Doctors, privacy campaigners and civil liberties groups are pushing back hard after NHS England awarded a £330 million contract to Palantir, the US data analytics firm linked to defence and intelligence agencies.
The deal, which allows the company to build the NHS’s new Federated Data Platform (FDP), has triggered widespread alarm about patient confidentiality, national security implications and the secrecy surrounding the agreement.
While the NHS insists Palantir will have no unrestricted access to medical records, critics say the public deserves far more explicit assurances.
What The Palantir Contract Covers
According to The Guardian, NHS England granted Palantir and its consortium partners (including Accenture, PwC, NECS and Carnall Farrar) a contract worth £330 million to build and operate what is being called the ‘Federated Data Platform’ (FDP).
This platform is intended to allow different NHS trusts and integrated care systems to ‘talk’ to each other — sharing data such as hospital bed numbers, staffing, and waiting-list statistics in real time, potentially helping streamline patient care.
In defence of that move, NHS England has stressed that no company operating the platform will have unrestricted access to patient data: any access must be explicitly authorised by the NHS, according to The Independent.
Deep Concerns Over Privacy, Governance And Trust
The British Medical Association (BMA) has expressed deep unease over Palantir’s involvement. Critics argue that giving such a company a central role in managing NHS data poses serious risks to patient confidentiality and public trust.
Amnesty International UK has also condemned the deal. Its Business and Human Rights Director, Peter Frankental, said that Palantir has a ‘troubling’ track record, particularly because of its past links to human rights abuses in immigration and defence contexts.
Frankental called for ‘cast-iron guarantees’ that Palantir will not monetise NHS health data and urged greater transparency around the terms of the contract.
Legal activists say the issue goes beyond the company’s reputation—it’s about whether the NHS has been fully transparent.
Opaque Contract Spurs Legal Challenge
Almost three-quarters of the FDP contract documents are heavily redacted, according to the Good Law Project, which has filed legal action to force NHS England to disclose the missing sections.
Campaigners argue that the redactions block meaningful scrutiny and undermine public confidence. With the platform expected to handle not only operational data but also potentially sensitive personal health information, they say transparency is essential.
The debate has revived questions about whether the NHS should have developed the system in-house rather than outsourcing it to a private technology provider.
Palantir’s Global Reputation
Part of the controversy stems from Palantir’s global reputation. Critics point to its work in the United States with intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and immigration enforcement, according to The Guardian.
Palantir’s critics also question whether its involvement in military and surveillance contracts is compatible with the stewardship of highly personal health data.
Both Palantir and NHS Respond
Palantir has defended its role, saying that its software will help the NHS become more efficient, improving care and reducing delays. The company insists it does not mine or sell patient data, according to a report by The Independent.
Louis Mosley, Palantir’s UK head, has reportedly accused doctors and critics of prioritising ‘ideology over patient interest,’ arguing that their objections are undermining a tool that could deliver tangible benefits.
NHS England, for its part, has reiterated that it retains control over the data stored on the platform and that strict security and governance mechanisms are in place.
Why This Matters to Patients
For patients, the stakes are high. According to The Guardian, critics warn that if a private company with links to defence and intelligence agencies gains too much influence over medical data, public confidence in the NHS could be damaged.
Furthermore, campaigners argue that the scale of data sharing enabled by this new system is unprecedented: not only routine hospital data, but also more sensitive personal health information could flow through it.
There are also fears that the system could be misused — or that, despite assurances, the redacted parts of the contract may contain clauses that allow broader access or future monetisation.
Legal and Political Fallout
The legal challenge by the Good Law Project over the redacted portions of the contract underscores how furious parts of the medical and civil rights communities are over the lack of transparency.
Meanwhile, MPs have raised questions about whether Palantir’s past work is compatible with NHS values — including its links to defence projects.
The controversy has also reignited public debate over whether the NHS should build such a critical data platform in-house, rather than outsourcing to private firms.
Looking Ahead
As the platform rolls out, watch how NHS England addresses these trust issues — especially transparency, patient consent, and data control.
If the campaigners succeed in legal action to unredact the contract, the details revealed could fundamentally reshape public views of the role of private tech firms in public health.
For now, doctors’ fury and public concern show that not everyone is convinced that Palantir’s ‘key’ to NHS data is a key to better care.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
