Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department’s contracts with Palantir.

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

Palantir is a strategic supplier to the Ministry of Defence, providing secure data integration, analytics and AI platforms that help to support operational planning and decision making.

In 2022, the Conservative Government signed a three-year enterprise agreement with Palantir, in light of the growing significance of faster operational decision making, and the impact that that technology has had in operations, including in Ukraine. This Government negotiated a new enterprise agreement to update the one signed in 2022, and that was published in a transparency note in December last year.

As part of the development of the new enterprise agreement, the MOD negotiated a strategic partnership with Palantir last September. The SPA reaffirms the strong relationship developed between UK defence and Palantir over the past decade, and includes new commitments that this Government secured from Palantir, including £1.5 billion investment into the UK, a new UK defence tech SME mentoring scheme to help companies grow and access the US market, and a commitment that London is to be the company’s European defence headquarters.

This Government took over what the Tories started in 2022, but we made it work better for Britain and better for our forces. As the Defence Secretary has said, the contract was his decision, and his alone. Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract. The deal that we struck with Palantir will significantly reinforce the innovation of our forces, and reinforce the safety of this country as we move towards warfighting readiness.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Before I turn to the detail, let me say that the Mandelson scandal is truly shocking. When debating these matters, it is incumbent on all of us to remember the victims of Epstein’s crimes.

Following Peter Mandelson’s sacking as US ambassador, serious questions surrounding his influence on MOD contracts have emerged, to which we have had no meaningful answers. Specifically, the MOD signed a contract with the US firm Palantir in December 2025 worth £240 million. Critically, at a time when UK defence companies are struggling for orders from their own Government, this contract did not involve a competition with British firms, and was granted to a US company by direct award. Why was that?

For the record, this is not about Palantir or any other US company. From my time as the Defence Procurement Minister, I recognise the huge mutual gain to us and to our closest ally that results from our strong defence relationship. It is true that many contracts in the MOD are rightly let on a single-source basis, but this is about transparency. Above all, the question is: to what extent did Peter Mandelson and his firm Global Counsel, in which he was a controlling shareholder at the time, benefit from privileged access not available to potential UK competitors—access that was used to deliver a defence contract of some £250 million to a client of Global Counsel without competition?

Regarding the meeting between the Prime Minister, Peter Mandelson and Palantir in February 2025 in Washington DC, is it true that no minutes were taken? If they were not taken, why not? Crucially, at the time of the meeting, was the Prime Minister aware that Palantir was a client of Mandelson’s firm? The Minister must answer that. In the build-up to the US state visit, we understand that Peter Mandelson lobbied the UK Government for deliverables. Will the Minister commit to publishing what those deliverables were? Did they involve any clients of Global Counsel?

Finally, let me mention the actions to take. Given the public interest in this matter, will Defence Ministers follow the lead of the Health Secretary and publish all their correspondence with Peter Mandelson? In addition, in the spirit of the Humble Address, will the Government publish, as part of the Mandelson files, all relevant material relating to this contract award?

[Luke Pollard]

As I said in my first answer, Peter Mandelson had no influence on the decision to award this contract; it was a decision made by the Secretary of State, and it was his decision alone.

As the shadow Secretary of State well knows, this enterprise agreement builds on the one that Conservative Ministers signed with Palantir back in 2022, and he knows that the MOD uses Palantir tools and technology on a daily basis to support operations and wider data analytics. I am sure he is not suggesting that we should not be maintaining access to those vital capabilities. Is he saying that his Government were wrong to formalise the relationship with Palantir in their 2022 agreement? I do not think he is.

