is the release of dozens more israeli hostages abducted by hamas on october 7th imminent? the israeli war cabinet met tonight as hopes rise of a deal to free israelis held in gaza. we'll talk to one man who is hoping at least some of his relatives could be freed. also tonight, on the eve of the chancellor's autumn statement, we ask voters across the country what they want to hear. what i would be looking for in an ideal world is that the triple lock would be maintained. i'm expecting to get a raw deal, not a good deal. speak to us disabled people and make it so we _ speak to us disabled people and make it so we can _ speak to us disabled people and make it so we can come to work and we can contribute _ we'll also talk live to a professor in economics of innovation and public value. the chief economic advisor at allianz. and the co—chair of liz truss�*s growth commission and ask what they would do if advising the chancellor. plus a us tech firm palantir wins an nhs it contract worth hundreds of millions to bring together data from patients in england into one place. some people are really concerned about what it could mean for their personal health data. we'll explain where those fears come from, ask if they're justified, and and ask whether the new system will benefit medics and patients. we have seen hundreds of millions of pounds spent on this it database when doctors and patients don't really understand or see the benefits from this.— really understand or see the benefits from this. most managers feel they're — benefits from this. most managers feel they're flying _ benefits from this. most managers feel they're flying blind _ benefits from this. most managers feel they're flying blind and - benefits from this. most managers feel they're flying blind and you . feel they're flying blind and you can't _ feel they're flying blind and you can't possibly run a health system effectively or safely. that is where i think_ effectively or safely. that is where i think the — effectively or safely. that is where i think the biggest immediate gain will be _ in what's become known as �*hostage square' in tel aviv, families of men, women, teenagers, children and a 10 month old baby abducted by hamas on october 7th, are hoping to hear that their loved ones could be some of those freed in a deal that's been voted on tonight by israel's war cabinet. any deal could also mean potentially a four—day pause in fighting. a senior israeli official has told the bbc the deal — brokered by qatar — would see 50 israelis released in total. a us official quoted by reuters said the hostages freed would mostly be women and children — with 150 palestinian prisoners freed by israel in exchange. meanwhile the us said today almost 20,000 gallons of fuel had been delivered to gaza over the previous day by ngos and 50 trucks carrying humanitarian aid had gone into gaza in the previous 2a hours. in a moment we'll talk to one man who's waiting for news about four of his relatives who were taken hostage by hamas, designatd a terrorist group by many western nations. first here's mark... israel's leadership has voted to accept a deal that will bring back dozens of women and children held by hamas, but vows to fight on once a four or five day truce ends. translation: there's some very i unnecessary talk outside saying that if we bring back our hostages, we'll stop the war. i wish to clarify that we are at war and we are going to continue with this war until we achieve all of our goals. relatives of the kidnapped have become a powerful voice in israel, with the protest camp outside the defence ministry, where tonight they laid the table symbolically for their absent loved ones. among those believed abducted from kibbutz be'eri last month were teenagers noam and alma. their uncle is hoping they'll be among those released, but worries that their father, also thought abducted, might not be. because my family is a father and two children, and in this deal it's mother and children, the 53 that they say they are going to release, my fear is that, you know, the children will be released and the father will stay behind. and my sister, the mother is already, was already murdered on october 7th. so, you know, you can already see the difficulty that this is going to cause these children. there are questions also about the possible release of palestinian detainees. during raids in the west bank 1700 have been arrested in recent weeks, with talk of hundreds of them in administrative detention being part of the deal. could hamas use those to claim a success? certainly having people released, especially women, children, injured people or people who are sick from jail would be seen as a positive thing. yes, that would be well received. but also part of the deal other than the end or the stopping for five days of the daily bombardment, there will be allowing, i think, something like 300 trucks of humanitarian food and aid and so on. so that's also going to be welcomed in gaza. but yeah, the release of any prisoner is always seen as a positive. and the release of the hostages, the hostages have become a liability to hamas. so they'll be happy to have them released. the releases are due to be phased over four or five days, which will coincide with pauses in military operations and significant increases in the amount of humanitarian aid coming through the checkpoint from egypt. the question then is whether that's enough to change the dynamic of this war, whether the fight could then intensify again in the southern gaza strip. we're going to talk now to itay raviv. hello, itay. can i introduce some members of yourfamily to our audience, please? you have kindly given us photos of your loved ones which you have said we can share with people watching. these are members of your family who were kidnapped by hamas and also killed by hamas. first of all there's your uncle avraham and aunt ruthie. who were taken hostage. then there's your cousin keren and her son ohad also abducted. ohad had his ninth birthday in capitvity. and here's another picture, this time of your other cousin, roee with ohad. roee was killed on october 7th. i wonder itay, how you are feeling about the prospects possibly of some of your relatives being released? yeah, so thank you very much first of all. i think i'm feeling a mixture of feelings. first