MPs Demand Scrapping of 'Shameful' Palantir NHS Contract Amid Data Concerns
In a heated Westminster Hall debate, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs have strongly demanded that the government terminate a £330 million NHS contract with the spy-tech company Palantir, labeling the deal as "dreadful" and "shameful." The controversy centers on Palantir's involvement in the NHS federated data platform (FDP), with MPs expressing deep concerns over data security and the company's political affiliations, including its work for Donald Trump's ICE immigration crackdown and the Israeli military.
Political Backlash and Calls for Action
Liberal Democrat MP Luke Taylor led the charge, stating, "Palantir and Peter Thiel must have their hands ripped off of our NHS before it is too late." Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir and a tech billionaire who supports Trump, has previously made controversial statements about democracy and freedom. Labour backbencher Samantha Niblett questioned whether Palantir could be "trusted as a custodian of the intimate health records of tens of millions of British citizens," highlighting widespread unease among lawmakers.
In response, junior health minister Dr. Zubir Ahmed acknowledged the government's lack of enthusiasm for Palantir's politics but defended the FDP's performance, noting it is exceeding targets. He confirmed that the government would review the contract in spring 2027 when a break clause is due, though £210 million of the total has already been spent. This review could lead to alternative providers being considered if they offer better solutions.
Trust Issues and Internal Fears
The debate underscored significant trust issues, with Liberal Democrat MP Martin Wrigley emphasizing that "the future of the NHS depends on intelligent use of data with patients' trust." Internal documents obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that NHS England officials are worried about "negative sentiment" surrounding the FDP. Emails from January show discussions on proactive communications strategies, including a proposed podcast series hosted by an NHS official supportive of the platform, though this idea was later abandoned.
Concerns extend to practical implementation, with one NHS official noting that IT experts' worries "are not being heard because delivery of the Palantir FDP project has become an ideological one." Staff training, expected to start in February through a deal with Euan Blair's Multiverse, has yet to begin, adding to operational difficulties. Despite Palantir's claims that its software has facilitated 110,000 additional operations and reduced discharge delays, critics argue the tools are difficult to use and not industry standard.
Public Relations Battle and Broader Implications
Palantir is actively countering criticism through a PR campaign advised by Boris Johnson's former strategist, Isaac Levido, and has used social media and interviews to defend its role. Louis Mosley, Palantir's UK head, has accused critics of prioritizing ideology over patient safety. However, MPs like Dame Chi Onwurah, chair of the Commons science and technology committee, reject this, citing legitimate concerns about vendor lock-in, value for money, and data security.
The controversy has broader implications, as Palantir's reputation could jeopardize its over £500 million in UK public sector contracts. With 137 NHS trusts signed up to use the FDP, but usage described as "shallow," the debate highlights ongoing tensions between technological advancement and ethical governance in healthcare. An NHS England spokesperson reiterated that data remains protected and the platform aims to improve care, while a Palantir spokesperson stated the software is "entirely under the control of the NHS" and forecasts a £5 return for every pound spent.