It is really important that we publish the information. Last time I was in Washington, the then ambassador unfortunately was not available to meet, or was not there, but the Prime Minister has been clear at the Dispatch Box that the public and the House deserve transparency. We intend to publish as much material as we can, as soon as reasonably possible. The Cabinet Office is working with the Met police and Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the release of any documents does not prejudice the Met investigation, or the UK’s national security and international relations. That process is under way, and that is in addition to the other actions that the Prime Minister has already taken.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The Palantir enterprise agreement was a direct award, justified under the Procurement Act 2023. The agreement covers existing services and areas in which there is a robust technical justification for using Palantir products and services for defence outcomes. All procurement procedures were followed, and a transparency notice was published.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

In 2020, Palantir accepted a fee of £1 for trialling its data collection services during covid. Since then, the company has amassed contracts with the NHS and the MOD worth more than £500 million. Given the growing scale of Palantir’s involvement in the UK, transparency around its operations is vital, yet the Government have consistently chosen to obfuscate, rather than clarify. Such transparency is especially important when it comes to technology that may lock the UK into dependency on one supplier. In respect of the recent £240 million contract awarded to Palantir, I ask the Minister one more time: will he tell the House why there was no competitive process? Was the Defence Secretary aware of Peter Mandelson’s commercial links to Palantir when this decision was taken solely by him, as the Minister has said?

Last month, Donald Trump threatened a NATO ally with annexation. Despite that, the Government have chosen to green-light a multimillion-pound defence contract with a company co-founded by Trump’s billionaire backer, Peter Thiel. We must be alert to the genuine risk that data collected by Palantir in the UK could be fed back to the White House. Will the Minister provide firm guarantees that all data collected by Palantir will not be shared beyond our Ministry of Defence?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard the answer I just gave to the Chair of the Defence Committee about the procurement process. As I set out, the decision was made by the Secretary of State alone; he has been clear about that. The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK has a strong security and defence partnership with the United States. We are clear that we will continue to invest in that strong security and defence partnership, while we deepen partnerships with our European friends and allies further afield. On data, UK defence data used and developed in Palantir software remains sovereign to the UK and under the control of the MOD, and it resides in the United Kingdom. We have clear, contractual controls in place to ensure that, and we have control of the data system that Palantir software sits on. No change can be made to that without the consent of the MOD.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

When I was in opposition, I raised concerns about Palantir and the £1 deal that was made. It was always a trap to ensure that Palantir got its foot in where no one else could. The co-founder of Palantir is mentioned in the Epstein files. I think that anyone who is mentioned in the Epstein files should be fully investigated by this House and by the police; the scandal is an absolute disgrace. The Minister must ensure transparency and robust safeguards. Palantir and AI organisations have the ability to bamboozle Ministers, unless we have concrete ways to ensure that they cannot abuse their power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right that investigations are under way. As the Government made clear to the House last week, we will co-operate fully with those investigations, and we will ensure that the information that the House requires to be published is published in a way that creates the transparency that we all seek. There are already safeguards in place around the use of artificial intelligence in Ministry of Defence decision making, and we are looking at ways to enable new opportunities, especially for UK firms, given the growing requirement in the Ministry of Defence for faster decision making and better data management. I understand her concerns about AI and safeguards, and I will continue to update the House as the AI strategy that Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has published is rolled out.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Most British scandals are fairly pathetic by international standards—they are about things like serving a piece of cake to the Prime Minister—but this scandal is monumental because it involves somebody in service to the Government using his position for commercial gain. In my long experience of such scandals, what brings down Presidents and Prime Ministers is not the original scandal, but the cover up. My advice to the Minister is to answer the perfectly sensible questions that are being put to him, particularly by the Chair of the Defence Committee about the lack of competitive process, and by the Opposition spokesman about the meeting in Washington. Will the Minister now answer the questions put to him?

[Luke Pollard]

I have answered those questions. I say politely to the Father of the House that the partygate scandal, which is not the subject of today’s urgent question, is not a trivial scandal, and it is important to put that clearly on the record. It undermined confidence in the Government at a time when we were being asked to do something that the decision makers were not doing themselves. I agree with him that transparency is necessary and important. The MOD publishes its procurement decisions in the usual transparent way, continuing the theme from when his party was in office. We will continue to do that, and I am happy to continue to take questions about the transparency of this contract.