there is excitement, but we still are anxious, because nobody told us our family members will be part of deal. i know they have said it will be women and children. i have have an aunt who is 78 and we don't know if they were be included in the deal. they're also innocent civilians. they're also innocent civilians. they're actually peace activists and used to take sick children and people from gaza into israeli hospitals for treatment. we don't even know anything about them. who knows? it could be a crazy reality show and we will be waiting every night for the lists of the kids that will be released. it is unheard of. it is another continuous of the crime against humanity that hamas is committing at this moment. every day they're there. is committing at this moment. every day they're there-— they're there. is your mind, is your heart, consumed _ they're there. is your mind, is your heart, consumed every _ they're there. is your mind, is your heart, consumed every wake - they're there. is your mind, is your. heart, consumed every wake second thinking about where they are, how they are, what is happening? yes. they are, what is happening? yes, exactl , they are, what is happening? yes, exactly. we _ they are, what is happening? yes, exactly, we don't _ they are, what is happening? ye: exactly, we don't know anything. i don't even know if they're alive or not. so the red cross have not visited any of the hostages who are again innocent civilians. they're not even prisoners of war. we don't know. like you saw in the pictures, they wear glasses, i don't know if their glasses are with them. avraham, he walks with a cane. i don't know how he is doing. he needs to take medicine daily. i don't know if they get any food, any water or medical support. this isjust crazy. every waking second, this is a good definition. ., ., , ., ., definition. how have you retained elements of— definition. how have you retained elements of positivity, _ definition. how have you retained elements of positivity, i - definition. how have you retained elements of positivity, i guess i definition. how have you retained| elements of positivity, i guess you have to keep hope, don't you? yes. have to keep hope, don't you? yes, we have t0- — have to keep hope, don't you? yes, we have t0- l— have to keep hope, don't you? yes, we have to. i think _ have to keep hope, don't you? yes, we have to. i think hope _ have to keep hope, don't you? yes, we have to. i think hope is - have to keep hope, don't you? 1l: we have to. i think hope is what keeps is going. without hope we wouldn't be able to function and speak to the world and share the atrocities that we have been through and to share our family's story. it is important for us to share the name and the stories behind and the hope, the hope is what keeps us going. we still have is in hope. to bring all ourfamilies going. we still have is in hope. to bring all our families back going. we still have is in hope. to bring all ourfamilies back home. quickly as possible. and tonight, tonight is a good sign. but until i see them back home, until i see them cross the border, i'm going to be still anxious. you know i hope they will be there, but i want to see them back. because we have been hearing talk for the past few weeks about a deal or maybe not a deal. now it is the closest we have seen. but i just cannot trust now it is the closest we have seen. but ijust cannot trust hamas. we have to remember this is a vicious terror or organisation that executed atrocity on october 7th and still is and still target thing civilians. so i'm still nervous, because i want everything that is in fact taking place, the deal is going forward. if it does happen, i wonder if this will lead to greater pressure on your prime minister, binyamin netanyahu, not to go back to military action, afterfour netanyahu, not to go back to military action, after four days, netanyahu, not to go back to military action, afterfour days, or five days, however the long pause is, in order to get more hostages out? i is, in order to get more hostages out? ~' , , , , , is, in order to get more hostages out? ~ , , , , , ., out? i think the pressure exists at the moment _ out? i think the pressure exists at the moment and _ out? i think the pressure exists at the moment and i _ out? i think the pressure exists at the moment and i think _ out? i think the pressure exists at the moment and i think perhaps l out? i think the pressure exists at l the moment and i think perhaps the military operation has helped to get to this deal. because it wasn't there before the military operation. so perhaps another military operation will be effective. i don't know. i'm not a politician. nor a military person. i don't have the correct strategy. ijust know i want my family back home. i want all israelis back home. because that is where they belong. and again this is, anything is possible. the pressure does exist on binyamin netanyahu to release all hostages. this is the main goalfor me and a lot of israelis of war and the second one is to punish hamas. because it is a threat. it is targeting israelis and it has been firing missiles for the past 20 years and it has done brutal massacre on october 7th and all israeli want those two things. to return hostages and to release us from the threat of hamas. this is the pressure on binyamin netanyahu, he is going to execute those two missions. :, ~ he is going to execute those two missions. ., ~ , ., ., , , ., ~ ., missions. thank you for speaking to our audience _ missions. thank you for speaking to our audience in _ missions. thank you for speaking to our audience in the _ missions. thank you for speaking to our audience in the uk. _ missions. thank you for speaking to our audience in the uk. we - our audience in the uk. we appreciate your time and we wish you all the best. appreciate your time and we wish you all the best-— it's the autumn statement tomorrow, essentially a mini—budget, possibly the penultimate set piece event before the next general election. in a moment, we'll talk to three prominent economists. first nick, more annoucements tonight. rishi sunak said the time has come to cut taxes and we have learned the chancellor's plans. the times report that 28 million people will see a cut in national insurance. that is a i% cut in national insurance. that is a i% cut for employees and the self—employed. that will cost five billion a year and jeremy hunt will make a tax break for expenses that will cost nine billion a year. i understand both of those reports are correct. that follows an announcement that the national living wage, that will increase from £10.42 app hour to £11.44. that will be an £1800 increase for a full—time worker. so what is going on? well rishi sunak believes that two big things have fallen in his favour. firstly, he has hit his target of halving inflation. secondly he has some fiscal head room of 18 to 25 billion. that is known us to as spare cash. the chancellor will do a few things with one big aspiration, he is going to cut taxes. he is going to do nit a it in a way that he says does not fuel inflation but will increase growth. they hope to create a wow factor.