18/05/2017 Question Time

Welcome to Question Time, which tonight comes from Norwich.

And on our panel here tonight, the Conservative cabinet minister

in charge of international development, Priti Patel.

Labour's Shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner.

The Liberal Democrats' former Business Secretary, Vince Cable.

The joint leader of the Green Party, Jonathan Bartley.

And the journalist and Margaret Thatcher's

authorised biographer, Charles Moore.

Thank you.

Remember, if you want to get stuck in at home into these arguments,

Twitter is at your disposal.

Facebook, our hashtag is BBCQT.

You can search for BBC Question Time.

You can text us if you would prefer to do that.

Push the red button to see what others are saying.

Let's have our first question which comes from Jason Dyer, please.

Thank you, David.

I would like to know, ask the panel, after paying taxes

all your working life, do you think it is fair that

you have to sell your family home to pay for the care?

Is it fair you have to sell your family home to pay for your care

costs in the manifesto today?

Priti Patel, is it fair?

Well, it's not fair, and that's not what we are proposing.

We are very clear in terms of the fact that we need

to take some decisions now, long-term decisions about how

we look to the future and address the ageing population and the needs

of social care.

So what we are saying is that we will put in place now

this ability and the safeguard of ?100,000 so people can

still keep their house, they don't have to sell their house,

but they are protected now in terms of their long-term care costs.

And that applies to people that are having residential care,

so in care homes, as well as those that now have care at home as well.

Whereas previously the focus was only on those that went

into care home settings.

Isn't it what you use to call the death tax,

when Labour suggested something very like it?

I think Labour were proposing something totally different

which was a tax on all assets, property, carte blanche.

We have been clearer about having this ?100,000 level, which,

you know, makes it very clear that people don't have

to sell their homes.

They can stay in their homes and they can keep their properties.

But their children have to sell them.

Well, there is obviously a position afterwards

in terms of whether or not, it's family members, effectively.

OK, Vince Cable.

Well, Priti's completely wrong.

I mean, there is no cap on the amount of money

that you have to pay.

If you contract one of these degenerative diseases, dementia,

or some other complicated matter, that involves very, very large

expenditure on social care, there is no limit

to what you have to pay.

There is a crucial difference between what this Government

is proposing, and what we agreed under the coalition.

We said under the coalition that there should be a cap, ?75,000.

We agreed it was in the legislation and the government have pulled it.

And what happens now, it's a lottery.

If you grow old without ill health problems and then

perhaps die quickly, there aren't big social care bills.

If you are one of those unfortunate people that have these degenerative

conditions over a long period of time, you have massive social

care bills, it's surely fair that society should protect you.

And that's why we talked about having a cap to the amount

of social care pay levels.

Under the Government's proposal, that is withdrawn.

It is a wicked lottery.

And there's a lot of hypocrisy in this because in the last year

or so, the Tories introduced, they cut inheritance tax.

Supposedly to help people pass on property to their children.

But what will now happen is that if you are one of those unfortunate

people who has got unlimited care costs, you will be paying

100% inheritance tax.

All of your family savings will disappear.

It is a lottery, it is grossly unfair and it is a big step

backwards from where we were a few years ago.

APPLAUSE

Charles Moore.

Well, I'm not sure if the Government's proposal

is necessarily right but I actually do think that it is not wrong

to have to use your house to help fund your care.

And it is particularly true if you are reasonably well off,

which obviously a large number of, though by no means all,

house owners are.

I don't understand why your house has to be treated

completely separate away from any other possession.

I notice in the Conservative manifesto it says "one purpose

of long-term saving is to cover needs in old age".

That is a fair point.

It is.

And we ought to think about that.

And that is an important thing you have to work out.

If you don't follow the rule, then what happens is that the Government

is paying out huge care bills to people who actually have

quite a lot of money, because they have these houses.

Many people nowadays have a house worth ?400,000, that sort of thing.

And if that's totally protected, and the Government has to subsidise

them, then the subsidy, that subsidy is harder to find for

people who actually really need it.

I notice one thing the Tories are trying to do in all of this,

not just about care, they are trying to focus all kinds

of social help on where need is.

They are trying to get rid of this idea that everybody can get it.

This is going to annoy a lot of Tory voters,

because as a matter of fact a lot of Tory voters are quite used

to being quite well off and getting quite a lot of government money

for one thing and another.

And what Mrs May is doing, because she is talking

about the "just about managing" people, she is trying to focus

on them, who were historically considered perhaps more

Labour voters.

She is thinking they are actually going to really need care much more

than a lot of the people who get it automatically.

So that's the thinking.

And as a broad point, it's reasonable.

APPLAUSE

Angela Rayner.

Well, it's clear to me that the Conservatives have replaced

the triple lock with a triple whammy for pensioners,

if I am quite honest.

The winter fuel allowance, the issues around pension cuts,

and now this issue around what we are dubbing

the dementia tax.

And I'm pretty cross about this.

I'm cross about it because what led me into Parliament was being a home

help and looking after people in their own homes.

And they were told, do the right thing all your life, work hard.

They bought their homes in good faith, they saved

in their pensions in good faith, and they are having it

stolen away from them, whether it is women born

in the 1950s, the Waspy women, having their pensions stolen.

Now they are saying they are going to take your assets

as well in your home.

It doesn't have to be like that.

It's a disgrace.

And it's the actual deprived areas, Charles, that are facing

the most significant cuts through council cuts.

In my constituency of Ashton-under-Lyne,

Oldham and Tameside councillors, half of their budget is cut

under the Conservatives, which has affected those very same

people they are saying they are trying to help.

It is vicious, it's nasty and it's not the way to run our services.

APPLAUSE

We are protecting people's assets.

It is right that people save.

