our border control,

our immigration policy, is.

It will be a national competence once again.

Whatever the levels of immigration are, whatever the rules are around

visas, people working in this country, that will be decided here.

So, there will be border controls.

What we are negotiating for an working for is an open

and free trading relationship with Europe, which I think

will be in our interest and in their interest, to.

Talking of trust your party has promised and failed successively,

year after year, to bring immigration down to

the tens of thousands.

And yet you are still making that from this in your

manifesto in this election.

Why?

When we know you cannot deliver it.

If you get back to the debate during the referendum,

hearing what the Labour and Liberal candidate said tonight, you'd think

the referendum hadn't happened.

You can't deliver on your promise on this issue goes that you had

a chance and you successively fell to do it.

One of the issues we face, and this was a hot topic

during the referendum debate as well, was that we can't set

a national policy on border controls and migration

within the European Union.

We have no power because of freedom of movement to stop people

coming here, not to work, and not to make contributions

to society, but just to live here and draw from the state.

We have no power legally to stop that.

Now, we will do in the future.

We have said it is still our target that immigration should be

in the tens of thousands, rather than the hundreds

of thousands.

We will have the power to set a national policy

on immigration to deliver that, something we don't have now.

Caroline Lucas.

55% of people in the south-east of England voted for leave.

We know that one of the main reason for people voting to leave

the EU was immigration.

What is your message to them when you're telling them

that we don't need a limit on the number of people

coming to this country?

First of all, you don't know what is going through someone's head

when they put their cross on a ballot paper.

So, we don't know the very different reason we all had

for voting for leave.

Surrey University's well-respected academics have asked

people time and again.

You know this comes up as a well-known issue

for the electorate.

It is a big issue.

I'm just saying you can't generalise hugely from it.

I am saying is the policy that Damian is proposing

is going to cause us massive economic harm.

There is plenty of evidence that suggests that if you are not

inside the single market, then extra tariffs on our products

will mean there will be less money in our pockets.

Already we are seeing inflation going up.

Already we are seeing the cost of living going up.

And that's before we've even left the single market.

Ultimately, Damian is willing, essentially, to sacrifice economic

security, on the basis of arbitrary targets that he knows

he will struggle to meet.

Asking specifically your point, what would I say to those

people who voted leave?

Green Party policy is to say that we think the British public

should have the right to have a look at the final deal that Theresa May,

or whoever it is, comes back from Brussels with.

If you like that deal, once you've seen the fine print, then great.

Go ahead and vote for that.

If you don't like it could then you should have the right

to stay inside the EU.

So many lies.

So many lives were told by the leave campaigners.

?350 million a week for the NHS, anyone?

Has anyone seen ?350 million a week.

And going to stop you there, Caroline Lucas.

Let's have a show of hands.

Who, in the audience, would like a final say on a second

referendum on the terms of Brexit?

Damian Collins, there's quite a lot of support.

It's not scientific but among the audience here, a second

referendum we don't know what's going to happen.

We don't know whether there's going to be queues at

Dover, at Folkestone.

If we don't get the deal right, everything is up

in the air at the moment.

What we know is that in two years' time will be in a position

where this country is outside of the jurisdiction

of the European institutions.

Outside the European Court and the European Commission.

Our parliament will set our laws and create our laws

based on what we need.

We'll have a migration policy based on what our economy needs

and our society needs but not on what people in Europe

to side is best for us.

We'll have the freedom to negotiate trade deals with other

countries around the world.

Let's not forget as well that we have...

We have a booming motor manufacturing industry in this

country with supply chains running across Europe.

We're also a net importer of cast.

How likely is it, when we're in a scenario, when we are Europe

is that best customer that they will put into place

punitive pressure on the UK economy just to punish us.

There may well be bureaucrats in Brussels who want to treat

the UK in that way.

Sensible people in Europe, business leaders, people who work

with this country know it is in to be good neighbours

and have a working relationship.

You can say that as many times as you like.

The bottom line is, if you are not inside the single market,

there will be worse for us.

