Palantir defends its record as MPs demand more scrutiny of data use

In the wake of mounting calls for enhanced oversight of its data handling within NHS contracts, Palantir’s UK executive vice-chair, Louis Mosley, has staunchly defended the company’s operations, asserting confidence in its delivery of services for patients and highlighting the value its technology brings to the healthcare system. The controversy was ignited by Labour MP Emily Darlington’s recent declaration to the BBC that the involvement of a "foreign tech company" with sensitive patient data in the NHS constitutes "a major security risk." Her sentiment has been echoed by other political figures, with the Liberal Democrats asserting that Palantir "should be nowhere near our national security infrastructure," and Green Party leader Zack Polanski unequivocally labelling the firm "a military surveillance company." Adding to the chorus of concern, Conservative MP Wendy Morton has also advocated for increased scrutiny of the US tech giant’s "ability to protect data."

At the heart of this debate lies Palantir’s significant £300 million contract with NHS England, secured at the close of 2023. This agreement centres on the deployment of its sophisticated Foundry "federated data platform" (FDP), a system scheduled for renewal at the beginning of next year. The FDP is engineered to overcome a long-standing impediment within the NHS: the fragmentation of incompatible databases. Historically, disparate IT systems have been employed across various healthcare settings – from general practitioners’ offices to clinics and hospitals – leading to operational inefficiencies and hindering seamless patient care. Palantir’s FDP software aims to rectify this by facilitating the access, integration, and analysis of these disparate databases. The intended applications are wide-ranging, encompassing the optimisation of patient waiting lists, the management of hospital supplies, and the efficient allocation of hospital beds and operating theatres.

Mosley, speaking on the BBC’s Politics Live programme, expressed his welcome of the heightened scrutiny, framing it as an opportunity to showcase the company’s positive impact. "I think those of us who use the NHS, the lived experience is one of disconnected, fragmented systems, explaining who you are to a different person on every ward, at the front desk," he articulated, underscoring the pervasive issues that Palantir’s technology seeks to address. "Joining up that information is what we are doing for the NHS." He further sought to allay anxieties surrounding data security, asserting that Palantir holds "no interest in patient data in the UK," and that this is demonstrably not part of their business model or legal framework. Mosley drew a parallel to widely used software like Microsoft Excel or Word, which are integral to NHS operations without granting Microsoft access to patient data, a principle he stated applies equally to Palantir.

However, the criticisms levelled against Palantir are multifaceted and deeply rooted. Detractors frequently point to the company’s historical funding links with the CIA, fueling allegations of surveillance capabilities. Furthermore, Palantir’s extensive contracts with the Israeli Defence Force and the prominent political affiliations of its owner, Peter Thiel – a significant donor to Donald Trump’s presidential campaigns – have fuelled concerns about the company’s broader geopolitical entanglements and values alignment. Emily Darlington, a member of the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology select committee, articulated her "significant concerns" regarding Palantir’s NHS contract, citing not only data protection but also fundamental "values" issues. She posited that entrusting one of the world’s largest healthcare systems, with its vast repository of patient data, to a company whose chief executive has previously referred to the NHS as a "delusion" and which may not share British values, represents a "major security risk," particularly in the context of the UK’s drive to foster its own sovereign artificial intelligence capabilities.

The Liberal Democrats have been particularly vocal in their opposition. Sir Ed Davey, the party’s leader, has urged Health Secretary Wes Streeting to "kick Palantir out of our NHS," stating unequivocally that "Donald Trump’s favourite tech giant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near Brits’ private health data." The Liberal Democrats have also called for a blanket ban on Palantir from any government contracts, advocating instead for the support of "fantastic British tech firms" that they deem "far better and safer for the NHS." Zack Polanski echoed this sentiment, asserting that Palantir "should be nowhere near our NHS."

Conservative MP Wendy Morton, while acknowledging that Palantir’s initial NHS contracts were awarded under a Conservative government, stressed that current scrutiny and oversight are the responsibility of the incumbent Labour administration. She raised pertinent questions about the technology’s efficacy and adoption, noting that "there are a number of NHS trusts that use it, there are a number of NHS trusts that don’t. If it is as good as we are told, then why aren’t we using it more?" Morton concluded by emphasizing that "if there are issues around data privacy and about patients, then they must absolutely be scrutinised."

In response to these persistent criticisms, Louis Mosley reiterated his welcome for thorough examination, stating, "I want us to be judged on the merits of the programme, so actually I welcome the scrutiny." He expressed confidence in Palantir’s ability to provide satisfactory explanations for all concerns, asserting, "I think Palantir have very good answers to all of that scrutiny and I think we can defend our record and I hope that that will be judged on its merit."

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care provided a defence of the FDP, highlighting its tangible benefits: "The NHS Federated Data Platform is helping to join up patient care, increase productivity, speed up cancer diagnosis and ensure thousands of additional patients can be treated each month – with strict requirements in place about data security and confidentiality." They further clarified that "Every hospital Trust and Integrated Care Board has their own instance of the IT platform, with complete control over who has access," aiming to reassure the public about data sovereignty and control. This ongoing dialogue highlights the complex interplay between technological advancement, national security, patient privacy, and political discourse surrounding critical public services like the NHS. The contract’s renewal next year will undoubtedly be a focal point for these debates, as the government navigates the perceived benefits of advanced data analytics against the deep-seated concerns over the provenance and potential misuse of sensitive health information.