I welcome scrutiny. On our NHS work, the FT has done plenty of it. I haven't always agreed with where their reporting has landed, but today I have to agree with their Editorial Board:
‘it is clear that NHS data management has improved during the period of Palantir’s contract. So exercising next year’s break clause would be the wrong decision.’
Their editorial, however, does repeat many of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s concerns. So let me answer them head on:
1/ ‘Palantir is “far from the only company capable” of providing the data analysis UK public bodies need’.
Asserting there should be a British alternative is not the same as there being one. The NHS ran an 18-month, fully open and competitive tender for the FDP. Every major tech company bid, thirty independent evaluators assessed the field, and Palantir won. For what it’s worth, the companies that came second and third in that competition were also both American.
2/ ‘confirm the nature of Palantir’s access to NHS patient data.’
From the headlines you’d think our engineers can pull up anyone’s full patient record. That is simply not true. My rebuttal:
x.com/louismosley/status/205… and Tom Bartlett's independent analysis:
bartlettdata.co.uk/post/has-…
3/ ‘the UK is getting “locked in”’
Dependency and lock-in are not the same thing. We become dependent on things because they are useful. Lock-in is a technical problem: ie data and logic that can’t be exported from one system to another. Palantir is built on open formats with open languages, and the contract guarantees the NHS can take its data and logic anywhere it wants. There is no technical lock-in. If a better system emerges, the NHS can migrate there.
4/ ‘It should also explain why Palantir won a £240mn defence contract without a competitive tender.’
This was because it was an extension of an existing three-year programme, not a new award. Extending a programme that is performing avoids the cost, delay, and operational risk of re-procuring work already underway. That is a standard and responsible use of public money, not a lack of scrutiny.
I’ll end where the Editorial Board began with a line I would happily sign my name to:
‘Britain should endeavour to use the best available technology for any task.’