We are a country that saves, and people do

save and accumulate their assets, but we are protecting

people's assets.

You wait until they die and then you're going to snatch it from them.

So what is Labour's solution then?

You are going to snatch it from them.

We are taking a long-term approach to social care provision.

It is not sustainable, Angela, to carry on in the way

in which we are doing so right now.

You are cutting taxes to the rich, you have cut corporation tax to 17%,

you've cut capital gains tax.

And that helps to grow the economy and grow jobs.

No, it doesn't.

Margaret Thatcher's level was at 33%.

We are at 17%.

We can pay for our older relatives.

We don't need to be this way.

Angela, you listed among other things the winter fuel payment

being abolished but that was in your manifesto in 2015 for

the better off, wasn't it?

Well, if you look at our manifesto that we've put forward...

No, in 2015 when you were elected, it said you would stop paying winter

fuel payments to the richest.

But I'm talking about our manifesto that we are standing on today.

So you've given that up then.

Well, we are looking at our manifesto now.

If you look at the Conservatives' manifesto, they are cutting

all of their promises to older people of this country.

Whereas our manifesto says we will look after everybody.

It's about a choice.

How are you going to pay for that?

What sort of society do you want to live in?

One where they attack the poor, the disabled, the pensioners?

Or do you want one where they cut corporation tax to the richest?

It is ensuring that valuable public money goes to people

that actually need this, and that is the purpose of why

we are making the changes to winter fuel payments,

so it goes to those that need the help.

There's no real point in a system, Angela,

in which David Dimbleby and Vince Cable, to mention

two people who are slightly getting on in years,

could get the winter fuel allowance.

Why should they?

It's just ridiculous waste of public money.

Angela, I'm going to stop you because you've said quite a lot.

Well, they are asking me.

I'm saying that when you are means testing, you are not

making any savings.

I will come back to you.

Jonathan Bartley.

I want to answer your question, Jason.

Let's back up a little bit.

When the NHS was set up, and the NHS is very close to social care,

they have knock-on effects to one another, it was set up

with the principle that we don't know what the future

is going to hold.

And therefore, as a society, collectively, we will make

the provision that if someone does need ten years social care,

if they do need a major operation, or if they are healthy and lucky

enough to have a very long life of health,

they should all have the security.

And that should be funded by all of us, not singling out

individuals and breaking that social contract between us.

Now the Conservatives are breaking that social contract.

They are piling pressure on the individual.

APPLAUSE

We are not doing that.

We should also be clear about what the context is.

This is not coming about because we suddenly have an ageing population.

This social care crisis is because we've had chronic

cuts and underfunding at the local authority level.

APPLAUSE

37% cuts to local authority, a ?4.6 billion deficit in social care.

And that is why we are now getting that move.

Where would you get the money from?

Everybody agrees there have been cutbacks.

We could just go back to reverse what the Conservatives

have done since 2010.

We have ?122 billion not going into the public purse

because of cuts to corporation tax, because of giving tax

breaks to the richest 50%.

Let me hear from some of the audience.

The man in the pink shirt.

Hello.

I think people may be inclined to agree and accept the rise

to ?100,000 if the social care was adequate, and it isn't.

My father's been ill for 11 years, bedridden for four.

The social care gets carers coming in.

He's had to change them seven times in the last two years

because the standards are very low, the staff have turnover,

they are unprofessional, he is left in squalor and they can't

save and maintain their own house because they're spending

all the bills on the care.

And he's worked all his life.

He's paying for the care but you don't think

the care is good enough.

Because he has a Parkinson type syndrome, he's not entitled

to have the care paid.

If he had cancer, he would be fully entitled to have his care paid for.

Are you saying the actual quality of care he gets is not adequate?

It's not up to standard.

I'm a nurse myself, and that is how I judge.

The woman there.

I work in the Millennium Library here in Norwich,

which is the busiest, a very good library, in Britain.

And we see what the cuts have done every day to the people that

are coming into the library, and I feel very strongly.

I think Angela is absolutely right.

The cuts, we've absolutely been cut to the bone.

And now Theresa May is attacking the pensions.

The pensions actually started out, what was it, 1909,

the first pension, seven and six.

People talk about Corbyn's Britain going back to the 1970s.

What about the Tories going back to, like, the 1870s?

It's becoming Victorian, what's happening in this country.

APPLAUSE

The man in the blue shirt.

What I struggle with at the moment is there seems to be an easy win.

We all recognise that the NHS, police and everybody

need more money.

Why hasn't any of the political parties committed to reducing

the overseas aid budget, which is about 12 billion a year,

even if it is just for a short time?

Let's cut that back and let's reinstate it when we've

balanced the budget.

We may come to that question in a moment.

The woman here on the right.

To expand on that point, too autocratically give 0.7%

of our GDP, and it's a target, there is no focus on

where it's being spent.

I'll come to that right now.

Just hold it for a moment and stick on the point we were on before.

You, in the third row.

I want to ask Angela.

You talk about how people are encouraged to work hard

and save all their lives, yet there seems to be hypocrisy

amongst the Labour Party.

A bit like how you're against grammar schools and yet most

of the Shadow Cabinet sends their children

to selective or private schools.

You just, whilst you may say, oh, you're going to take

away everyone's savings, you instead would take it

away in inheritance tax.

Surely this is complete hypocrisy, you just want to soak the rich.

Well, no, it's not hypocrisy.

It's about choices, and we are saying this Government

have made choices where they have slashed corporation tax, slashed

the tax for those that are rich, and they are making pensioners

pay for it.

I went to a state school, and all my children

go to a state school.

I want the best for every single child, and that's why I don't

believe that grammars are the right thing to do.

I am basing it on the evidence rather than hypocrisy.

APPLAUSE

There are fundamental points here.