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Given the scale of the contract—it is for almost a quarter of a billion pounds—and the fact that Mandelson had had a contract with Palantir, and attended a meeting in Washington with the Prime Minister and Palantir after he became the ambassador, questions inevitably arise. May I ask the Minister explicitly whether all the papers relevant to the Prime Minister’s visit and the contract will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee, as we believed we decided last Wednesday? I am aware that at least five or six senior civil servants in the Ministry of Defence have gone to work with Palantir. Can we have an assurance that there are proper firewalls in place to protect the interests of the public, as against the private interests of Palantir?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend asks valid questions. I say to him clearly that this Government will stand by and honour the agreement on the publication of information that was struck last week during the debate on the Humble Address. If there are documents from the Ministry of Defence that need to be published, we will continue to support the cross-Government effort to do so. On employees, when anyone who has worked in defence moves over to a defence contractor, be it Palantir or any other, we make it clear that they have certain obligations, and there are certain requirements. Palantir employs an awful lot of UK veterans; it has made employing veterans a point of principle. It is a good principle, and that should be done by all defence companies, in my view, but I take his point and I agree with it.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Minister know whether or not minutes were taken at the key Washington meeting in February last year? If they were not taken, why not? Why was Lord Mandelson, a political appointee, not required to sever any links with his former activities and business that could have given rise to a conflict of interest in his role as ambassador?

[Luke Pollard]

Peter Mandelson has let us all down in this House. The question about the minutes is being looked at by Downing Street, and it will be for Downing Street officials to publish more in due course.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for reply to the urgent question, and want to press him on safeguards. On contracts being held to ransom or a lock-in, what safeguards are there to protect our data and its sovereignty? Is there an exit strategy, if the Minister wants to choose a different contract in future?

[Luke Pollard]

We take vendor lock-in very seriously. We will build a more comprehensive AI framework in the Ministry of Defence; we will be using AI more frequently in more aspects of defence, just as the wider economy is doing. We want to ensure that our data sovereign. Our contract with Palantir retains the sovereignty of that data, and of decision making about the systems that the data sits on. That data resides in the United Kingdom, and no changes can be made by Palantir without the consent of the MOD. It is because we take the data issues so seriously that that is locked into the contract.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

The Select Committee said that DSIT was in the loop when it came to buying things, so I challenge the Minister’s statement that it was purely the Secretary of State who made the decision about the contract. This contract with Palantir is nearly three times the value of the previous contract with it. The MOD transparency notice sets out that “only Palantir” can run the service, and that there would be a “significant cost” to changing all the analytics services, so we are entirely locked into a contract with a company that is now hiking up the price. What is the exit strategy?

[Luke Pollard]

We signed a contract with a supplier to provide a service for which there is clear military need and clear utility, in order to strengthen our armed forces. We keep all contracts, not just those with Palantir, under constant review to ensure that they are delivering what they were signed up to deliver, and we will continue to do that. We want more companies to provide AI services, so we are looking at how we can support more British AI companies to interact with defence. We recently stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth because there are many AI companies that are not yet defence AI companies but could be, and we are trying to make it easier for them to access defence contracts.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

This deal with Palantir stinks. It stank before Peter Mandelson was involved, and it stank when those now on the Opposition Benches initiated the NHS and defence contracts. Peter Thiel is an oligarch who despises democracy, and the company has had widespread allegations of human rights abuses made against it. Even the Swiss army has rejected Palantir as a platform on national security grounds. Surely, after Greenland, now is an opportunity for our Government to begin to distance themselves and pivot away from companies, such as Palantir, that are so closely connected with Donald Trump. It is time to move away. Will the Government commit to such a pivot?

[Luke Pollard]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s passion on this matter but, as I have set out to the House, we will continue to maintain a close defence and security relationship with the United States—it is in our national security interests to do so. In signing any agreement with a US company, just as would be the case with a French, German or Australian company, we ensure that the agreement is in the UK’s national interest, and that controls are in place on the sovereignty of data, particularly with AI contracts. We will continue to ensure that those standards are upheld in all contracts, but we will also continue to work with international partners where no UK provider could deliver that work, or where the services they offer are in excess or deliver a defence capability faster, better or cheaper than one provided elsewhere.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I want to return to a question that was initially asked by the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). When the Prime Minister met Palantir and Peter Mandelson in February 2025 in Washington DC, was he aware that Palantir was a client of Peter Mandelson’s firm Global Counsel?

