NHS Federated Data Platform Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department of Health and Social Care
Samantha Niblett
Main Page: Samantha Niblett (Labour - South Derbyshire)Department Debates - View all Samantha Niblett's debates with the Department of Health and Social Care
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, because my constituents in South Derbyshire, like millions of NHS patients across the country, deserve honest answers about who holds their most private data, and why.
The federated data platform is, in principle, exactly the kind of innovation that can help to transform our NHS: it could connect fragmented data across trusts, reduce discharge delays and cut cancer diagnosis times. Those are goals that every Member of this House can support. The question before us today is not whether we want a modern, data-driven NHS—we do—but whether Palantir is the right company to deliver that.
The £330 million contract was awarded to Palantir to deliver the FDP, but its co-founder, Peter Thiel, has been openly hostile to the very idea of the NHS. Should a company of that character be trusted as a custodian of the intimate health records of tens of millions of British citizens? I do not dismiss the technology itself—the platform is genuinely impressive—but we cannot separate a company from its leadership. The Health Secretary himself has acknowledged that the “political views and…outlook” of Palantir’s founders and bosses are
“well off to the right”
of even the official Opposition—or the party that likes to think of itself as the official Opposition. When the co-founder of a company holds our NHS in open contempt, and when its chief executive is a prominent ally of an Administration that this House has repeatedly criticised, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether that company should occupy such a sensitive position at the heart of our public health infrastructure. This is not about ideology; it is scrutiny, which is precisely what this House is here to provide.
We also know that when the contract was first published, 417 of its 586 pages were completely blanked out, and it took a legal challenge from the Good Law Project to force the release of a substantially redacted version. That is not the transparency that the public have the right to expect. If we want NHS staff and patients to embrace a digital future, that future cannot be built on a foundation that they do not trust.