We'll come to you.

Yes?

There is a fundamental point here and it isn't

just about education.

It's actually about Labour and the fact that they think

they can literally spend their way when it comes to any big challenge

or any big problem that society faces by taxing people.

So you know if you own it they tax it, if you consume it they tax it,

if it walks there's no doubt about it they tax it.

It's not true.

It is true.

Are you ruling out national insurance contribution rises

for Britain, are you going to rule that out in your manifesto?

We did.

Your party has no credibility.

You don't answer the questions.

There's nothing in the manifesto that says you will not increase

national insurance contributions.

That's what you wanted in the last Parliament.

Are you going to do that?

On June 8th it's about economic credibility and leadership.

You won't answer the question.

Seven years ago...

Wait a moment.

We can answer that one.

There is a commitment...

ALL SPEAK AT ONCE.

Hang on a second.

Hang on a second.

You promised that you would get rid of the deficit.

Angela.

Angela.

I'm sorry, there are five people on the panel,

this is getting ridiculous, you cannot just shout

at each other across me and leave out everybody else.

Can I just say in this conversation, you are both talking about taxation

but in a different way.

You're talking about taxing people with dementia.

No, I'm not.

You, Sir in the centre.

We know where the money is, we've got to go and get it.

It's about where it's going to fall.

You, there?

Every time there's a cut mentioned or a saving needs to be made,

Labour seem to be against it.

Can Labour please tell us how we reduce ?1.7 trillion of debt?

Yep, well we...

APPLAUSE.

Well, to be honest, that's a really fair point because under

the Conservatives that's doubled.

And they promised...

APPLAUSE.

And this is why I get really passionate about it

because they promised that they would make sure

the deficit was already gone by now, it's not true.

What is your answer to him?

My answer to you is that where we said we'd borrow

is about capital investment, it's about borrowing

and investing in our young people and our British lives.

So instead of getting people off the peg from abroad to do

the skills in our country, it's about making sure our young

people have a national education service so they're invested

in without the debt.

That's what it's about.

APPLAUSE.

All right, don't overdo it.

Vince Cable, how would you answer his point?

How is the debt going to be paid off which has increased

under the Conservatives?

If we are going to have improved services while dealing with sensible

public finance and public debt, as you rightly say, we've got

to have an honest way of funding these things.

That's why we've addressed the issue about the lack of funding for social

care and health by saying, you know, we've all earned,

we have got to pay a penny more in income tax.

That doesn't solve the problem but it will substantially alleviate it.

But saying that you can never cut anything and you have to have

tax cuts the whole time is fundamentally dishonest.

If we have good Public Services, we've got to pay for them.

Not just a handful of billionaires, but we've all got to

make a contribution.

There was nothing in the Conservative manifesto today

to explain how public finance is going to be raised.

Where would you suggest we make our cuts?

We have to make cuts somewhere, you would agree, where?

Where should we cut?

I was in the coalition for five years, I had

to cut my department spending by 25%.

Did you do that?

I did it because we had to get the budget in order.

So you would agree we have to cut services somewhere?

We have to manage the public finances properly of course.

But what is missing from this national debate at the moment,

particularly from the Tory manifesto, is where are

they going to raise taxes?

We know that after the election when Theresa May gets

in with a big majority, taxes are going to go up,

probably in income tax, probably national insurance,

white van man is going to have to pay more.

There isn't a word about it in their manifesto.

Priti Patel?

Can I just do it this way round, would you like to state

that there will be no increases in tax and no increases

in national insurance?

Are those words Mrs May would not allow you to speak?

All decisions on tax and spend are set out, and rightly so,

Vince will know this and other panelists will know this,

in the rightful way which is through budgets

and fiscal events.

It's not for me as a panelist to talk about it.

Maybe in your manifesto Angela where it's all about corporation tax

solving the problems but this is about being credible

on the economy.

You are not credible.

I think you will find we are, when it comes to financial

stability, Labour have a ?58 billion black hole in their own

from their manifesto.

You, Sir over there?

that we have been taking.

I haven't had a chance to read the Tory manifesto because it

only came out today,

but the winter fuel allowance, how exactly are you going to implement

who has it and who doesn't because other Governments have

resived doing it because they said it was too complex?

Very briefly.

It's means tested.

Currently there are 12.2 million who have the winter fuel allowance,

the actual payment itself, at great cost, so it

will be means tested.

Just before we move away to another question, Charles Moore,

you introduced yourself as Mrs Thatcher's biographer

and I note that the Spectator magazine you write for today says

that this is the most left-wing leader of the Tory

party in 40 years.

Are there things in this Tory manifesto and Theresa May's

approach to politics which, in your mind, are completely

different, a new direction for the Conservative Party?

Or is that just...

In one way not because I think Mrs May's very much expressing

the idea of the nation's identity asserting itself in

the way Mrs Thatcher was.

That's what Brexit was all about.

That's very much a Thatcher thing.

And she's going for the lore middle class, what she calls

And she's going for the lower middle class, what she calls

the just about managing, rather than natural

permanent Tory voters.

That's very similar.

There is a big difference and that's Mrs Thatcher was much more

a preacher of liberty than Mrs May and she much more talked

about opportunity and she much more said, trust the people to create

wealth and the thing that worries me about the Tory manifesto is I think

it doesn't look at the gifts of the people about how they can do

things, about how a person can start up a business and how to create

better opportunities so that they can, trusting

the people to create the prosperity.

There is an element of I think too much control in all of this.

It does worry me.

Particularly if we are Brexiting, we are left to our own devices.

We have got to sort it out.

And for that, we have got to have a lot of economic freedom.

Last point from you, Sir, then another question.

A question for Priti.

