Zarah Sultana says Palantir should not be used in UK public services

Table of Contents

What Zarah Sultana Has Said

Zarah Sultana — MP for Coventry South and co‑founder of Your Party — has publicly declared that the US tech firm Palantir has no place in UK public services, arguing that the company’s involvement should be ended rather than expanded. (openDemocracy)

She has made these comments in the context of broader scrutiny of Palantir’s contracts with UK government bodies like the Ministry of Defence and various public services, including data platforms in health and local government. (openDemocracy)

Key Points She’s Raised

Palantir’s business is deeply connected to controversial uses of data internationally — including U.S. immigration enforcement and military operations — and Sultana argues that such a company should not be trusted with British public data or functions. (openDemocracy)
She says the company’s involvement in surveillance and security work abroad raises serious ethical and democratic concerns about its role in UK services. (openDemocracy)
Sultana believes the UK should not award public contracts to firms linked to human rights abuses or opaque data practices, especially when those contracts involve sensitive information or civic administration. (openDemocracy)

Case Study: Palantir and UK Defence

One example driving calls for scrutiny — including from Sultana — is Palantir’s expanding role within the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD). The MoD awarded Palantir a multimillion‑pound contract to provide data analytics and integration tools to support strategic and operational decision‑making in defence. (Computing)

Critics point out that:

The contract was awarded under a defence exemption rather than a competitive tender, raising transparency questions. (Computing)
Palantir has hired several former MoD officials just before winning major defence work — an arrangement journalists and campaigners describe as an example of revolving‑door influence. (openDemocracy)

Sultana and others argue this highlights why outsourcing to a private, foreign firm that builds surveillance tools should be reconsidered rather than expanded.

Case Study: NHS and Data Concerns

Although not always mentioned directly in Sultana’s own comments, the controversy around Palantir’s NHS data platform feeds into the same debate:

In 2023, NHS England awarded Palantir a £330 million contract to build a Federated Data Platform to link patient data across trusts. Critics have raised concerns about patient privacy, transparency and the company’s motivations. (pharmaphorum)
Campaign groups have accused Palantir of opaque procurement processes and potential risks over how personal data could be used — even though NHS officials insist data control remains within the NHS. (pharmaphorum)

Campaigns like Good Law Project and public statements from groups including Amnesty International have echoed the broader theme that trust and oversight must be strengthened — a theme that aligns with Sultana’s stance that Palantir shouldn’t hold such roles. (Good Law Project)

Responses and Public Debate

Supportive Voices

Some campaigners and political figures share Sultana’s concerns:

Green Party leaders have called for the NHS Palantir contract to be terminated, citing privacy risks and ethical concerns about the firm’s links to U.S. government activities. (Canary)
Civil liberties groups worry about private companies with limited transparency controlling critical public‑service data infrastructure.

Government and Official Views

Government departments defend Palantir’s contracts on the basis that:

Contracts are legally procured and include safeguards over data access and use.
Tools like Palantir’s analytics platforms can deliver efficiencies and integration that public services struggle to achieve using legacy tech.

This points to a policy debate over how data and technology should be governed in the public sector — balancing innovation with privacy and public trust.

Public Commentary

Online discussions reflect a wider division, with critics of Palantir posting about the company’s links to U.S. surveillance and data practices and supporters arguing that such platforms can help improve government services when properly regulated. (Reddit)

What This Debate Highlights

The controversy around Palantir touches on several broader themes in UK public policy:

Data sovereignty and privacy: Who should control and process public data?
Transparency in public procurement: How open should government contracts and technologies be?
Ethical implications of technology suppliers: What responsibilities do firms with powerful analytic tools have when dealing with sensitive public‑service information?

Zarah Sultana’s comments are part of a growing pushback among some MPs and civil liberties advocates who believe that the UK should prefer transparent, publicly accountable technology providers over private firms with controversial reputations. (openDemocracy)

Summary

What she said: Sultana argues that Palantir — a U.S. data and analytics firm with ties to intelligence and surveillance work — should not be used in UK public services, especially when such use involves sensitive data or essential civic functions. (openDemocracy)
Why this matters: Her stance reflects broader concerns about privacy, transparency, and accountability in how government contracts with private tech firms are managed.
Case studies: The MoD’s contract and the NHS Federated Data Platform are key examples that feed into debates over whether Palantir’s involvement is appropriate. (Computing)
Public reaction: There’s a mix of support from activists and cross‑party critics, alongside government defenses of the contracts.