The EU can't possibly give us a better settlement outside the EU

and we had when we were inside.

What we'll also have a small flexibility to do things than we can

do as a member of the EU.

Gentleman halfway up there in the shirt.

The fact remains that most people did not have a clear idea

what they were voting for.

APPLAUSE

Fishermen in Hastings voted to stay because they thought

they were going to get better quota for their fishing.

They already know they're not.

They wasted their vote, and so did the rest of us.

Thanks to Cameron we're now up the creek in a barbed wire

canoe without a paddle.

Thank you very much.

The gentleman behind you, please.

So, Mr Lucas.

If you and your colleague were in charge of the country,

you would say, I don't like this first referendum result,

I want another one.

OK.

But, if they still came back saying, whether it was the same or went

up again, do you say, I want a third referendum

and would you accept it?

I am really clear.

Sign up at the moment, the situation is, Tulisa may,

-- Theresa May, under pressure, has said that MPs should

have the right to have the final say on the deal.

All the greens are saying is that we think the British public

settled for this process and they should sign it.

You should have the right, the British people, not just MPs,

to sign up final deal.

Surely, if you still want it, then end of story, you get it.

If you don't, and if you are motivated by the number of lives

lies that have been told during the whole Leave

campaign, and you decide

you don't want it...

Let's go to the audience.

The gentleman now.

Link to this topic is the fact we've got tens of thousands

of Europeans settled here, living here, working here.

And Theresa May is holding it as a ransom against what's

going to happen to our lot if she says Dominic

-- made the first start we're trying to leave.

If she made the first art and allowed them to stay here,

you'll be a very positive message to 27 to follow our lead

and perhaps ease negotiations.

We are going to move on.

We got another question from Tricia.

Thank you.

Given the advances in medical science, and the increasingly ageing

population, however much money is put into the NHS,

it will never be sufficient.

Do radical changes need to take place?

That's come to Kelly Marie Blundell first.

You're proposing a 1p rise in income tax in order to help the NHS.

According to the ISS, it's not nearly enough of that we'd

still have a ?9 billion hole by 2021.

So, what's the answer, to keep increasing taxes?

Absolutely.

It's not keep increasing taxes.

What we propose in our manifesto is a penny in the pound

rise in income tax.

Quite simply, our NHS is at breaking point.

We need to see in best that.

They needed to stay free at the point of access.

This is the best way we can see initially to fund that.

It's not enough to keep it in line with the current provisions

and we want to raise more money.

It has to be done so we keep the NHS.

It's a fantastic institution.

Let's keep in mind as well, in 2020, there will be more people aged 50

and over and 50 and under in the UK for that we have no plan for how

the NHS and the health and social care are going to cope with that.

We need to see investment we need to see radical overhaul to make sure

we keep our NHS free at the point of access.

What you are saying, by putting a penny on income tax

to help the NHS and social care, you're in effect asking hard-working

families to subsidise, quite often, wealthy elderly people

who need the care.

In what way is that a progressive tax?

Is regressive because everyone I've spoken to settle a gruesome zero

to invest in the NHS and make sure we have more investments are people

get the care they need and deserve.

Why should someone be to get a dish and get it cut off next year?

We need to make sure that the NHS remains universal for everybody.

OK.

Damian Collins...

Again, you're offering more money.

There's a lot of discussion about whether the money is new money.

What is agreed by the IFF, the think tank, is it is not nearly

going to be enough to help the NHS.

It's in a dire state in this part of the world under

the Conservative government.

I think Tricia's and must put really wealth was that it is right that

more money has gone in.

We put in the extra money in the last parliament that

NHS England asked for, and extra 10 billion.

There's 8 billion in the manifesto for more funding for the NHS as well

with even more of that going into primary

care to support GPs.

The large amount of growth in the budget will be

in primary care.

I think that's right as well.

We have the challenge of rising demand because of an ageing society

for stuff we have to think about how we respond to that.

That's not just about throwing money at the NHS.

Can I just remind you, all but one hospital trust in this

part of the world is either inadequate or requires improvement?

