MPs Demand Scrapping of 'Shameful' Palantir NHS Contract Amid Trust Concerns
Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs have strongly demanded the government scrap its £330 million contract with the spy-tech company Palantir for the NHS federated data platform, labelling the deal as "dreadful" and "shameful" in a recent parliamentary debate. The controversy centres on trust issues and Palantir's involvement with contentious political entities, including Donald Trump's ICE immigration crackdown and the Israeli military.
Political Backlash and Government Response
During a Westminster Hall debate, MPs queued up to voice their opposition. Liberal Democrat MP Luke Taylor called the contract "shameful" and stated, "Palantir and Peter Thiel must have their hands ripped off of our NHS before it is too late." Peter Thiel, the Trump-supporting tech billionaire who founded Palantir, has previously made controversial statements about democracy and freedom, adding to the scrutiny.
In response, junior health minister Dr Zubir Ahmed confirmed that the government would consider whether to continue with the deal when a break clause is due in spring 2027, although £210 million of the total has already been spent. He noted, "If at that point in the break clause we evaluate and we find that there are other providers that can do the job better, of course then that needs to be looked at." However, he defended the platform, saying it was exceeding performance targets and that the government is "no fan" of Palantir's politics.
Trust and Data Security at the Forefront
The debate was led by Liberal Democrat MP Martin Wrigley, who emphasised that the main issue is trust. He argued, "The future of the NHS depends on intelligent use of data with patients' trust. Gaining the public's trust for such research with AI involved is going to be hard enough anyway without a company like Palantir controlling it all." 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."
Internal documents obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act reveal health bosses' fears over "negative sentiment" about the system. Emails from January show officials discussing the need to "get on the front foot and put out some proactive communications on FDP." Plans included a podcast series hosted by an NHS official "pro-FDP," but this was later dismissed, along with using LinkedIn due to concerns about creating a "confused narrative."
Operational Challenges and Public Relations Pushback
Despite the government stating that 137 NHS trusts have signed up to use the Palantir-powered system, concerns persist about its effectiveness. An NHS official told the Guardian that use is "shallow" and that IT experts' concerns "are not being heard because delivery of the Palantir FDP project has become an ideological one." They added, "We're being forced towards using it reluctantly in many cases. The tools are much more difficult to use. They are not industry standard."
Training for staff to use the FDP, expected to start in February through a deal with Euan Blair's training company Multiverse, has yet to begin, indicating further difficulties. Meanwhile, Palantir has mounted a PR pushback, advised by Boris Johnson's political strategist Isaac Levido through Fleetwood Strategy. The company claims its software has helped deliver 110,000 additional operations and reductions in discharge delays, forecasting a £5 return for every pound spent.
Broader Implications and Future Outlook
Palantir's reputation remains a significant hurdle. A briefing note to health secretary Wes Streeting warned that Palantir's public profile was "likely to make it harder to go further with the FDP." The company's involvement in controversies, such as the killings by ICE agents and the destruction in Gaza, has increased the risk of losing its valuable UK public sector contracts, worth over £500 million.
In recent weeks, Louis Mosley, the UK head of Palantir, has attacked critics, claiming they "have chosen ideology over patient safety and patient outcomes." However, MPs like Dame Chi Onwurah, chair of the Commons science and technology committee, deny that critics are driven by ideology, citing real concerns about vendor lock-in, value for money, and data security. A spokesperson for Palantir stated that its software is "entirely under the control – legally and contractually – of the NHS," and the programme has a "green delivery rating," achieved by fewer than 15% of major government programmes.
As the debate continues, the NHS England spokesperson emphasised that the focus is on "tackling misinformation and reassuring patients" while supporting the rollout of the platform to improve care and reduce waiting times, with no plans to launch a podcast. The controversy highlights the ongoing tension between technological advancement and public trust in the NHS's data handling practices.