[Luke Pollard]

As I said in reply to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that is a matter for Downing Street to publish in due course. I am afraid that I have spent the last three days in Saudia Arabia, so I am just catching up on these events. I have been clear about where that information will come from, and I point my hon. Friend in that direction.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is a pattern with Palantir: its £1 covid contract with the NHS expanded to a £330 million contract under the last Government, and its Ministry of Defence contract tripled in size to £240 million, without due process or competition. As we have seen, the links with Global Counsel are now on the record. Will the Minister ensure that all contact with Global Counsel from his Department and across Government—Palantir has a total of 34 contracts with public sector bodies—are published, so that we can understand the revolving doors around Peter Mandelson, Global Counsel and this Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s direction of travel and passion. We followed due process, in accordance with the Procurement Act, in awarding those contracts. As I have clearly set out, we will comply with the agreement made last week on publication of data and documents.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

It shows yet more extraordinarily poor judgment on the part of the Prime Minister that he met personally with Palantir—a highly questionable organisation that is complicit in the ruination of Palestine and the devastation wreaked in the US by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Palantir are into the United Kingdom taxpayer for half a billion pounds, half of which was not competed. We should be concerned about Palantir, full stop. We should be concerned, in addition, about a direct award. We should be further concerned by the company being a client of Peter Mandelson and then having a meeting with the Prime Minister—for which there are apparently no minutes. When will Downing Street come up with a confirmed position on whether minutes were or were not taken in that meeting with Mandelson?

[Luke Pollard]

As I have been clear to the House in a number of answers, we will continue to have a security and defence relationship with the United States, and it is in our national interests to do so. We are a party that takes defence and security very seriously, which is something that I hope the hon. Gentleman’s party would do more of, although I have much respect for him. I will continue to ensure that we get the best services for our armed forces as we move to warfighting readiness. I have answered the question about minutes, and it will be for Downing Street to publish that in due course.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome this Government’s record funding for our defence, and I also recognise that the US is one of our closest allies. In this House we often talk about energy security, but I sometimes think that we do not talk enough about the security of security. What more can this Government do to invest in UK tech firms so that we are less reliant on foreign firms?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should look at security, data security and the opportunities here. In the strategic defence review, we set out our direction of travel in defence, and investing in new technologies, including artificial intelligence, is key to securing our national security. I want to see the best-in-class products used by our armed forces, and I also want to see more British small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, being able to access this area. We have set up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, and we are looking in particular at how we can support small defence AI companies to onboard their software in a whole range of defence utilities. We will continue to do so as we look to spend more of our rising defence budget with UK SMEs.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The Minister and the Secretary of State have said that Peter Mandelson was not involved in the decision on Palantir. However, the issue is not the decision itself but the run-up to it. We know that Peter Mandelson, or executives from Global Counsel, were flown into embassy parties, and we need to understand more about whether Peter Mandelson, in pushing for deliverables for the state visit, was pushing for deliverables with Global Counsel clients. Will the Minister confirm that Peter Mandelson was not involved in any way, at any stage, in the decisions on the contracts given not just to Palantir but to Anduril Industries?

[Luke Pollard]

I am afraid that looking for deliverables ahead of a state visit is pretty standard practice, and it is something that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government looked at just as much as we do. We will continue to have conversations with our ambassadors in all circumstances, as he would expect. The right hon. Gentleman raises questions that should be answered by the publication of the information. We as a Government have committed to publish the relevant information that the House asked for last week, and we stand by that.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

The Government’s ongoing relationship with Palantir is deeply concerning, given the company’s involvement in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Palantir’s AI technology has been used to destroy entire neighbourhoods, schools and hospitals. If we claim to want an ethical foreign policy and pride ourselves on being a rules-based nation, why are we still signing contracts with such a company?