Brighton last 2600 days, just in January this year,

because of the number of patients stuck in bed unable

to leave the hospital.

We're in a crisis here.

You're offering more money.

It's not enough.

Since the last election, we've seen a significant improvement

in the East Kent Hospital trust in terms of its rating

by the Care Quality Commission.

Look at the CQC's report.

It sets out in black and white and you can

read it for yourself.

We're also seeing...

Is seeing nearly half ?1 billion invested

in the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton as well.

We've seen new community beds being delivered in New Haven.

We are seeing new investment in the health service that

delivers better facilities.

Let's move on.

The gentleman on the front row here.

I just think it's really important, when big

numbers gets thrown around, 500 billion, 500 million,

it's impossible to know what that actually means really.

It's so much money.

Is that 1% of the budget?

Is it 20%?

I think we have to just be very careful to know the reality

of what these numbers and figures mean and not just be

brainwashed by them.

OK.

It's the cost of creating a new hospital in Brighton.

That's the cost.

The community benefit is the new hospital.

That's the benefit.

Peter Chowney, you're offering 30 billion,

I think it is, to help the NHS.

There is a serious doubt about where you get that money from,

even if you do get hold of it through the tax system.

Serious doubt about whether it will be enough again.

I was just going to keep pumping money into the NHS?

I think, inevitably, the NHS will cost more and more money.

What is the talented?

A radical rethink is the suggestion.

Radical rethink to what is.

Everyone needs health care, unless you move away

from the universal health care and make people stop

paying for health care, what else are we going to do?

There are things like, there are better preventative health care.

There are things like, there are better preventative health care.

There are lots of other things we can do to reduce that tax burden.

But it's not going to reduce the demand on the NHS for more funding.

We are an ageing population.

Not blaming older people, it's just a fact.

We are an ageing population.

And there are all sorts of things we can do around raising more taxes,

closing tax loopholes.

There are all sorts of ways we can raise money.

The important thing is to keep the NHS free for those who use it,

free universal health care.

But we have to still be able to take advantage

of the new advances, the new drugs, the new treatment

in the NHS, and the fact we've got an older population.

It will cost a lot more.

Better preventative health care will help and we can get

it through taxation.

Just a reminder, audience.

I know feelings are running high.

We can just hear a shout in the distance, so it's not

terribly helpful, thank you.

Caroline Lucas, you want to phase in a four day working week.

That's in your manifesto.

How many more doctors and nurses would you need?

This is very long-term, Natalie.

Camp I really address the NHS question first?

The NHS is going to need more and more resources.

Taking staff away, in effect.

At the moment, the NHS has such amazing, wonderful people who work

on it but they are absolutely overstretched because there

are huge shortages.

The NHS is not the place where we're going to start

with a four-day week, can I say?

What I want to say is, we are the fifth biggest

economy in the world.

The NHS is already very efficient.

If we're seriously saying the fifth biggest economy in the world can't

afford a decent health care system I don't know why were saying that.

We can afford it.

We put less into our health system as a percentage of GDP than most

other European countries.

France, Germany, and so forth.

Put less in.

You want to spend ?176 billion more a year

than the current government plans.

But no one knows that these are untested taxes

you want to introduce.

People changing their behaviour.

You can't guarantee you can raise the money you need.

I can guarantee that, in the fifth biggest

economy in the world, if we want to have a decent health

service, we can afford it.

It's down to political choices.

Under this government for reducing corporation tax go right down

from 28% right down to 19 now.

We've got this idea of 17% as well.

It attracts more investment.

We are not paying their way.

It means that your companies are not paying their way.

With more revenue for corporation tax now it's being cut

because it attracts more investment.

It's a misnomer to show that Labour in particular, and the Greens,

they don't understand how the taxation works.

They don't understand.

They know how it feels when corporation tax is cut

when working age benefits are cut under your government.

It feels to them as though you're on the side of corporations

and you're not on the side of low earners.

Cutting the corporation tax has brought in tens of billions

of pounds more revenue to the Treasury because it

attracts more investment.

How low would you like it to go?

