The chair of a parliamentary select committee has explicitly rejected claims by the data analytics firm Palantir that concerns over its £330 million NHS contract are “ideologically motivated”.
Chi Onwurah MP, who heads the cross-party Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, dismissed the characterisation, stating that serious questions about the contract’s transparency, value for money, and data security are mainstream concerns that “should concern all of us”. Her committee is finalising an inquiry into the government’s digital reorganisation, which has included evidence from Palantir, NHS bosses, and experts.
Three Pillars of Parliamentary Concern
Onwurah highlighted three core areas of unease. The first surrounds the award of the contract itself. Palantir’s association with the NHS began with a nominal £1 contract to develop the NHS Covid-19 Data Store during the pandemic, followed by further non-competitive deals worth £60 million. In November 2023, it was awarded the seven-year Federated Data Platform (FDP) contract, worth approximately £330 million, after what NHS England describes as a rigorous competitive process. Critics, however, point to a pattern of large tech companies using initial low-cost work to position themselves for major government contracts.
The second concern focuses on patient data and public trust. The FDP is an AI-enabled platform designed to connect disparate health information to improve efficiency and care, not to replace electronic patient records. Onwurah warned that “distrust in the NHS” and resentment over data use could severely hinder the health service’s vital digital shift, a challenge compounded by staff burnout. This is set against a backdrop of significant digital exclusion among the public and scepticism from staff, with over 47,000 patients having reportedly written to NHS trusts to complain about the FDP.
The third issue involves the role of Peter Mandelson, the former minister and co-founder of the advisory firm Global Counsel, which advised Palantir. While the Ministry of Defence has stated Mandelson had no influence on its decision to award Palantir a separate £240 million contract, questions over his involvement have been raised in relation to the NHS deal.
Wider Scrutiny and a Mounting Defence
These are not the only controversies. MPs have previously cited “reports of serious allegations of complicity in human rights violations” against Palantir in debates about its Ministry of Defence work. The company’s technology has been used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Israeli military, leading to accusations from campaign groups of complicity in human rights abuses.
Furthermore, Palantir’s deepening reach across the UK public sector is under scrutiny. Alongside the NHS and MoD deals, it holds a £240 million direct-award contract with the Ministry of Defence for data analytics, a pilot contract with the Financial Conduct Authority to analyse intelligence on financial crime, and contracts with several police forces. One pilot project, ‘Nectar’, involves sharing sensitive personal details of victims and suspects across forces in the East of England. Details of such police contracts are often withheld from the public.
Facing this pressure, ministers have sought advice on activating a break clause in the NHS contract, exploring the technical process of removing Palantir from the system. A senior government figure was cited as being confident it could be done, though health officials acknowledge any break would be disruptive. Martin Wrigley, a Liberal Democrat member of Onwurah’s committee, has called for the contract to be terminated and for a new consortium of UK tech experts to build the platform.
Palantir’s Counter-Arguments
In defence, Palantir’s executive vice-chair for the UK, Louis Mosley, has consistently framed the opposition as ideological. He has accused “ideologically motivated campaigners” of harming patient care and preventing the NHS from tackling its biggest challenges. He told the committee last July that British doctors were choosing “ideology over patient interest”.
The company argues its software is already helping the NHS and forecasts it will deliver £150 million in benefits by the end of the decade, a £5 return for every pound spent. On data security, Palantir and NHS England stress that the company acts as a “data processor”, not a “data controller”. They state that each hospital trust controls access to its own instance of the platform, that data is hosted solely in the UK, and that Palantir cannot use NHS data for its own purposes.
The outcome now rests on the government’s decision regarding the break clause, the committee’s forthcoming report, and whether Palantir’s assurances can outweigh the significant political and public concerns about its expanding role in the British state.