— let's hear from four voters from around the country. what do they want to hear from the chancellor tomorrow? i'mjoanne williams and i'm the owner of joco interiors and gifts in nuneaton. the increase in the minimum wage is something that's in the back of my mind, because at the moment we don't know what's happening with business rates. because if they go up and obviously the wages will go up, it's a case of, can i keep the staff on the hours that they're on already? will they need to be reduced? will i have to lose somebody from the team? there is the real possibility of the business can't sustain the extra costs which are carried on through 2023 — the cost of electric, the cost of gas to keep the building warm through the winter is a big sort of fear for me going forward. well my name is hadyn watkins, i'm nearly 87 years old and i live in a village called vernham dean, which is in the — north—west corner of rural hampshire. my big worry living out here is that we are very isolated, there is no public transport service, and from past experience with other people, i have noticed if you wish to get an ambulance out here quickly, you can't. i feel vulnerable. that is how i feel. well, obviously, with pensions not keeping up entirely with inflation, i mean we have a situation in this country where one in five of the retired population is living below the poverty line. i'm not below the poverty line. i'm not really that close to it. but i do still feel the pinch. there are certain things that i used to go out and be able to buy which i now have to say, no, i can't really afford it, i have got to concentrate now on the essentials, which actually keep me alive. i'm lowri, 52—year—old single mum. live near blackpool. pre—pandemic and pre—2017, i i worked in the events industry. i had a company for 12 years. lost that. that plunged us into poverty. so we have literally being trying to survive every day— since 2017. everything i do every day - is to make sure my daughter, milly, aged 14, gets to do- the activities that she wants to do. we just keep going, | keep going each day just trying to survive. i'm hoping the chancellor will address the - universal credit, obviously enough money for people to live. - i bank interest rates is absolutelyl critical at the moment, especially for people with mortgages. gas and electricity costs are through the roof. i you know... ..i can't even think— about paying my gas and electric through this winter. and having enough money to pay the essentials - each month. that is not really a lot to ask for. i am kayleigh, i am 22 years old, i live in central guilford. i'm a wheelchair user, long—term sick and disabled with genetic and chronic illnesses. so, injeremy hunt's statement tomorrow, i am hoping and i would implore him to make it so that work places are more accessible, make it so that employers have an incentive to create accessible work places to the blind, the deaf, the wheelchair users. speak to us disabled people and make it so we can come to work and we can contribute, because there a lot of us that would love to. but i would also say we need to make it so accessible housing is available to everyone, because without safe, secure housing, people can't access work. there is that level of insecurity and it's not possible to be homeless and hold down a full—time job. so we need to stop evicting people from their homes without due cause. let's speak to mariana mazzucato, professor in economics of innovation and public value at university college london and author of mission economy. mohamed el—erian — president of queen's college, cambridge and chief economic advisor, at allianz. and shanker singham who is co—chair of the growth commission — a group of economists analysing public policy and how it will affect economic output — convened by liz truss after she departed 10 downing street. thank you for being here and giving you insight. is it the right time for tax cuts? ihla you insight. is it the right time for tax cuts?— you insight. is it the right time for tax cuts? ., ., ., , ., for tax cuts? no and it would be a mistake to _ for tax cuts? no and it would be a mistake to send _ for tax cuts? no and it would be a mistake to send to _ for tax cuts? no and it would be a mistake to send to the _ for tax cuts? no and it would be a - mistake to send to the announcement on tax cuts because it will do not much to promote growth and plug activity and it is too early in the inflation battle and thirdly it is counter to the government is an objective of reducing debt in five years. this would be nothing more thanjust years. this would be nothing more than just cranking years. this would be nothing more thanjust cranking up years. this would be nothing more than just cranking up the entire growth engine, this autumn statement should be used for a fundamental revamp of the strategy. it should be used for a fundamental revamp of the strategy.