5%, 2%?

It's about getting the balance right.

Yes, isn't it?

That's what we achieved.

It's brought more business investment in.

So, revenues have grown.

Labour will say and the Greens will say, we're going to hike

up corporation tax.

The impact of that could be that the tax take falls.

Where are we going to find the extra money?

Actually, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says putting

corporation tax up will actually affect hard-working people

at the other end of the chain are not these faceless corporations?

Corporation tax is corporations paying their way, paying

into our economy for the education of young people who right now

might not get tuition fees but right now our young people are having

to pay massive tuition fees because corporations don't

invest in education.

They paying more for our education system?

They benefit from extremely educated people.

When their taxes go up, people pay more for goods.

People earn less than they work for those companies.

It has a trickle down effect was that it is not isolated.

We were not paying massively more for goods in 2010 then we are now.

Over that period, corporation tax has gone down from, what is it?

28%, to around 19%.

As you say, Damian, you want it down to 17% and goodness knows how

much lower than that.

Our vision for Britain is not one where we are a bargain

basement tax haven.

It might be OK for the Tories but it's not OK for the rest of us.

It raises more revenue.

We take more taxes from companies in corporation tax with a lower

competitive rate it encourages international businesses to invest

here and create jobs here.

In a post-Brexit economy, that's going to be even more important.

I think this is a total false choice.

It could damage the economy, bring has lost revenue

and less money to spend on the health service.

It has been developed by people who don't understand

how business works.

I'd really like to squeeze in another question from Anna Dawes.

The NHS provides totally free cancer care but doesn't provides totally

free care for dementia.

Why should any OAPs be forced to sell their homes

to provide for this?

APPLAUSE

I hate to say it but I think that's one of the first

points of the evening you've just made.

We always speak about the NHS is being free

from the cradle to the grave.

It's not.

Once you get ill and you are old and you've got one of many conditions,

dementia being one of them, you end up paying for it.

Now, the Conservatives say your families don't pay

for it after you've gone, even if you stay in your

own home was the one of the things is, of course,

they won't even tell us.

Theresa May won't tell us as to what cap this could be

on the manual going to pay.

So, all the figures that we look at for the NHS must,

in the view of the Ukip certainly, involves social care.

Not just national health is but it should be National health

and social care service.

All of these things must be taken together.

All of these people must be looked after because they are ill.

If you put them out on the street from their care homes,

they're going to die.

They should take medical care.

Let's bring in Damian Collins will struggle social care policy

really affects older, traditionally conservative voting

people in the south-east of England, where there was a higher

than average ageing population and higher

than average property prices.

It's another example of the way that people in the south-east feel

the Conservative government feels it has calculated it can afford

to hit them with this because they are going to vote Tory,

whatever user at them.

Let me just set out what the policy is that we have in our manifesto.

At the moment with some of have their savings drawn down

by ?23,000 worth of assets less.

We say that is to lead was that it should be 100,000.

They should have to give up, from their savings and the value

of their house, an amount which means they have

less than ?100,000.

In addition to that, there should also be a cap

on the maximum someone is required to pay.

You introduce that when you came under pressure.

There will be a consultation on what that level should be.

What do you think it should be?

For example, 90% of people, the care costs are ?100,000 or less.

I think we should be looking at what is a reasonable

contribution for people to make.

I think it is right we have a policy we know is sustainable,

affordable and fair.

It does not take people's homes away from them and in all their savings.

The fact is it backfired spectacularly.

You had to relaunch your election campaign because this went down

so badly and you know this with people in your own party.

What did you think when you heard about it?

We are happy to go out and sell it on the doorstep?

What has been important is that in addition

to what was in the manifesto, it was made clear there would be

a cap on contributions.

That wasn't clear from when the manifesto was launched.

It has been made clear now.

That is important.

Looking at the alternatives, Jeremy Corbyn has suggested

that the Labour Party might even increase the base rate of income

tax from 20% to 25%, in order to pay for social care,

shifting all the burden of that cost on working people.

I don't think that is fair either.

It's about getting the balance right.