[Luke Pollard]

I entirely appreciate my hon. Friend’s position. Palantir provides services to the United Kingdom that keep our troops safe and enhance our national security. We have a range of contracts with US firms in procuring not only services but platforms. All those contracts go through the necessary rigour and assessment before they are signed. Some are subject to competitive tender and some, for other reasons, are subject to direct award. We will continue to work with our US partners.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel, maintained a close financial and personal relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. There are profound ethical concerns about the web of connections between Thiel, Epstein and Mandelson. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is absolutely right: the MoD’s contract with US-based spy-tech giant Palantir absolutely stinks. Will the MOD now cancel that contract? Will we get a fast and independent inquiry into the Government’s contracts with Palantir, as it currently has several billion pounds-worth of further framework contracts with the UK Government? Will we find out whether Mandelson shared privileged information with Palantir? If it is true that Palantir is hosting a party in Mayfair tomorrow for MOD officials, as The Times has alleged, will the Minister get that stopped?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Lady’s position would be stronger if the Greens were not so soft on defence. We will continue to invest in our national security, and we will invest in the contracts that keep our troops and our country safe. That will involve investing not only in UK firms, but in international partners at the same time. I have been clear at the Dispatch Box that we will comply fully with the agreement made on the Humble Address last week, and we will publish information in the right way in due course. I hope that will be able to provide more of the answers that the hon. Lady is looking for.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister appreciate how appallingly bad it looks for the Prime Minister of this country and the then ambassador in Washington, the disgraced Peter Mandelson, to have met Alex Karp, the chief executive of Palantir, in February last year without any written record of the meeting being made? Is he at least able to say which officials—other than, of course, our then ambassador—were present at that meeting?

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the photographs that appeared on No. 10’s Twitter feed, to which I referred in response to the earlier question about the publication of information. He will also recall—perhaps from his time as a Defence Minister—that in 2021 the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, also met Alex Karp.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Does the Minister really understand the depth of anger and feeling across the country when people read and hear about Palantir—the way in which it has wormed its way into Government contracts and the national health service, and its behaviour on behalf of the Israeli Defence Forces in the destruction of Gaza and other places using artificial intelligence technology? Do we really want to be involved with a company like that? Can we not just distance ourselves from Palantir altogether and have an ethical procurement policy across Government—not just in the Ministry of Defence, but in other Departments as well?

[Luke Pollard]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing position on a number of the items he asks about. I have been clear to the House today that we will continue to work with our US friends—they are our closest defence and security partner. Where appropriate, we will look at working with US technology firms that can provide best-in-class products that deliver increased defence for our armed forces and our nation. We will continue to do that, as well as investing in UK firms.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am not qualified to make observations about the enduring value for money or effectiveness of Palantir, but I am concerned that Mandelson’s dynamics with every aspect of this Government have toxified the integrity of their processes. Unless the Minister can make absolutely clear what quiet, unspoken influences Mandelson had on this follow-on order with Palantir, people are bound to question the integrity of the process. To respond to the Minister’s earlier point, if we are to have a viable alternative and meaningful competition in future, he will need to do a little more to advance the case for alternatives, beyond just saying that he has an SME strategy.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is important that people can have confidence in the system, including the procurement system. As I have set out to the House, the decision to extend the contract with Palantir was originally signed in 2022 by the previous Government, of which I think he was a part at the time. That decision was made by the Secretary of State, and by the Secretary of State alone.

I do want to see more British AI companies working in defence—something we have been very clear about. Indeed, I think even the last Government set out an ambition to do more in that space. We have stepped up to make sure we can grow our own indigenous AI industry, with its software and services able to be onboarded into a more AI-friendly defence environment, because AI provides a decision advantage for our forces that is necessary to keep our country safe. However, I take very seriously the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and when we publish the information that we have committed to publish, that will hopefully answer some of his questions.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Palantir has links to Peter Mandelson, to Peter Thiel and to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and it is extending its web of influence across multiple parts of our public sector. It is extraordinary that the Government are so reluctant to have this deal properly scrutinised. Does the Minister come to this place today feeling any shred of embarrassment that he cannot tell us why there are no minutes of the February 2025 meeting? We do not know whether a future contract was discussed, or whether the Prime Minister was aware of Mandelson’s links to Palantir.