— should be used for a fundamental revamp of the strategy. if you are riaht revamp of the strategy. if you are right about _ revamp of the strategy. if you are right about those _ revamp of the strategy. if you are right about those reasons - revamp of the strategy. if you are right about those reasons then i revamp of the strategy. if you are l right about those reasons then why would jeremy hunt do this? politically it is attractive in the run—up to a general election and tax cuts gives people money in a pocket but does not address the problem but we all had commented on which is lack of productivity gain and low growth. and without that you do not get inclusive growth that is consistent with the realities of the planet. i consistent with the realities of the lanet. :, : consistent with the realities of the lanet. ., ~ ., ., planet. i agree. and if we want to aim at growth _ planet. i agree. and if we want to aim at growth the _ planet. i agree. and if we want to aim at growth the key _ planet. i agree. and if we want to aim at growth the key question i planet. i agree. and if we want to aim at growth the key question is| aim at growth the key question is what _ aim at growth the key question is what causes growth and what do we know _ what causes growth and what do we know but _ what causes growth and what do we know but the long drivers of growth. so investing in the health system so people _ so investing in the health system so pe0ple can — so investing in the health system so people can work and can be well cost much _ people can work and can be well cost much more _ people can work and can be well cost much more to imprison people and hospitalise — much more to imprison people and hospitalise them than to invest in all the _ hospitalise them than to invest in all the factors that create well— being. all the factors that create well—being. but a key issue is that there _ well—being. but a key issue is that there are — well—being. but a key issue is that there are different drivers of gdp and one — there are different drivers of gdp and one is— there are different drivers of gdp and one is business investment and also government investment. this country— also government investment. this country has — also government investment. this country has low business investments are the _ country has low business investments are the problem is how we get the profits— are the problem is how we get the profits generated, to reinvest back into the _ profits generated, to reinvest back into the economy and how we get the financial— into the economy and how we get the financial sector which continues in this country to basically finance itself, — this country to basically finance itself, iet— this country to basically finance itself, let alone how does it actually _ itself, let alone how does it actually helped to steer the real economy— actually helped to steer the real economy to become more sustainable and we _ economy to become more sustainable and we are _ economy to become more sustainable and we are going back in this country— and we are going back in this country and all the green targets. so the _ country and all the green targets. so the last— country and all the green targets. so the last quarter and no applications for onshore wind, all those _ applications for onshore wind, all those investments are going abroad and that— those investments are going abroad and that is— those investments are going abroad and that is a trillion so there should — and that is a trillion so there should be _ and that is a trillion so there should be the question, how we really— should be the question, how we really drive business investment. notiust— really drive business investment. notjust by reducing tax. that really drive business investment. not just by reducing tax. that only increases — not just by reducing tax. that only increases profits and what we had uk when _ increases profits and what we had uk when there _ increases profits and what we had uk when there was there was growth was growth _ when there was there was growth was growth driven by consumption fuelled by private _ growth driven by consumption fuelled by private debt. the financial crisis — by private debt. the financial crisis which we should all remember was caused — crisis which we should all remember was caused by private debt are not public— was caused by private debt are not public debt, we obsessed about austerity in this country but the ratio today of private debt to disposable income is extremely high. and that _ disposable income is extremely high. and that is _ disposable income is extremely high. and that is not being talked about. is and that is not being talked about. is it the _ and that is not being talked about. is it the right time for tax cuts? in the growth commission budget released last week and the work we did on the various economic models and dynamic modelling of growth in the uk, not surprised that the growth commission is focused on growth commission is focused on growth but what we found is that actually the drivers of economic growth are primarily regulatory reform. the tax and fiscal plays a but the majority of the gains that are achievable in the economy come from regulatory reform in areas such as planning, i think one of the guests spoke about high energy costs. uk households pay 45 cents per kilowatt hour where americans 18 and these are big differences. and we have also gone backwards in terms of a comparison with us households in terms of gdp per capita so we need to bridge the gap. we need to do the regulatory reform critically and things like planning and energy and things like planning and energy and transportation. these are things that we recommend. i think there is a role for tax cuts as well,. the bank of england _ a role for tax cuts as well,. the bank of england has _ a role for tax cuts as well,. the bank of england has said it is too early to think about rate cuts. if you do not do regulatory reform i would agree but you need to do it all, this is not something you say we cannot talk about regulatory reform because this is the autumn statement, we have to actually do these things. the current situation in the uk i do not think a sustainable and unless we start to see growth, what we have projected with regulatory reforms and targeted tax cuts such as full expensing and dealing with corporate tax situations, we do not talk about inheritance tax and i do not think that will move the needle on economic growth but if we do those things you can generate over a 20 year period around 24% gdp per capita growth in 20 years. so if a 1% increase above what we are projecting to do now. i 1% increase above what we are projecting to do now.