If your economics are stable, why is it that you won't volunteer

your manifesto to be judged against Labours,

as has been requested?

I don't think Labour's has been judged at all,

other than to say there is a ?58 billion black hole...

They've asked for it to be assessed against yours.

All based on greater tax levels basically and more

debt and more borrowing, but I think, you know,

as I've said, the reality is, is that when it comes to spending

decisions, they'll be forthcoming through the fiscal

processes that are in place.

I should also make the point in the manifesto, there

are commitments that we have made on education for example,

on housing, you know, finance is money that has been

announced during the budget as well.

Government's already factored in the spending that

will go into those areas.

Coming back to the point of social care as well,

we have put in an additional ?2 billion into social care.

Of course, on the point about the Winter Fuel Payments too,

that is about making sure A it's means tested but so that the rest

of that money goes into improving the quality of care such

as what the gentleman mentioned.

I come back to the point as well, why they don't want their manifesto

costed is because there are huge subsidies that could be cut.

Money is given to buy-to-let landlords overheating

our housing market.

There's going to be ?110 billion going into Trident nuclear weapons

which we don't need to spend.

There is another ?40 billion going into subsidising the private

pension industry which goes into lining the pockets

of those in the City.

We can make cuts and you don't want your numbers scrutinised

because you are subsidising the wrong people

in the wrong places.

APPLAUSE.

We'll go on to another question.

Just before we do, we are going to be in Belfast next week

and we are in Barnet the week after that.

I say that so if you want to come, the address is on the screen

there and you can.

I should also mention the two leaders specials,

well four leaders in fact but two leaders in pairs.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are going to be in York

on Friday 2nd June.

They're not appearing together, they're appearing

one after the other.

And then Nicola Sturgeon and Tim Farron on the 4th June

in Edinburgh on a Sunday.

So if you want to come, that's Belfast, Barnet, York, Edinburgh.

Rich feasts.

You can apply, I'll give the details again at the end.

I think we'll go on to another question.

I will come back to the issue, if I have time, about foreign aid,

but let's take this question from Emily Petch, please?

Is Jeremy Corbyn credible enough to lead Brexit negotiations?

Yes!

I won't take a show of hands, but we'll hear from our panel first.

Vince Cable?

Well, I think the simple answer is no.

I'm not wanting to get into a sort of general view

of Jeremy Corbyn's political history, but the simple truth

of the matter is that on the particular issue of Brexit,

he and Theresa May are in the same place, I mean they've both voted

for what we call a hard Brexit or an extreme Brexit

or a Ukip-type Brexit which isn't just leaving the European Union

which the public had voted for, but also involved taking it out

of the single market, involves taking it out

of the customs union, which is fundamental

to our manufacturing industries which will sever a lot of the very

close scientific relationships we have, our university in Norwich

here is a typical example of an institution that will be

very badly damaged.

So that his responsibility is just as much as the Prime Minister

in taking the country in a very damaging and dangerous direction.

I accept, and my party accepts, that the public have voted

and the process is being started.

But there is a fundamental question now about which type of Brexit

we pursue and I'm afraid that Jeremy Corbyn has lost the plot

here and lost the loyalty of a lot of his own people because he's

taking us down the same direction as the Ukip-inspired

Conservative Government.

APPLAUSE.

All right.

The difference between him and Theresa May's negotiating

position if either was in charge?

Well, it's not clear what Jeremy Corbyn's

negotiating position is, I mean beyond the same

as the Government.

The problem is we now have as a country is what happens next

isn't really in our hands.

The British Government's made its pitch, we are pursuing this

hard extreme Brexit option, we've now got to wait

for what the European Union countries offer us.

They're going to struggle obviously to have a common position.

There are 27 Governments and the European Parliament and it

will probably come in the form of a take it or leave it offer.

If the offer is a bad one, the question then will be,

what do we do as a country.

What my party is saying, quite distinctly from Labour

or the Conservatives, is that the public have got to be

given the choice of deciding whether we take what is on offer

and that's the context of having another referendum and I don't think

the Labour Party are in that space.

Just while you're on that point, two things, do you accept now that

a majority of people, even if they voted, even if those

included voted Remain and now want Brexit and want the Government

to get on with it.

Secondly, it was you of course who said that a second vote would be

seriously disrespectful.

Yes, and I...

Utterly counterproductive.

Now you've changed your tune.

I said that and I meant it at the time of the referendum.

We had the referendum.

To disrespect the majority would have been completely wrong.

We now have a different question to answer which is,

what happens at the destination?

We voted to leave.

Sorry, what were you saying would be counterproductive,

the immediate oh dear, we didn't like that let's have

another one next year?

There was a lot of suspicion quite rightly that in European countries

they had referendums, they lost and the government

ran them again.

And you thought that might happen?

It could have happened.

That Cameron would stay there and say let's do it again?

If it happened it would have been wrong and that's

what I was criticising.

But we are now dealing with a fundamentally different

question which is what happens when we get to the end

of the process.

In our view, the Government, backed in this case

by Jeremy Corbyn, are leading us into a very deep swamp.

OK, it's where we are going.

We've got to have some line of retreat if this goes badly wrong.

APPLAUSE.

Angela Rayner?

Well, I think Jeremy Corbyn's been really clear and the Labour Party

position is clear, that we respect the votes of the referendum.

Actually, first first principle is to put British jobs

Actually, our first principle is to put British jobs

and our economy first, whereas Theresa May's dog whistling

the Ukip votes and saying we'll put immigration first,

yet she's failed to meet her targets time and time again on immigration.

Actually, we want a Brexit deal that will ensure that all parts of the UK

can prosper and do well.

Our manifesto sets out how we were going to grow Britain

and ensure that our children have the skills for the future

and not saddled with lots of debt and that we build more social

housing and an NHS and a social care system that will give people

dignity and respect.