I think it's right that you raise the threshold to ?100,000,

protecting people's in.

There's a cap on the amount they have to pay.

Getting the cap right is something that will be very

important after the election.

It sounds more like a Labour policy than a Conservative one.

Asking wealthy people to contribute more to the rising

costs of their care, Peter Chowney.

I've don't think it's about wealthy people.

It's taking away from anyone who lives in the south-east and has

a home worth more than ?100,000.

This is about taking away people's inheritance,

taking away the value of the property to

pay for social care.

Social care should be something like the NHS.

It should be provided free.

While the Government is trying to tell us

that they still fully fund the NHS, they wouldn't admit that

for adult social care.

Local authority budgets have been slashed since 2010.

Massively.

Social care, county councils and in fact unitary councils that

run social services just simply can't afford to provide it anymore.

Let me ask you about something else that is not in your manifesto.

Kelly Marie Blundell's party, the Liberal Democrats,

offering to restore the benefits that have been cut for working age

people over the last five years.

You're not offering to do that.

Do think that should be a Labour policy?

I think there's a lot we can do about the welfare system.

There is a lot about it that is horribly unfair.

The benefit sanctions regime.

The benefit caps that have been brought in.

The whole system seems to be designed to punish people

who are out of work.

Actually, people who feel punisher to vote Liberal Democrat

if they want to get those benefits back.

Labour is not offering that to them.

In the Labour Party manifesto, there's a commitment

to reform system.

It doesn't talk about restoring the benefits.

Was that a mistake?

Was it an error?

Was it deliberate?

I wasn't involved in drafting the Labour Party manifesto.

I was one of the authors of the Liberal Democrat

policy on welfare.

I will say that their failure to include that in the manifesto

really highlights the fact that most of the Labour MPs abstained

on the massive cuts we saw to disabled people and the massive

cuts we have seen to benefits as a whole.

I think it's absolutely outrageous and there should be a much

stronger commitment.

Labour, quite simply, are letting the country down

on welfare, on Brexit, on a whole number of things.

I would like to come to Anna.

You asked a question about having to sell your home to pay for care.

What do you think of what you've heard?

Yes will stop I agree with the Conservatives really on that.

But, no.

Only the very rich, obviously.

You agree with the Conservatives that people should be forced

to sell their homes?

No, I don't agree, unless they are very

rich and can afford it.

The reality is 99.9% of houses in the south-east are over ?100,000.

This means there are thousands of people that will be forced

to sell their homes in the next five years and it will now

hit everyone who owns their own name in this room.

The gentleman right up the ' in glasses.

What would you like to say?

I am Chris.

I am one of the people who had the misfortune

to sell a parent's house because my mother had dementia.

It is interesting.

Of all the things in this election, when the history of this

campaign is written, I think it will be that policy

on to mention and social care from the Conservative Party that

defines that experience.

-- on dementia.

In many ways, it is how we treat our old people that

represents the level of civility that a generation that quite

reasonably expect social care in their old age

are being abandoned.

Quick comments.

Young man down here in the second row.

There is no real attention drawn on extremism of the hard left.

It is really getting out of hand, the sense that the left

can get away with it.

It is not criticised, not critiqued, on any of the hardline violence

and sometimes extremism.

I was just wondering, as we are discussing spending

on the NHS and spending domestically, should we also be

talking about our massive foreign aid budget, which is .7%?

Obviously, in an ideal world, we should spend this money overseas.

When we have people who are physically unable to go

to the NHS and get the service they need, do not need also be

discussing putting money back into the country,

investing in our infrastructure, and supporting our vital services?

That's all we've got time for.

I'd like to thank the audience.

It's very warm in here and it's been a very heated debate.

I'd also like to thank all the members of our

panel this evening.

If you're in the mood for more political discussion,

Lembit Opik is going on air right now with an election

special on BBC Radio Kent.

You can also join the debate on social media using

the hash tag SE Vote.

From everyone here in St Leonards, good night.

Who's saying...

What? And why?

Hear the arguments from the politicians themselves.