— 1% increase above what we are projecting to do now. i think all think we need _ projecting to do now. i think all think we need a _ projecting to do now. i think all think we need a fresh - projecting to do now. i think all think we need a fresh approachj projecting to do now. i think all. think we need a fresh approach to growth _ think we need a fresh approach to growth and just doing the same thing and hoping for a different result is silly _ and hoping for a different result is silly and — and hoping for a different result is silly. and part of that is focusing on deregulating but also on growth areas _ on deregulating but also on growth areas for— on deregulating but also on growth areas for tomorrow. unleashing both labour— areas for tomorrow. unleashing both labour and _ areas for tomorrow. unleashing both labour and capital. the problem we have is— labour and capital. the problem we have is that — labour and capital. the problem we have is that we are looking backwards and up forward and a lot of discussions about tax cuts and inheritance tax is not economically beneficial, — inheritance tax is not economically beneficial, it may be politically beneficial. and there's a reason why the bank— beneficial. and there's a reason why the bank of— beneficial. and there's a reason why the bank of england governor came out today— the bank of england governor came out today and reminded us that we do not have _ out today and reminded us that we do not have the _ out today and reminded us that we do not have the stability we need right now _ not have the stability we need right now so _ not have the stability we need right now. so certainly i would rather see the headroom being used to reallocate resources to things like green _ reallocate resources to things like green energy. life sciences, these will be _ green energy. life sciences, these will be the — green energy. life sciences, these will be the drivers of future growth _ will be the drivers of future urowth. ~ ,., , will be the drivers of future urowth. ~ ., ., , ., growth. when we say tax it does not mean anything. _ growth. when we say tax it does not mean anything, there _ growth. when we say tax it does not mean anything, there are _ growth. when we say tax it does not mean anything, there are different l mean anything, there are different taxes and different ways to think about how a particular tax cut will will not catalyse business investment in terms of making business investment happen that would not have happened otherwise as opposed to just reducing costs and increase profits. one key tax we should be thinking about is capital gains tax. the carried interest is what a lot of financial sectors and companies themselves that may not actually be investing butjust making money by trading existing assets, so we should be thinking about if we want long—term growth and long—term finance to fuel that growth then there are different ways to structure financed to make it more long—term and make it profitable to do quick trades. when we think about taxes, it needs to feel the objectives of a greener and more inclusive economy and lung time growth. flan more inclusive economy and lung time urowth. :, more inclusive economy and lung time .rowth. ., ., more inclusive economy and lung time urowth. ., ., ., more inclusive economy and lung time urowth. ., , , . growth. can i ask about public services. _ growth. can i ask about public services. is — growth. can i ask about public services, is enough _ growth. can i ask about public services, is enough money - growth. can i ask about public i services, is enough money going growth. can i ask about public - services, is enough money going into that? i services, is enough money going into that? 4' ., , that? i think we need to reverse the telesco -e that? i think we need to reverse the telescope here _ that? i think we need to reverse the telescope here because _ that? i think we need to reverse the telescope here because the - that? i think we need to reverse the telescope here because the way - that? i think we need to reverse the | telescope here because the way that we've _ telescope here because the way that we've looked at this in the past is is the _ we've looked at this in the past is is the headroom to do this meant playing _ is the headroom to do this meant playing this game of tax cuts versus austerity— playing this game of tax cuts versus austerity versus growth. that is not how economies work. if you generate growth _ how economies work. if you generate growth through regulatory reform, in our growth _ growth through regulatory reform, in our growth model even though we are very focused and we are a group of free—market economists basically that we _ free—market economists basically that we say 1.5% of gdp could be allocated — that we say 1.5% of gdp could be allocated to infrastructure spending. we are saying that spending. we are saying that spending on public services could be 1.5% spending on public services could be i~5% of— spending on public services could be 1.5% of gdp if you unleash growth into the _ 1.5% of gdp if you unleash growth into the economy. still 1.5% of gdp if you unleash growth into the economy.— into the economy. still very low numbers- _ into the economy. still very low numbers. the _ into the economy. still very low numbers. the point _ into the economy. still very low numbers. the point is - into the economy. still very low numbers. the point is this - into the economy. still very low numbers. the point is this only | numbers. the point is this only ha--ens numbers. the point is this only happens if _ numbers. the point is this only happens if you _ numbers. the point is this only happens if you unleash - numbers. the point is this only happens if you unleash growth | numbers. the point is this only - happens if you unleash growth into the economy and if you continue the current— the economy and if you continue the current situation of only doing things— current situation of only doing things if— current situation of only doing things if you think you have the headroom _ things if you think you have the headroom to do it, we are going to be caught— headroom to do it, we are going to be caught in— headroom to do it, we are going to be caught in this trap for the foreseeable future and we will have stagnant _ foreseeable future and we will have stagnant growth. foreseeable future and we will have stagnant growth-— stagnant growth. what does unleashing _ stagnant growth. what does unleashing growth - stagnant growth. what does unleashing growth mean? i stagnant growth. what does - unleashing growth mean? those stagnant growth. what does _ unleashing growth mean? those people in the film, unleashing growth mean? those people in the film. what _ unleashing growth mean? those people in the film, what does _ unleashing growth mean? those people in the film, what does that _ unleashing growth mean? those people in the film, what does that mean - unleashing growth mean? those people in the film, what does that mean to - in the film, what does that mean to them? if in the film, what does that mean to them? , ., in the film, what does that mean to them? i., ., ., “ in the film, what does that mean to them? i. ., ., ~ ., in the film, what does that mean to them? i. ., ~ , ., ., them? if you look at australia in them? if you look at australia in the 1990s, — them? if you look at australia in the 1990s, under _ them? if you look at australia in the 1990s, under a _ them? if you look at australia in the 1990s, under a labour - the 19905, undera labour government, they did unleash growth and government, they did unlea5h growth and they— government, they did unleash growth and they did regulatory reform and it generated significant gdp per capita _ it generated significant gdp per capita into the economy. unleashing trowth capita into the economy. unleashing growth means _ capita into the economy. unleashing growth means asperity _ capita into the economy. unleashing growth means asperity and - capita into the economy. unleashing growth means asperity and not - capita into the economy. unleashing l growth means asperity and not having inflation _ growth means asperity and not having inflation in _ growth means asperity and not having inflation in the — growth means asperity and not having inflation in the budget _ growth means asperity and not having inflation in the budget and _ growth means asperity and not having inflation in the budget and feeling - inflation in the budget and feeling comfortable — inflation in the budget and feeling comfortable your— inflation in the budget and feeling comfortable your children - inflation in the budget and feeling comfortable your children will- inflation in the budget and feeling comfortable your children will bel comfortable your children will be better— comfortable your children will be better off — comfortable your children will be better off on _ comfortable your children will be better off on you _ comfortable your children will be better off on you and _ comfortable your children will be better off on you and live - comfortable your children will be better off on you and live in - comfortable your children will be better off on you and live in a . better off on you and live in a planet — better off on you and live in a planet that _ better off on you and live in a planet that is _ better off on you and live in a planet that is sustainable, . better off on you and live in a i planet that is sustainable, that better off on you and live in a - planet that is sustainable, that is what _ planet that is sustainable, that is what it _ planet that is sustainable, that is what it means _ planet that is sustainable, that is what it means. and _ planet that is sustainable, that is what it means. and we _ planet that is sustainable, that is what it means. and we need - planet that is sustainable, that is what it means. and we need a i what it means. and we need a different— what it means. and we need a different approach. _ what it means. and we need a different approach. it - what it means. and we need a different approach. it is - what it means. and we need a different approach. it is like i different approach. it is like driving _ different approach. it is like driving a _ different approach. it is like driving a car— different approach. it is like driving a car that— different approach. it is like driving a car that is- different approach. it is like i driving a car that is exhausted different approach. it is like - driving a car that is exhausted and simply— driving a car that is exhausted and simply thinking _ driving a car that is exhausted and simply thinking that _ driving a car that is exhausted and simply thinking that by— driving a car that is exhausted and simply thinking that by revving - driving a car that is exhausted and simply thinking that by revving up| simply thinking that by revving up he will— simply thinking that by revving up he will go — simply thinking that by revving up he will go faster, _ simply thinking that by revving up he will go faster, but _ simply thinking that by revving up he will go faster, but you - simply thinking that by revving up he will go faster, but you will - simply thinking that by revving up| he will go faster, but you will not. i he will go faster, but you will not. hust— he will go faster, but you will not. ijust celebrated _ he will go faster, but you will not. ijust celebrated yesterday - he will go faster, but you will not. ijust celebrated yesterday the - i just celebrated yesterday the tenth anniversary of a book i wrote called the entrepreneurial state looking at growth in the united states and where it came from, and all the things were publicly financed, the internet, gps. touch screens. not to say that we did not need a company like apple to put that into a well—designed firm but that into a well—designed firm but that investment is notjust about regulation or deregulation but also about much needed areas such as clean growth and healthy ageing and reducing the digital divide to zero. there is need public and private investment and what i think we forget is the debt to gdp for example which everyone talks about, the denominator is gdp so you can reduce debt and deficit and have rising debt and gdp if you do not invest in long—term drivers of growth around productivity. health spending on education. if wejust look at a number like the deficit and say that we need to lower debt and say that we need to lower debt and lower tax is rishi sunak has said the danger is you kill the economy in the long term. labour will borrow to invest they say £28 per year for the green transition. is that borrowing, how would you describe that borrowing? i don't want to put words in your mouth. ~ :, �* don't want to put words in your mouth. ~ ., �* , mouth. we haven't seen the full