The Conservatives are not offering that.

I read pages 28 and 29 of this under immigration for Labour,

there is no mention of cutting immigration at all?

We say that freedom of movement would end, and actually

what we believe is by making sure that employers can't

undercut wages in the UK, which the Conservatives have allowed

to happen for over seven years in power, we believe that actually

some of the practices that people are afraid of around

immigration will end, because we will make sure that

British skilled workers can get those jobs.

We don't have those skills at the moment.

They've cut bursaries for our NHS nurses.

APPLAUSE

Do you want, as a policy, to see fewer immigrants

coming to the UK or not?

We want to see a UK economy that puts our jobs and our workers first.

That's what we've said.

Immigration, and we've made no bones about that,

immigration has been positive for the UK.

APPLAUSE

But in some areas, like in my constituency

in Ashton-under-Lyne,

they feel they've been disproportionately affected

by immigration, because they've seen the housing pressures,

they've seen public services being cut, and they've seen

the undercutting of wages.

And the Conservatives have allowed that to happen.

They've broken their promises, and they're going to wreck our

economy by dog whistling Ukip on this particular issue.

Priti Patel.

Well, the question was about leadership and whether or not

Jeremy Corbyn is credible as a leader to go in and get

the best deal for Britain when it comes to our Brexit

discussions and negotiations.

I think the obvious answer is no.

Can any of us seriously picture and see Jeremy Corbyn sitting down

with presidents and prime ministers and chancellors across

Europe to get a deal?

Yes!

And the reason why the answer is no is because we are going to face

a challenging time over the next five years, and there's only one

leader, Theresa May, as Prime Minister, who's been able

to recognise that and face up to the fact that...

Where's the 350 million?

APPLAUSE

Hang on a second.

We need to get the best deal for our country

in those negotiations, which means that we need a strong

leader, someone that's going to stand up for Britain,

someone who will stand up for our national interests

and someone will get a good deal for our country, and

that is Theresa May.

And just another point.

On the point about immigration as well, let's be clear about why

we have had so many issues over the years on immigration.

Because it was a Labour Party in government that allowed a policy

of uncontrolled immigration, and our objective, throughout Brexit

negotiation, will be to take back control of our immigration,

to control our immigration policy...

Well, we're going to do this by leaving the European Union.

You've failed.

Theresa May was the Home Secretary for seven years, and she's

failed every single target she's set.

APPLAUSE

Presumably, Angela, you approve of her failure.

I approve...

Because you don't want to control immigration.

I believe that setting targets is the wrong way to go

about immigration in this country.

Immigrants come to this country and they work.

They work and they prop up our National Health Service.

You're saying the targets are irrelevant anyway.

The target is not the issue.

The issue is about people feeling like they've been left behind,

that their kids are not getting a future, because they're

going overseas to get the skilled workers instead

of giving our children those chances.

Let's hear from some members of our audience.

You, sir, over there.

To answer the question, is Jeremy Corbyn fit to lead

the Brexit negotiations, I think if the Government truly

wants to unite the country and represent the views of everyone,

then surely more than one political party leader should

be at the negotiation.

You can't just have a Conservative-led negotiation.

You're going to have more than half the country disagreeing with it.

You need to have representation from every party to truly

get a unified Britain.

And the woman in orange.

Thank you.

The panel seems to be very concerned with immigration,

and everyone's opinion on it.

This county would collapse without, not necessarily skilled workers,

but workers of all sorts that come in from the East European bloc.

APPLAUSE

The man behind you.

Can we not forget that Jeremy Corbyn won two leadership elections?

Theresa May won by default.

APPLAUSE

So Jeremy Corbyn is in a more stronger, more stable

position than Theresa May.

Theresa May won by default, so why should she be in charge

of our country negotiating Brexit?

She's got an election coming up.

Presumably we will be able to judge her standing

in the country by that.

Charles Moore.

In the foreword to the manifestos, the leaders both write something.

And in the first paragraph, Theresa May says,

"Brexit will define us".

And Jeremy Corbyn, his first paragraph says, "A big part

"of being the leader of a political party is that you meet people

"across the country and hear a wide range of views and ideas

"about the future".

Now, it seems to me that one of those sentences is focusing

on what it is to be a leader, and the other is not.

And I'm afraid it is very clear.

I actually covered the 1983 election and I went

round with Margaret Thatcher and with Michael Foot,

the then Labour leader, and I saw how they behaved.

And Mr Foot was a dear, kindly man, and I think that's

true of Jeremy Corbyn.

But it was absolutely blatantly obvious that he couldn't run

the country, completely and utterly so.

And it was blatantly obvious that whether you liked

Mrs Thatcher or not, she could.

And the voters could completely see that.

The question put the point there about Jeremy Corbyn being elected.

There is such a fantastic difference between being chosen by your party

and being chosen by the country.

And Michael Foot went to enormous rallies where

he was cheered to the echo.

I remember in Plymouth thousands of people cheering and yelling,

and he made a brilliant speech.

No use.

Makes no difference.

What they have to persuade is the people who are not persuaded.

And Mr Corbyn is an absolute classic preacher to the converted.

He can't reach out beyond that, and he won't.

And he'll lose.

APPLAUSE

To come back to the question again, Emily,

this is what the general election is about, in part, at least.

It is about who has the mandate to go forwards and take

forward these negotiations.

With regard to your specific question about Jeremy Corbyn,

I admire him in many ways.

I think he's putting forward a bold manifesto,

but on his judgment on Article 50, it was not good.

If you cast your mind back to 24 hours, 48 hours

after the referendum, he urged Article 50 to be

invoked immediately.

That was an error of judgment.

He has given the Conservatives a blank cheque.