[Luke Pollard]

I am absolutely happy that we have signed a contract and conducted that process in the appropriate way. Scrutiny of that process is not something I am afraid of. I actually think it will show that the decision was made by the Secretary of State, and by the Secretary of State alone, and that the extension of the contract—which was originally signed by the Conservative Government in 2022—delivers a benefit to the United Kingdom and secured £1.5 billion of investment in the UK. It also supplies onboarding routes for more SMEs and makes the UK Palantir’s European headquarters, which will help to support our economy and our armed forces in the future. As I have mentioned a few times, publication of the minutes is a matter for Downing Street, but it is pretty standard for Ministers to meet defence suppliers.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

In a call with investors a couple of weeks ago, Palantir’s chief executive officer Alex Karp said that

“we are super proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about…Palantir is here to disrupt…and when it’s necessary, to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.”

Palantir’s share price has almost doubled over the past year, so can the Minister confirm whether Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, any member of this Government or of the Ministry of Defence, or any public official currently has shares in Palantir and will financially benefit from the Government contracts it has been awarded?

[Luke Pollard]

I am afraid that the role of defence is to disrupt our adversaries and to secure our national security. To do that, we possess capabilities that can disrupt, deter and, if necessary, defeat our adversaries. That includes killing our adversaries at times—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, do not walk across the Member who is asking the question. [Interruption.] Just sit down. Secondly, if you have asked a question, please wait for the answer—do not keep interrupting. We have to treat people with respect and tolerance in this House.

[Luke Pollard]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is the role of defence to keep our country safe; as part of that, we do procure lethal capabilities, but not all the capabilities we procure are physical capabilities to secure our national security. AI will continue to be an increasingly large area.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s question about the transparency of our shareholdings, Defence Ministers have to publish all of our shareholdings with the relevant standards commissioner. I do not hold shares in Palantir, and no Defence Ministers are allowed to hold any shares in a company that interacts with defence businesses.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

In 2024, Leicestershire police signed a contract with Palantir worth close to £1 million for an intelligence and investigation platform. From what I can deduce through the work I have done, there was absolutely no formal tender process. I raised this concern in the Chamber in June 2025, along with my concerns about Palantir’s racial profiling and civil liberty abuses, which we are seeing in ICE raids now. The written response I received did not address any of my concerns, so will the Government now ensure that all the information about that contract is released immediately? Can the Minister confirm that Peter Mandelson played absolutely no role in unleashing this dystopian contract on the residents of Leicestershire?

[Luke Pollard]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s focus on that particular contract. As a Defence Minister, I do not know about Home Office policing contracts that were secured by individual forces, but I can direct him to my colleagues in the Home Office, who might be able to help more.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I have been trying to follow the Secretary of State’s responses regarding relationships with political parties and others. There are issues with regard to some companies. For example, the Quadrature hedge fund has massive investments in Palantir and donates to political parties in this country, including the Labour party, to which it made a £4 million donation in 2024. Will he take away the question of what influence that had on the decision-making processes for the award of contracts?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and for the inadvertent promotion he has given me. He is right to talk about the necessity of ensuring that political donations are transparent and in order. That is an area in which the Government have already set out some changes, and I want our politics to learn lessons from the experiences of the past to make sure that donations are clear and transparent, which was not always the case under the last Government. However, I take seriously the issue that he has raised, and if he writes to me with the detail of that particular donation, I would be happy to look into it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. He is well known for his decency; he is a good Minister, and always tries to answer well. As he knows, I have been a firm supporter of the need to enhance defence—both physically and in the cyber world—so I welcome the defence contract. However, public confidence is at an all-time low due to the Mandelson debacle, and his connection to Palantir naturally raises questions, which is why this UQ has been tabled today. How can the Government assure us that this firm was awarded the contract not due to any connection, but because it can provide the best program and the best defence for our nation?

[Luke Pollard]

I am a big fan of the hon. Member, too. I have been clear in my answers today that the decision to extend the 2022 contract signed under the previous Government was made by the Secretary of State alone. It was his decision to do so. We are procuring new AI capabilities to speed up our delivery of outcomes within defence. We know that our adversaries are using AI in how they position themselves, and it is necessary that we do so, too. He is right that as we deploy more artificial intelligence, not just in defence, but across our wider economy, we need to secure a level of confidence in the contracts and in the technology itself. That is a bigger debate than this one, but I understand precisely where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.