Here’s a detailed, accurate breakdown of Zarah Sultana’s call for Palantir not to be used in UK public services, with case studies, key criticisms and public commentary on the issue:

What Zarah Sultana Has Argued

Zarah Sultana, MP for Coventry South and co‑leader of Your Party, has made a strong public statement that the US data analytics firm Palantir “has no place in UK public services.” She says this is because of the company’s connections to controversial foreign operations, ethical concerns, and the risks of outsourcing core government functions to opaque private tech companies. (openDemocracy)

In her commentary, Sultana argues that:

Palantir is deeply linked with US military, intelligence and policing operations, including controversial deployments abroad.
The UK government has “embedded” Palantir into public services without sufficient **scrutiny, transparency or democratic oversight.”
Contracts with Palantir — including in local councils — should be paused, reviewed or cancelled if they involve public money and sensitive data. (openDemocracy)

She describes the issue as both ethical — around human rights and corporate behaviour — and democratic, concerning how public services use private tech. (openDemocracy)

Case Study 1: Ministry of Defence (MoD) Contract

A recent example fueling this debate is the UK Ministry of Defence awarding Palantir a large data analytics contract, directly awarded rather than through an open tender. The contract is worth over £240 million and spans about three years, with Palantir providing tools and support for defence data analytics and decision‑making systems. (Computing)

Why this matters:

Critics like Sultana see the deal as symptomatic of government reliance on a private, foreign company for core public functions.
The procurement was done via a security and defence exemption, which some experts say reduces transparency and public debate. (Computing)

Political opponents of the deal have argued that Palantir — often described as a “spy‑tech” company with close ties to US defence and intelligence circles — shouldn’t dominate UK public data infrastructure. (The Register)

Case Study 2: NHS Federated Data Platform

Another pivotal issue centres on NHS England’s contract with Palantir, where the firm was appointed to build a health data platform designed to unify hospital and care data across the NHS. The contract has a potential value of about £330 million over seven years. (pharmaphorum)

Supporters of the platform say it will:

Improve healthcare planning
Speed up responses to waiting lists and resource coordination

But critics point to risks like:

Unclear boundaries around future use of sensitive health data
Fears of “mission creep,” where technology originally intended for one purpose could be expanded into others
Broader concerns about handing detailed personal data to a private tech firm led by a billionaire investor with political ties (co‑founder Peter Thiel). (pharmaphorum)

Human rights groups like Amnesty International have publicly expressed worry that personal information could be exploited or monetised, stressing the need for stricter safeguards and greater public accountability. (pharmaphorum)

What Critics Say (Comments & Reactions)

From Political and Civil Liberties Voices

Some MPs and campaigners argue that public services should retain control and ownership of technology and data rather than outsourcing to powerful private firms with complex international ties.
Critics also highlight that Palantir’s history includes controversial work with foreign government agencies — a point Sultana references to question whether such a company should be handling UK public data at all. (openDemocracy)

Public Commentary

Online discussions, such as on public forums, show many users echoing the sentiment that “Palantir doesn’t belong in UK public services,” often referencing privacy and democratic accountability concerns. In some threads, commentators have linked the debate to broader worries about foreign influence and surveillance. (Reddit)

However, some tech commentators note Palantir’s capabilities in data analytics and argue that such tools can bring operational benefits when used with oversight — though they still stress the importance of transparency and public debate. (New Statesman)

Why This Matters

The debate over Palantir’s role in UK public services intersects with several key themes:

Data Security & Privacy

Public trust is tied to how sensitive personal and governmental data is handled. Critics say private firms need much greater transparency and legal safeguards. (pharmaphorum)

Democratic Accountability

Outsourcing public functions to private tech companies can reduce public scrutiny and legislative oversight — a central point in Sultana’s argument. (openDemocracy)

Public Policy and Technology

The role of sophisticated analytics platforms in government raises questions both about efficiency gains and about which organisations are trusted to build and manage them. (Computing)

Summary

Zarah Sultana says Palantir should not be used in UK public services due to ethical, privacy, and democratic concerns tied to the company’s history and role in government contracts. (openDemocracy)
Case studies include Palantir’s large Ministry of Defence contract and the NHS’s Federated Data Platform — both spotlighted in public debate over privacy and tech governance. (Computing)
Public and political reactions show a mix of strong criticism over privacy and outsourcing concerns, alongside broader discussions on how the UK should manage technology in public services. (Reddit)