Not just a blank cheque.

He has driven them to the bank and got them to cash it in,

over the Brexit negotiations.

But what's the alternative?

Theresa May, who's made mistake after mistake after mistake already

in the Brexit process.

Over Gibraltar, over rattling the sabres around intelligence

when she wrote the letter invoking Article 50.

She's had to be dragged kicking and screaming,

after people told her they wanted to take back control

to the referendum, just to let Parliament have a say in it,

and eventually conceded a vote in Parliament at the end.

But this is a Prime Minister who says one thing and does another.

And that's becoming abundantly clear.

We saw it at the general election.

No, there was going to be no general election.

A few days later, a general election is called.

She swears that she is going to stand up for the marginalised

and then freezes welfare benefits.

She condemns the evils of child trafficking...

Where's she going to go wrong in negotiating Brexit?

I think it's already clear that she's made an error of judgment.

I think she isn't keeping our options open.

I agree with Vince on this about a ratification referendum.

If she's conceded the principle that Parliament should

have a vote on the final terms, then why not trust the British

people to have that say as well?

APPLAUSE

Emily, what's your view about Jeremy Corbyn and Brexit?

I think that Corbyn is an incredibly passionate leader.

You know what you're going to get with Corbyn, whereas May,

there's always a bit of ambiguity, I guess.

I think personally, I'll be voting for Corbyn

because I know what he stands for.

He's passionate about his beliefs.

I feel like, as a student, he cares more about kind

of the marginalised in this country.

So when you say, is he credible enough, your answer would be yes?

Yes.

Definitely.

APPLAUSE

So it was a kind of rhetorical question.

I just wanted to know what everybody else thought.

Lets go on to another...

I said we would come back to the issue that was

raised a moment ago.

The question from Gordon Jones.

I think we can take that.

Just take the key issue, Gordon, can you?

Thank you, David.

The thing what gets me about the Conservative Party

at the moment, they carried on from Cameron's 0.7% of GDP.

And why?

You're talking about foreign aid.

Yes, sorry, foreign aid.

What was your actual question, why are they still doing that?

Why are they still carrying on?

When you've got a shortage of policemen, firemen,

care workers, everybody else.

Everybody suffers, while we keep giving this large amount.

And we've given this large amount away for silly things.

We even give Saint Helena Island 285 million to build an airport

which no airlines can take off from.

Charles Moore.

Yes, I basically agree with what was just said.

First of all, I think it is very wrong to commit automatically

a percentage of the country's money.

You shouldn't have a law.

All spending should vary depending on need.

You shouldn't have a law that says it's got to be X percent.

Secondly, it is true, and it's partly because they say

it's got to be that much, that they don't how to spend it.

So it's all there and they don't know how to spend it.

Thirdly, they are actually not allowed to spend it on things that

are of benefit to Britain.

It's actually against the rules.

And so it is wasted.

One of the key things about running a country is priorities.

I've often seen British aid workers in foreign places.

Many of them are excellent people, government people, I mean.

But the way the system works, I've seen it in Afghanistan,

particularly when it's a dangerous situation, is that all the money

they hand over from British taxpayers goes to the government.

And in these bad places, it's squandered by the government.

The people whose fingers are nearest to the money, keep it.

That's how it works in those places.

And when we actually have priorities, I can't understand why

the government is stuck on this one.

It's the same with...

They go on about energy prices, quite rightly, they are too high.

But we have these unbelievably high renewable demands,

which is the reason energy prices are so high, because we spend more

than 7 billion out of the levy making people pay that

for alleged climate change.

Alleged climate change?

Alleged climate change!

You're a climate change sceptic, or an outright denier?

I'm a sceptic.

A sceptic, OK.

And what evidence is it that you don't believe?

I'm very happy to have the climate change debate, but shall I...

Finish your point, and then I'll bring Jonathan in.

If you're trying to help the people who are just about managing,

which I very much support Mrs May in doing, really work that out,

really think about that.

And if that's so, you would not be putting up energy bills

with renewable levies, and you would not be spending

all this money on foreign aid.

APPLAUSE

Jonathan Bartley.

Another subsidy we could cut is the ?30 billion Hinckley subsidy,

which is ridiculous.

Are you in favour of 13 billion foreign aid?

I am absolutely in favour of 13 billion foreign aid,

and we would put it up, unequivocally, and proud of it.

I am proud of it, and we would put it up to 1% of GDP.

And let me tell you, I'm ashamed of our country,

when we spend 40% of our gross domestic product and public

expenditure on ourselves, the fifth biggest economy

in the world, and we can just about scrape together 0.7% of GDP

on the entire rest of the world.

When there is a famine in East Africa with 22 million

people facing starvation, and we can't muster up...

Where's the pride in our country, where's the passion?

We should be leading the world in doing the right thing.

I'm ashamed that we are even having this conversation.

APPLAUSE

You can shout about it if you know where the money's doing good.

They give a health ministry in Kenya 106 million to provide

for the next eight years.

Gordon, I'm absolutely on the same page with you on that.

I believe we must know where the money is going.

We need accountability and there must be transparency,

but that is not an excuse for cutting the aid budget.

APPLAUSE

Let me come back to the panel.

Vince Cable.

There are two honest and credible ways of dealing with the aid issue.

One is to have the target and meet it.

And I have to say, I have many disagreements with David Cameron,

but he deserves a lot of credit for having done this.

He got a lot of flak from his own people and from the right-wing

press but he stuck at it and he deserves credit.

It seems that the other honest way of dealing with it is the way that

you and several other people of the audience have

said quite outright, we don't want foreign aid,

we want to spend it here.

I don't agree with that but at least it's honest.

But what appears in the Conservative manifesto today is something

that is grossly dishonest.

