The Single English County Saying No to Palantir
The UK government has six months to decide whether to end its £400m-plus deal with US software firm Palantir to build a "federated data platform" (FDP) for the NHS, as one region, Greater Manchester, continues to reject the technology in favour of its own home-grown system. The dispute has become politically charged, with Palantir's growing role in military and US immigration enforcement fuelling protests, petitions and parliamentary scrutiny, while other European countries also reassess their reliance on the company's technology.
Commissioned in 2023, the FDP is designed to unify fragmented NHS data across care providers, and the NHS says it has already cut waiting times and improved hospital efficiency. However, NHS Greater Manchester's chief data and analytics officer, Matt Hennessey, argues adopting the platform would be "a retrograde step" given the region's existing system is functionally strong and more trusted by clinicians and the public, a claim Palantir and other FDP supporters dispute. Nationally, 139 of roughly 200 NHS trusts and 35 of 36 integrated care boards are now live with the platform, with the government able to trigger early termination of the contract next February rather than let it run until 2031.
- UK weighs ending $400m+ NHS-Palantir data platform deal early
- Greater Manchester refuses Palantir, sticking with its own system
- Political backlash tied to Palantir's military and US immigration work
New here? Start with this
The NHS holds information across hospitals, GP services and other care providers, but these records have often been kept in separate systems. The Federated Data Platform is software intended to help NHS organisations bring that information together so staff can plan care and manage services.
The UK government commissioned the platform from the US company Palantir in 2023 under a contract worth more than £400 million. Most NHS trusts and nearly all integrated care boards are using it, while Greater Manchester has kept its own data system; the region’s data chief says it already meets local needs and is trusted by staff and the public.
The debate concerns how NHS data should be managed, which systems best support care, and how much public bodies should rely on a private technology supplier. Palantir’s work in areas including military and US immigration enforcement has also prompted protests and political scrutiny of its NHS role.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The federated data platform addresses a structural problem in NHS operations: fragmented data across care providers prevents optimal patient care and administrative efficiency. The NHS's reported improvements in waiting times and hospital efficiency, with deployment across 139 trusts and 35 integrated care boards, demonstrate tangible benefits from unified data integration. Advocates argue that modern healthcare systems require sophisticated data analytics to function effectively, and that concerns about Palantir's other contracts should not prevent the NHS from accessing technology that provably improves patient outcomes and systemic performance.
The case against
Greater Manchester's existing system is functionally strong and has earned genuine trust from clinicians and the public—a crucial asset for healthcare data systems where confidence affects patient care. Palantir's documented involvement in military operations and US immigration enforcement raises legitimate governance concerns about a company's values and its access to sensitive health information; these ethical reservations reflect reasonable hesitation about entrusting intimate patient data to a firm with such operations. If a regional system already works well, mandating adoption of a standardised corporate platform despite local objections represents unnecessary centralisation that overrides regional autonomy and accountability.