break down- _ mouth. we haven't seen the full break down. the _ mouth. we haven't seen the full break down. the principal - mouth. we haven't seen the full break down. the principal of - break down. the principal of borrowing 28 billion. the nominator i5 borrowing 28 billion. the nominator is gdp, _ borrowing 28 billion. the nominator is gdp, that— borrowing 28 billion. the nominator i5 gdp, that is the critical point. you don't — i5 gdp, that is the critical point. you don't have to borrow if you're growing _ you don't have to borrow if you're growing the — you don't have to borrow if you're growing the economy. the question is how do— growing the economy. the question is how do you _ growing the economy. the question is how do you grow the economy. the private _ how do you grow the economy. the private part— how do you grow the economy. the private part is grown, up with of the thins — private part is grown, up with of the thins we have in the uk is a regulatory— the thins we have in the uk is a regulatory system that is skewed to incumbent — regulatory system that is skewed to incumbent companies. you talk about the green _ incumbent companies. you talk about the green transition, it is large incumbents that have regulatory advantage. your entrepreneurs in the us, advantage. your entrepreneurs in the us, they— advantage. your entrepreneurs in the us, they would not be viable in the uk regulatory space. our own home grown _ uk regulatory space. our own home grown entrepreneurs would not be viable _ grown entrepreneurs would not be viable we — grown entrepreneurs would not be viable. ~ :, �* grown entrepreneurs would not be viable. ~ ., �* ., . | viable. we haven't got much time. i think the whereining _ viable. we haven't got much time. i think the whereining approach. - viable. we haven't got much time. i think the whereining approach. to l think the whereining approach. to put in context in the october we fot the number, — put in context in the october we fot the number, the _ put in context in the october we fot the number, the government- put in context in the october we fot - the number, the government borrowed 19. the number, the government borrowed 19 149 _ the number, the government borrowed i9~14~9 billion — the number, the government borrowed 19.14.9 billion. that— the number, the government borrowed 19.14.9 billion. that is— the number, the government borrowed 19. 14.9 billion. that is not— 19.149 billion. that is not funding _ 19. 14.9 billion. that is not funding enough— 19. 14.9 billion. that is not funding enough invest. - 19.14.9 billion. that is not funding enough invest. we 19.14.9 billion. that is not- funding enough invest. we can 19.14.9 billion. that is not— funding enough invest. we can afford what labour— funding enough invest. we can afford what labour is — funding enough invest. we can afford what labour is suggesting. _ funding enough invest. we can afford what labour is suggesting. this - funding enough invest. we can afford what labour is suggesting.— what labour is suggesting. as the olicies what labour is suggesting. as the policies expand _ what labour is suggesting. as the policies expand the _ what labour is suggesting. as the policies expand the economy, - what labour is suggesting. as the policies expand the economy, we| what labour is suggesting. as the i policies expand the economy, we are fine, how do you get smart policies that do that but direct it to the challenges of a healthier population of a green transition that, creates competitiveness, the fact germany has green steel and why does it have it, because the loan was conditional on the steel sector reducing the material content of production and they had to decide how to do it. the government didn't micromanage them. wejust give out government didn't micromanage them. we just give out money. we gave 6 hundred million to easyjet during lockdown. and all companies have to become competitive. we shouldment n't think of the good as growth. you can grow well and it should be about the direction of growth.— the direction of growth. thank you for bein: the direction of growth. thank you for being with _ the direction of growth. thank you for being with us. _ a us tech firm called palantir technologies has won what's reported to be the biggest it contract in the history of nhs england. the company along with partners like pwc have been awarded a £330m pound contract to provide ai software to bring together the data of patients which nhs england says, will deliver, quote, �*better joined—up care' for millions of people, �*help tackle waiting lists and reduce hopsital discharge delays.�* the project is called the federated data platform — it's something you're going to be hearing a lot about. and that's because the firm is controversial — privacy campaigners fear giving a big tech company potential access to the private health information of patients, and have anxieties about the possibility of that data being sold on. nhs england today said, "nno company involved in the federated data platform can access health and care data without the explicit permission of the nhs". here'sjoe... thanks, victoria. is it a technological game changer or a threat to our privacy and security? today the nhs in england announced the awarding of a massive new it contract to a controversial us company. the aim — to create a tool called a federated data platform. from next spring this will bring together real time data about things like spare beds, waiting lists, staff rotas, to try and make the nhs more efficient. the cost? up to £330 million over seven years. and one former health minister thinks we all should embrace it. so the current system is very, very patchy. some acute trusts work really well. others are still working out of pen and paper, fax machines, and carrying patient records around. that's a real shame and creates danger for patients. i think that most managers feel that they're flying completely blind, and that means that you can't possibly run a health system effectively or safely. and that's where i think the biggest immediate gain will be. the problem for some, though, is who won the contract. a group led by the us data company at the top here, palantir. now palantir is named after the crystal balls or seeing stones in the lord of the rings. it has helped intelligence