What they are saying is, let's keep the aid target but fiddle

it and redefine it so that it isn't really aid at all.

And that, I'm afraid, is going to bring the whole thing

into gross disrepute.

What do you mean by that?

Well, they want to change the definition of aid so that it

doesn't actually aid the developing countries in a way that

everybody recognises, but is hiding other forms

of British public spending.

And that is not reputable.

That is not a sensible way of doing it.

If we have an aid programme and we are committed to it,

we should deliver it.

If we want out of it, we should do what other people

are saying and cut it.

But trying to hide stuff is not...

We are not trying to hide stuff, Vince.

Why are you trying to redefine it?

You wanted to abolish the Department, didn't you?

We are proud, as a Government, of our 0.7% commitment and it helps

us stand tall in the world.

We are the fifth largest economy in the world and I think actually

when we look at the good that we do, through international development,

no-one can doubt we are saving lives and changing lives

in unprecedented ways.

I've had the privilege of going to some of the most

harrowing places in the world.

Jonathan mentioned the East Africaen famine, I've been to Sudan

and Somalia where people are dying, so ?20 of UK aid would provide

food, water and shelter for a family for over a month.

That helps us stand tall in the world and we should all be

proud of that in terms of how we're spending money.

But, there is more that we can do in terms of the how

we spend that money, where it goes and following

the money to ensure that it goes to the world's poorest to get

the development outcomes that we need to see.

We have seen plenty of cases over the years of aid that's not gone

to the right causes, the right people or even driven

outcomes and developmental outcomes or alleviated poverty.

That is my job, through not just our manifesto but through the nine

months I've spent in DFID so far in tracking down, following

the money and ensuring we spend that money so it's in our national

interest, whether it's on diseases or famine to keep us safe here.

Just in the manifesto, we do say we'd work with like-minded

countries where we can reform the OECD, the rules,

for this very purpose, because we can't spend money,

for example, on getting military support in to deliver aid

in humanitarian situations.

I've seen those situations, I've seen aid workers or know of aid

workers who've been killed delivering food relief in some very,

very unstable parts of the world.

We believe we can change that situation by yes,

spending more with the MoD to get equipment in, but also

to get life-saving aid in as well into some very,

very difficult parts of the world.

I think actually Britain post-Brexit, this helps us to not

only stand tall in the world...

You've said that.

But to give us influence in the world as well.

Gordon complains about the shortage of nurses and doctors

and the rest of it.

You are spending ?13 billion or so, a bit more on foreign aid,

the pledges is to increase the NHS by ?8 billion over

the next Parliament, yes?

Yes.

That is about ?30 million a week.

You told us there would be ?350 million a week?

Well, you have to...

APPLAUSE.

Didn't you?

No, I think...

You've only managed to get...

I mean you've only managed to gets ?30 million,

so does that raise a questionabout whether foreign aid is justified?

I've already made the case...

What happened to your promise that we get ?350 million?

We've got to leave the European Union first

of all to take back control of that money.

You have seen in the manifesto what we'll do with that

money today as well.

We'll put that into a fund where that money will go back

to the UK and so that we can spend that money in the UK

in a way in which, you know, not only secures jobs in this

country but leads to greater investment.

So will the NHS still get the ?350 million a week that

you stood in front of brandishing...

We have committed to ?8 billion on torch of...

I know you have, but where's the ?350?

On top of the ?11 billion that's gone into mental health as well.

In terms of funding to the NHS we are absolutely committed not just

to securing funding but investing in the future as well.

So we have to forget 350 story.

Angela Rayner?

You are plugging the holes of the money you have siphoned out

of our Public Services at best.

Not true.

APPLAUSE.

But, to be fair, I will agree with Priti on the issue around

the 0.7%, she's absolutely right and she's changed her tune

because she did want to get rid of her department,

as David did say.

Gordon has a point about where we spend that money.

What Priti was saying earlier, for example we are spending aid

to Yemen, yet we are selling arms to Saudi Arabia who're causing

the crisis in Yemen, so we need to look at that.

APPLAUSE.

I'll take a point from you in the third row?

Quickly if you would?

The panelists say it's about investing in the future,

why then Angela would you put VAT on private school fees

which would deny people like me the education that my family has

worked hard to put me through and overburdened the state sector?

That is not investing in the future, that is just soaking the rich

and denying hard working people what their families

want to give them.

OK, we'll go to that question.

Joanne Reid, let's have it?

Should tuition fees be free for all students?

Should tuition fees be free for all students

which is Labour policy.

Angela Rayner?

Yes, I think they should be.

Because students pay a massive debt towards it

by working in our industry, working in our industries

once they are skilled and being our doctors,

scientists of the future, and our young people are leaving

education with ?44,000 of debt.

That's astronomical.

We'll invest in them.

APPLAUSE.

What was your point?

But if young people are the future of Britain post-Brexit,

your VAT would force people out of private schools, the state

schools can't cope with it and it would actually also deny

the brightest and the best the bursaries...

AUDIENCE BOO.

It would deny the brightest and the best because there'll be

less money going in, they couldn't get the education

they deserve and it would make the education

in the state sector worse.

Can I just say that I don't think it will.

I think the bursary, the VAT levy on schools

is about schools paying the right amount of VAT which they currently

don't have to pay.

It's a state subsidy to private schools.

When you've got choices to make, I believe that putting

that money into the 95%, rather than the 5%

is the right option.

APPLAUSE.

Priti Patel?

Well, I think the perennial question here is, you know,

with Labour again, how they're going to pay for this,

because the reality is, when it comes to tuition fees,

making it free for everyone, it is simply not sustainable,

it's not financially credible at all.

