A UK parliamentary committee has called Palantir’s role in the public sector an “unacceptable point of weakness” and urged the government to break its NHS contract with the American company.
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee singled out Palantir as the technology provider it found most concerning, arguing that the UK was at risk of becoming overly dependent on a single foreign firm for critical health infrastructure.
Its recommendation is concrete: the government should exercise a break clause in the contract to avoid vendor lock-in.The contract at the centre of it is the NHS Federated Data Platform, an AI-enabled system designed to link health data across services in England and support clinical decision-making. It was awarded in 2023 for seven years, under the previous Conservative government, placing Palantir at the centre of how the NHS in England moves and uses patient data.
The committee’s objection is structural rather than a specific allegation of wrongdoing. The concern is concentration: that handing the connective tissue of NHS data to one company, and an American one with roots in defence and intelligence work, creates a dependency that is hard to unwind and risky to rely on.
Once a platform like the FDP is embedded across services, switching away becomes expensive and disruptive, which is precisely the lock-in the break clause was meant to guard against.
That fear is not new. The Register reported in April that the UK was already weighing the break clause, and Palantir’s NHS involvement has drawn criticism from patient groups and MPs since the contract was signed, much of it over how much identifiable patient data the company’s systems can reach. The committee’s report sharpens a long-running unease into a formal recommendation to act.
Palantir has consistently defended its public-sector work, arguing that its software improves outcomes and that it operates under the contracting authority’s control rather than its own. The company can point out that the FDP was procured competitively and that no rival has been shown to do the job better.
None of that resolves the committee’s actual worry, which is about dependence rather than performance: even a system that works as intended raises the question of what happens when one supplier becomes too embedded to replace.
The decision now sits with the government, and it is not a simple one. Triggering a break clause would mean unwinding a platform already woven into NHS operations, with its own cost and disruption, and the committee’s recommendation is exactly that, a recommendation, not a binding instruction. Ministers have to weigh the political pressure to reduce reliance on Palantir against the practical mess of replacing it.
The episode lands inside a wider European argument about technological sovereignty, where reliance on US providers for critical infrastructure, from cloud to AI to health data, has become a recurring anxiety.
Palantir is the visible test case because health data is the most sensitive category and the NHS the most charged institution. What MPs have done is name the dependency and ask the government to decide whether it is willing to pay to undo it. That decision is still to come.
Get the TNW newsletter #
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.