agencies like the cia, and it was founded by this man, the german american technology billionaire, right wing political donor and jrr tolkien fan, peter thiel. earlier this year he said the nhs makes people sick and britain's attachment to it is akin to stockholm syndrome, when hostages form an emotional attachment to their captors. the company said that view was his, not theirs. but today's deal has left some in the nhs worried. i think it's a cause for concern. we're seeing hundreds of millions of pounds spent on this it database when doctors and patients don't really understand or see the benefits from this. at a time when the nhs is so tight for money, i see patients having to wait for months, if not years, on waiting lists, a&e backed up, and that money could be better utilised to relieve the suffering of patients rather than spend it on hundreds of millions of pounds for a very large private american company. others have raised concerns on the grounds of privacy, because patient records could be of huge commercial value. today the nhs told us no company would be able to access patient data without the nhs's explicit permission. and last month the ceo of palantir told victoria that whether the nhs data is sold is up to the government, not him. what i'm putting to you is if you've got all that data, as doctors association uk says, an extremely precious british resource in one place, that opens the door in the future to it being sold. correct? by the uk government. not by me. the way to deal with people's concerns is to show them this is going to be much better for your life, it's going to improve your health outcome. by the way, the nhs has a huge problem with backlog. those problems are not solvable without technology. labour sources i have spoken to tonight think the public need to be reassured that their data will be used safely. but labour argue these new systems have massive potential. meanwhile, one campaign group says the fact patients cannot opt out means they're ready to launch a legal challenge. joining me now is simon bolton — the former ceo of nhs digital, which has since merged into nhs england. thank you for talking us to. as owe said, we know patients patients can't opt out of having their data on the platform. can you see why there might be concern about this? yes, i can see why people might be concerned and when i read stuff on social media around data being sold, i understand the concerns. but i don't believe that's what's happening here. important to state that i was the chief executive at nhs digital and i'm that i was the chief executive at nhs digitaland i'm no that i was the chief executive at nhs digital and i'm no longer employed by the nhs and don't talk on that are behalf. but i have views about the platform and what the organisation is trying to do. what organisation is trying to do. what are in your _ organisation is trying to do. what are in your mind _ organisation is trying to do. what are in your mind the _ organisation is trying to do. what are in your mind the advantages to this software? 50. are in your mind the advantages to this software?— this software? so, i think we need to recognise _ this software? so, i think we need to recognise that _ this software? so, i think we need to recognise that the _ this software? so, i think we need to recognise that the nhs - this software? so, i think we need to recognise that the nhs is - this software? so, i think we need to recognise that the nhs is a - this software? so, i think we need| to recognise that the nhs is a huge organisation with 1.5 million employ years, 1.6 million contacts with patients every day. it is a massive enterprise and needs a technology platform and access to data enable it to provide safe patient care and deliver good patient outcomes for the individual. and allow it to plan services. when thing i learned at nhs digital is the existing technology is not fit for purpose for running an organisation of that side. i welcome this announcement which is the starting gun on the deployment of a significant set of new technology to allow us to deliver better patient services. [30 deliver better patient services. do ou deliver better patient services. do you worry about public trust issues around the nhs, patients' data, and it. because it doesn't have an amazing history in nhs england. do you... do there need to be safeguards that we can see that would reassure us?— safeguards that we can see that would reassure us? absolutely. so my bi est would reassure us? absolutely. so my biggest concern _ would reassure us? absolutely. so my biggest concern is _ would reassure us? absolutely. so my biggest concern is around _ would reassure us? absolutely. so my biggest concern is around patient - biggest concern is around patient trust. so the nhs survives on its relationship with its patients and the trust that they have between them. and without that trust, i think we will end up in a bad place. so any work that is done around patient data has to be, has to take patients and citizens with that programme. so my hope is that nhs england and the nhs more broadly will make sure that it properly engages with patients and citizens through this process. to describe actually how they data is being used and how it is being used across the nhs and what the benefits are. and indeed if we are to use data for research and planning, some of those commercial opportunities that were mentioned in the piece, which isn't part of ftp. that should be clear as well what, are the benefits of that. shouldn't the engagement with the public have begun before the contract was awarded? 50111 public have begun before the contract was awarded? :, contract was awarded? som engagement has been done- — contract was awarded? som engagement has been done- i— contract was awarded? som engagement has been done. i was _ contract was awarded? som engagement has been done. i was reading _ contract was awarded? som engagement has been done. i was reading a _ contract was awarded? som engagement has been done. i was reading a piece - has been done. i was reading a piece by a patient advocate group that says that patients do get the rationale for improving use of data. what they want is what you pointed out, which is reassurance that that data will be used appropriately. the laws and legislation in