UK lawmakers urge NHS to cut ties with Palantir amid dependency warnings

A bipartisan group of 11 MPs on the UK Parliament’s Science, Innovation, and Technology Committee has issued a stark warning regarding the government’s reliance on US data analytics firm Palantir. The committee’s report describes the country’s growing dependence on the technology as an “unacceptable point of weakness,” citing significant risks of vendor lock-in, potential service withholding, and a fundamental misalignment with UK values stemming from the political views of Palantir’s leadership.

Dame Chi Onwurah, chair of the committee, emphasised that entrenched supplier relationships could lead to deteriorating service quality and higher costs over time. She described the situation as a trap that must be avoided, noting that a deeply embedded vendor could threaten to withhold services to impose its will, potentially bringing public services and the economy to a halt. The committee recommended that the National Health Service activate a specific clause in its contract next February to terminate its relationship with Palantir early.

The report highlighted a “clear mismatch with UK values,” pointing to comments by Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, who previously described the British public’s affection for the NHS as “Stockholm syndrome.” Additionally, the committee referenced a 22-point manifesto based on a book by CEO Alex Karp, which advocates for an overriding fealty to the US and its interests. Onwurah stated that if the UK’s objectives in the NHS or defence do not align with Palantir’s political mission, the company cannot be relied upon as a supplier.

Palantir and its partners have secured contracts worth a combined $750 million with the NHS and the Ministry of Defence since the UK government began using its technology in 2020. While the committee acknowledged similar dependencies on US cloud providers Microsoft and Amazon Web Services, as well as Japanese firm Fujitsu, it noted that “Palantir concerns us most” due to these specific ideological and structural risks. The government initially adopted the technology to map the spread of the coronavirus and route medical equipment.

Critics argue that the company’s openly expressed ideologies make it unsuitable for a central role in British public services. Donald Campbell of the nonprofit Foxglove questioned whether the state should grant such influence to a company with such pronounced political views. Conversely, Louis Mosley, head of Palantir’s European business, previously told the committee that the company does not take political positions and aims to support democratically elected governments. However, cybersecurity experts warn that third-party vendors handling sensitive data require a high level of trust, which may be difficult to maintain given the company’s size and political controversies.