Calls to halt UK Palantir contracts grow amid ‘lack of transparency’ over deals
Opposition politicians are pressing the UK government to suspend new contracts with US data‑analytics firm Palantir, citing a lack of transparency around existing deals with the NHS and Ministry of Defence. The controversy is linked to former minister Peter Mandelson’s undisclosed ties and a series…
Opposition members of Parliament have publicly called for the Labour government to freeze any further public contracts with US data‑analytics company Palantir Technologies, arguing that the lack of transparency surrounding existing agreements threatens public trust. The demand follows a series of denied Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, blocked parliamentary inquiries, and revelations about former Labour minister Peter Mandelson’s undisclosed connections to the firm.
Background to Palantir’s UK footprint
Since early 2023, Palantir has secured more than £500 million in contracts across the United Kingdom, most notably with the National Health Service (NHS) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The NHS contract, worth roughly £330 million, involves the creation of a "federated data platform" intended to integrate patient records across trusts. The MoD agreement, announced in May 2024, is valued at £241 million and promises to deliver AI‑driven analytics for defence operations.
Palantir, founded by billionaire Peter Thiel, has long marketed its software as a tool for improving public‑service efficiency. In the UK, the firm claims its technology helps the Royal Navy keep vessels at sea longer, assists police forces in tackling domestic violence, and streamlines NHS operations. Critics, however, point to the company’s controversial clientele abroad, including the Israeli Defence Forces and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, as well as its co‑founder’s ties to former President Donald Trump.
Political pressure and the Mandelson link
Calls for greater scrutiny intensified after leaked emails from the U.S. Department of Justice showed Peter Mandelson, a senior Labour figure and former European Trade Commissioner, seeking assistance from the late financier Jeffrey Epstein to identify "rich individuals" for potential business opportunities. Although Mandelson denied any wrongdoing, the correspondence has fueled concerns about undisclosed conflicts of interest, especially given his role as a senior adviser on trade and his recent appointment as UK ambassador to the United States.
Labour leader Keir Starmer announced plans to release documents related to Mandelson’s ambassadorship, but he excluded material deemed sensitive to national security or diplomatic relations. The government has repeatedly refused FOI requests for details about meetings between Palantir executives and senior officials, including Starmer himself and former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. A request for briefing notes on a Washington DC visit to a Palantir showroom, where Starmer met CEO Alex Karp, was also denied.
Martin Wrigley, a Liberal Democrat MP and member of the Commons Technology Select Committee, urged a parliamentary debate on the "suitability of Palantir" as a supplier to critical national infrastructure. "I would halt any further contracts with Palantir until we have a clear picture of how these existing contracts came about," he told the Guardian.
Health‑service opposition and contractual doubts
The NHS contract has attracted particular criticism from the British Medical Association and several NHS trusts that question the platform’s efficacy and data‑privacy safeguards. Green Party leader Zack Polanski wrote to Health Secretary Wes Streeting, urging a termination of the £330 million deal before its renewal clause triggers later this year. Polanski described Palantir as "disreputable" and argued that patient data should not be entrusted to a firm with opaque governance.
Palantir’s spokesperson defended the partnership, stating that the software "helps deliver better public services in the UK" and citing tangible benefits such as increased surgical throughput and longer operational periods for Royal Navy vessels. Nonetheless, the company has not released independent performance audits, and the government’s refusal to share internal assessments has deepened scepticism.
Legal challenges and ongoing investigations
The Information Commissioner’s Office has opened investigations into two separate FOI refusals: one by the Foreign Office concerning Mandelson’s conflict‑of‑interest disclosures, and another by the Department of Health and Social Care over the NHS data‑platform reports. Both agencies cited "confidentiality" and "public‑interest" exemptions, arguing that disclosure could compromise policy formulation or national security.
In December, the MoD declined a request for a partnership agreement signed by Defence Secretary John Healey and Palantir CEO Alex Karp, asserting that releasing the document would jeopardise the UK's defence posture and the MoD’s ability to secure value for money.
Despite the mounting pressure, the government maintains that Palantir is a "longstanding investor in the UK" and that engagements with the firm are part of routine international outreach. Downing Street has consistently described the company's contributions as "valuable" to public‑service delivery, while refusing to publish detailed minutes of high‑level meetings.
What comes next?
Parliamentary debate on Palantir’s suitability is expected in the coming weeks, driven by the Technology Select Committee and cross‑party pressure. If the debate leads to a formal vote, the Labour government could be forced to suspend or renegotiate existing contracts pending a full transparency review. Meanwhile, advocacy groups such as Foxglove and Democracy for Sale continue to file FOI requests and legal challenges, aiming to force the release of meeting minutes, contractual terms, and conflict‑of‑interest assessments.
Stakeholders across health, defence, and civil‑rights sectors are watching closely. A decision to halt further contracts could set a precedent for how the UK scrutinises private‑sector partnerships in sensitive public‑service areas, especially as AI‑driven tools become more prevalent. Conversely, a decision to continue without greater oversight may deepen public mistrust and fuel future calls for stricter procurement rules.
Why it matters
The dispute highlights how opaque procurement deals with powerful tech firms can undermine public confidence in essential services like health care and defence.
Key points
- Palantir has secured over £500 million in UK contracts since 2023, including a £330 million NHS data‑platform deal and a £241 million MoD agreement
- Opposition MPs and the Green Party are demanding a pause on new contracts until transparency is restored
- Peter Mandelson’s undisclosed links to Palantir and Jeffrey Epstein have intensified calls for an independent review
- Multiple FOI requests have been denied, prompting investigations by the Information Commissioner’s Office
- A parliamentary debate on Palantir’s suitability as a critical‑infrastructure supplier is slated for the near future
Frequently asked questions
What contracts does Palantir hold with the UK government?
Palantir currently operates a £330 million data‑platform contract with the NHS and a £241 million analytics contract with the Ministry of Defence, alongside smaller deals with police forces and the Royal Navy.
Why are MPs calling for a halt to Palantir contracts?
Lawmakers argue that a lack of transparency around how the deals were negotiated, combined with concerns about Peter Mandelson’s undisclosed connections and the firm’s controversial overseas clients, warrants a pause until full details are disclosed.
Has the UK government released any information about Palantir meetings?
No. Several Freedom of Information requests for meeting minutes, briefing notes, and conflict‑of‑interest assessments have been refused on grounds of national security, confidentiality, or diplomatic sensitivity.
What could happen if Parliament votes to suspend Palantir contracts?
A suspension could force the NHS and MoD to seek alternative suppliers, trigger renegotiations of existing agreements, and potentially lead to new procurement rules requiring greater public disclosure.