Actually, you would be supporting children from pretty well off

backgrounds to go to university and what we are seeing right now

through the tuition fees policy is actually it's giving the support

to many of those that could not get access to university education,

those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those are the ones we should be

targeting and supporting to get into university.

APPLAUSE.

But that number's gone down.

The woman in blue on the gangway?

I went to university and I ended up with over ?30,000 worth of debt

and I'm not in a job which I graduated for or worked hard

towards because a lot of jobs when you leave universities

being entry levels, you don't get paid anything or just

get your travel costs.

So I've ended up in a job that I didn't work hard towards and I've

been there for six years because I can't find anything that

I've graduated and worked towards.

OK.

Vince Cable, of course, the Liberal Democrats famously

didn't want tuition fees and then We didn't.

Do you approve of Labour's plan to abolish them again

or are they now inevitable?

In an idealised fantasy world where money grew on trees,

it should of course be free.

All three political parties, including mine, have made complete

fools of themselves in the past by promising what they

couldn't deliver.

When the Labour Government came in, they promised never to introduce

tuition fees and did and promised not to increase them and did

because they were being sensible and realistic and Gordon Brown

and Tony Blair could see that universities were going bust,

they couldn't accommodate the students and provide

good quality education so that's what they did.

When we came into the coalition, we promised not to increase tuition

fees, it was obviously undeliverable, we had

to do it, we paid a big political price for it.

But the question I had to face and I was given the hospital

pass of this policy, was what do you do?

You've got 40% of young people going to university,

we want to maintain world class standards, how do you pay for it?

You can ask the rest of the public to pay for it in tax and remember

that about 80% of adults never went to university so why

should they pay?

You can do what they do in Scotland, which is they pretend it's free

but then they raid the budget of schools and further education

colleges to pay for it.

Or you can do what we now do, which is to have a kind of graduate

tax, that's basically what it is, people who benefit from higher

education if they get a decent income later in life,

they pay progressively according to their income.

It's not ideal, I can understand all the anxieties people

have about the system, but what is the alternative,

how do you pay for it otherwise?

This is basic reality.

APPLAUSE.

You?

Hopefully this year I'm going to university and I have

friends in my cohort who've not even started the process

because they know how much it will cost and they know

that they can't afford it, so tuition fees do single out and it

puts a lot of people off.

Even though it was defined as a graduate tax, in other

words you only pay it when you start earning?

Yes, because ?21,000 is the point you then start paying,

if you earn over ?21,000, you then have to pay.

A lot of people will earn over ?21,000 so they'll

have to pay it back.

If you pay for tuition fees, if the Government does

and we don't have to, then the Government will

know how much they have to spend on tuition fees.

At the moment they don't know.

They don't know if 20,000 people are going to not pay

or they will know that they have to pay and not who won't pay.

You in the front?

In Scotland, obviously they don't pay for tuition fees

going to university.

If they're Scottish, the English pay, of course.

But from my understanding, there's a lot less places for people

to go to university because that Government are paying

so if we had free fees surely there would be a lot less places

in England for students.

Charles Moore?

This is a very important point that's just been made.

Because there are no tuition fees in Scotland for Scots,

the serious problem with this is that the universities

don't get enough money.

The universities themselves mind very much.

They don't quite like saying it because it sounds as if they're

indifferent to the sufferings of those that have to pay the money.

To be world class universities, they have to get in more

money than you can get in from Government payment.

So what happens in Scotland and I know this because our son

was in a Scottish university and he's English, and he paid

the full whack therefore but what that means

is that the Scottish Government actually Scottish university rather

want more English students because they get more money

and they want more foreign students because they get more money

and they don't want more Scottish students

because they get less money.

If you think about the ultimate benefit of the education

the universities can provide, there have to be higher fees.

That's why it all came about that it went up to ?9,000 when it used

to be ?3,000 and so on, because otherwise you are going to

get very weak university education.

Nobody benefits and you're not learning anything.

Jonathan Bartley?

We only have a minute left?

I have to challenge the idea that there's somehow an inevitability

about bringing in tuition fees, Vince.

The only inevitability was that you saw the young

people and you thought, they are an easy target.

No.

That is why you went for them.

And you broke your promise.

It is the big corporations who benefit from the education

that's given to graduates.

They're the one who is make the excess profits of this

They're the ones who make the excess profits of this education,

it's time they gave back.

Now, there is enough money around.

There is this lie that there's not enough money.

The problem is not there is not enough money,

the money is in the wrong hands.

APPLAUSE.

We have had corporation tax cut and cut and cut since 2010.

From 27% down to 19%.

If we reverse the cuts, that's not even up to the EU average

level or the G7 average level, we'd still be lowerer

level or the G7 average level, we'd still be lower,

we could raise ?9 billion a year, rising to ?12 billion a year

which would be enough, not just to get rid of tuition

fees but to reintroduce a maintenance grant.

That's what I want for my daughter who is about to go to university.

I don't want our public sector debt taken away from the public sector

and put around the necks of our young people.

That is not the future that we need.

APPLAUSE.

Thank you.

There are many hands up.

I'm sorry, we have to stop because our time's up, as ever.

We are going to be in Belfast next week, we are going to be in Barnet

in north London the week after that.

A reminder of the leader specials, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn

in York on Friday 2nd June and Nicola Sturgeon and Tim Farron

on Sunday 4th in Edinburgh, not head-to-head but one

after the other.

If you want to argue with them, quiz them, the details of how

to apply are on the screen.

If you are listening to this on Five Live,

If you are listening to this on Five Live,

I was going to say the debate goes on, but there is a phone-in

discussion, it's not the debate because everybody here goes home.

That was on Question Time extra time.

The panel and audience go home.

My thanks to the panel and to all of you who came

to Norwich to take part in this edition of Question Time.

Until next Thursday, good night.