Key Takeaways
- Andy Burnham, poised to become Labour leader and potentially Prime Minister, faces an early test over a £330 million NHS England contract with US defence‑software firm Palantir Technologies.
- Burnham’s advisers signal a preference for “value for money,” data safeguarding, and promoting British‑based AI firms, a shift from the Starmer government’s welcoming stance toward US AI contractors.
- Under Burnham’s mayoralty, Greater Manchester deliberately avoided Palantir, building its own NHS analytics platform as a proof‑of‑concept that effective data management does not require the US firm.
- Critics, including the Good Law Project, warn that Palantir’s defence‑intelligence origins pose security and ethical risks for a health service tasked with protecting patient data.
- The NHS contract includes a break clause in March 2027; a decision must be made by December 2025, giving Burnham a narrow window to shape the UK’s broader public‑sector procurement policy.
- Parallel legal battles—such as the Metropolitan Police’s blocked Palantir deal in London—highlight growing political resistance to entrenched US tech providers across UK government departments.
Burnham’s Looming Procurement Decision
Should Andy Burnham secure the Labour leadership unopposed and enter Downing Street as early as 17 July, one of his first consequential choices will not involve defence spending, immigration, or the economy, but rather the fate of a seven‑year, £330 million (≈ $440 million) contract between NHS England and Palantir Technologies. The US‑based defence and intelligence software firm has supplied analytics platforms to multiple UK public bodies, yet Burnham’s Greater Manchester administration never awarded it a contract during his nine‑year tenure as mayor. Media reports suggest Burnham is inclined to maintain this stance across the whole UK government, a position his spokespeople confirmed would be guided by the need to obtain “value for money for the taxpayer” while safeguarding personal data and British interests.
The Greater Manchester Precedent
As Mayor of Greater Manchester from 2017 until his June return to Westminster via the Makerfield by‑election, Burnham oversaw a combined authority that deliberately excluded Palantir from its procurement list. Greater Manchester Police also confirmed it had no Palantir contract in the past five years. More telling, however, is the NHS angle: although Burnham lacked direct mayoral authority over the health service, he shaped its direction through Greater Manchester’s landmark health devolution settlement. Rather than adopt the NHS England‑mandated Federated Data Platform—built on Palantir’s Foundry software—local NHS leaders spent six years constructing their own analytics infrastructure. This home‑grown system has since been cited by allies as a proof‑of‑concept demonstrating that effective NHS data management can be achieved without reliance on a US defence contractor.
Political and Ethical Rationale Behind the Shift
In his first major speech after re‑entering Parliament, Burnham emphasized that social value should weigh more heavily in government procurement decisions. Advisers explain that this stance is both ethical and political: there is concern within his camp that “unfettered tech boosterism” risks alienating voters already uneasy about the extent to see the state increasingly reliant on American software. A deeper worry underpins this sentiment—a belief that a company engineered for defence and intelligence clients does not naturally share the values of an institution devoted to patient care. Duncan McCann, Technology and Data Lead at the Good Law Project, articulated this view, stating that “a defence company has inherently different values than a healthcare organisation like the NHS.” Critics argue that Palantir’s lineage, shared by many US AI firms now supplying British departments, taints the whole sector rather than singling out one company.
Campaigner Concerns and Legal Actions
Campaigners have long warned that Palantir’s extensive work for the Israeli military could indirectly contribute to violence affecting Gaza’s health facilities, a claim highlighted by recent media footage. The Good Law Project has labelled Palantir a “potential security risk” and pursued legal action demanding greater transparency over the NHS contract. While the group says it has had no direct contact with Burnham or his team, it interprets recent political signals from his camp as supportive of their position. The broader apprehension is that entrusting sensitive health data to a firm whose primary expertise lies in defence and intelligence creates unnecessary exposure to surveillance, data misuse, and geopolitical entanglements.
Parallel Battles Across the Public Sector
The NHS contract is the most visible flashpoint, but it is unlikely to stand alone. In London, Mayor Sadiq Khan initially blocked a £50 million (≈ $67 million) Palantir deal for the Metropolitan Police, arguing the veto protected free speech; a later, smaller arrangement has done little to ease the underlying tension. Similar scrutiny is emerging in other departments, such as the Home Office and the Financial Conduct Authority, where US‑based AI providers have secured sizable contracts. These concurrent challenges suggest a growing cross‑sector movement to reassess the dominance of American technology firms in UK public procurement, a trend that could accelerate if Burnham follows through on his stated priorities.
What Lies Ahead for Burnham and Palantir
Burnham’s anticipated arrival in Downing Street later this month places him at a decisive juncture. The NHS England‑Palantir agreement contains a break clause set for March 2027, but a substantive decision must be reached by December 2025 to avoid automatic continuation. If Burnham opts to terminate or renegotiate the contract, it could signal a broader shift toward favoring British‑grown AI solutions, reinforcing data sovereignty, and aligning procurement with social‑value objectives. Conversely, retaining the deal would suggest continuity with the Starmer era’s openness to US tech giants, potentially disappointing the growing chorus of critics who view Palantir’s defence pedigree as incompatible with the NHS’s patient‑centric ethic. Either outcome will reverberate beyond the health service, shaping the UK’s approach to AI, data security, and international tech partnerships for years to come.