Concerns over the UK government’s reliance on the US data analytics firm Palantir have intensified amid growing scrutiny of the company’s extensive role across public sector data systems, including healthcare, defence, and policing. In recent months, petitions garnering nearly 230,000 signatures have called for ministers to terminate public contracts with Palantir, particularly its £330 million deal to develop NHS England’s Federated Data Platform (FDP). Some NHS staff have boycotted the system, citing ethical objections to the company’s involvement.

Last week, a cross-party committee of Members of Parliament, representing the Science, Innovation and Technology sector, described Palantir’s significant integration into UK public services as “an unacceptable point of weakness.” The committee urged the government to consider invoking a break clause in the seven-year NHS contract next year, though stopping the contract prematurely is not unanimously viewed as the best course of action.

The FDP consolidates NHS operational data—including waiting lists, staffing levels, patient information, and surgical schedules—and Palantir has claimed that the platform has contributed to more than 110,000 additional operations and significantly reduced patient waiting times. Despite these reported improvements, opinions within NHS circles about the platform remain divided.

The committee expressed discomfort with Palantir’s alignment to UK values, noting the company’s controversial associations in the United States, such as providing software to the US military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), agencies subject to criticism for their roles in contentious policies and actions. Moreover, some of Palantir’s largest shareholders, including Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, recently pushed unsuccessfully for an independent human rights review of the company at its annual meeting.

Beyond ethical concerns, the MPs highlighted a strategic vulnerability in relying heavily on a handful of primarily US suppliers for critical technology infrastructure. This poses risks of “lock-in” arrangements that could limit competition and allow prices to rise, particularly against the backdrop of evolving US-UK relations. The committee emphasized that alternative companies capable of supplying the UK public sector with data analysis services exist, suggesting the government should diversify its technology providers.

Transparency issues have also arisen around Palantir’s access to NHS patient data. Reports indicate that some external personnel working on the FDP were granted “unlimited access” to sensitive patient information, prompting calls for greater government clarification on data access and security protocols.

While the committee cautioned against abruptly terminating the contract given the improvements in NHS data handling under Palantir, it recommended rigorous oversight for the remaining duration. It also urged ministers to use this period to encourage domestic and European tech firms to develop competitive alternatives ahead of the contract’s conclusion. In particular, government officials were called upon to prioritize UK-based suppliers for the upcoming NHS Single Patient Record programme and to justify why Palantir was awarded a £240 million defence contract without a competitive tender process.

Louis Mosley, head of Palantir UK, dismissed the parliamentary criticism as “politics of the playground” undermining public services. Nonetheless, the UK’s situation mirrors wider moves by the European Union and other countries seeking to reduce technological dependencies and enhance national tech sovereignty. Experts suggest that fostering indigenous technology companies is critical to securing the UK’s data infrastructure and supporting future growth.