Topics covered on this page:

• NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) and Palantir
• Miscarriage care
• Prostate cancer screening

NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) and Palantir

Last updated May 2026

The context: What is the Federated Data Platform?

As this is a complicated issue, I will start by giving some context before setting out my views in greater detail. The Federated Data Platform is an initiative within the NHS which was set up with the aim of better connecting services together. In 2023, under the previous Government, NHS England awarded the contract for the NHS Federated Data Platform and Associated Services to a consortium led by Palantir Technologies.

The Government has stated that the NHS operates to the highest standards of data security, and that the NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) is built with robust security and privacy controls. It has also said that user activity within the FDP is logged and monitored by both Palantir’s UK security team and the NHS Cyber Security Operations Centre to detect and respond to any malicious activity.

I understand that access within the FDP is carefully controlled. Users only get the minimum level of access they need, and only if they are authorised to use the data for an approved purpose. All access permissions are checked, monitored, and reviewed regularly. The Government has issued assurances that Palantir does not own or sell any NHS data. 

The FDP contract also includes audit rights for NHS England. This means NHS England can review and confirm that the platform and its providers are meeting all contractual and legal requirements. These types of audit rights are standard in NHS agreements and help ensure the system is being used safely and responsibly. 

The Government says that the FDP is helping to join-up patient care, increase hospital productivity, speed up cancer diagnosis and ensure thousands of additional patients can be treated each month.

Concerns about this contract

I completely agree that questions must be asked about Palantir’s contract with the NHS, and the company's links to both ICE in the US and the Israeli military are key reasons why we should be giving the matter our full scrutiny. 

Well before this contract was first awarded in 2023, I raised constituents’ concerns about the way in which the previous Government was awarding contracts - in particular the award of COVID-19 contracts to the mates of Tory politicians and Conservative party donors, as well as foreign companies like Palantir. You can watch a speech I made in February 2021 on this topic here.  

More recently, I was unfortunately unable to attend the Westminster Hall debate on Thursday 16th April 2026 regarding the NHS Federated Data Platform, in which the topic of Palantir’s contract with the NHS was covered, due to commitments I had in the constituency with a Planning Inspector hearing. However, having had the opportunity to review the debate’s transcript, I would like to echo one colleague’s comment on the concerns for the award of this contract to Palantir, whose CEO 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? [...] 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.” 

Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire [Lab]). Transcript available here. 

The Government is due to review its contract with Palantir and the NHS later in 2026, with the break clause in the contract due in Spring 2027. Please rest assured that I will be bearing your comments in mind as this situation develops. 

Miscarriage care

Last updated July 2026

Losing a baby during pregnancy can be a time of great difficulty and sadness, and my deepest sympathies are with parents who suffer a miscarriage. I also want to put on record my thanks to the charity Tommy’s, which is doing very important work in supporting them through the most challenging of times.

I understand that around one in seven couples trying to conceive will experience some difficulty, and the risk of a miscarriage is estimated at 15% or around 120,000 per year in the UK. However, this figure could be higher, at around 250,000 miscarriages a year. A small proportion of women will go on to have repeated miscarriages.

I am aware the findings of a pilot study on the Graded Model of Miscarriage Care at the Tommy’s Miscarriage Centre in Birmingham have now been published. The findings show that women are more likely to identify miscarriage risk factors and medical conditions than those receiving regular NHS care. They also had a reduced likelihood of another miscarriage compared with the usual care group.

From conversations I have had, I'm pleased to see that Ministers recognise research like this is crucial. They will, I understand, closely review the study’s outcome and work with stakeholders to review the evidence and implications of rolling out a graded model of care for repeated miscarriages more widely. This would be part of a package of actions in response to Baroness Amos’s investigation into maternity and neonatal services.

If you are not already aware of her investigation, its aim is to bring together the findings of past reviews into a clear, national set of actions. This work has involved meeting with over 400 family members, and a call for evidence has received over 8,000 responses. The investigation will ensure every woman and baby receives safe, high-quality and compassionate care. Following the investigation, the Health Secretary will chair the National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce to address the recommendations and develop a new national action plan to drive improvements across maternity and neonatal care. This is alongside the appointment of the Maternity Commissioner Michelle Welsh who I know will be excellent at highlighting further inequalities in this system.  

Prostate cancer screening

Last updated Month 2026

I know what many were concerned to see the National Screening Committee's recommendation that only those with specific genetic mutations should be eligible for prostate cancer screening, not Black men or those with a family history of the disease due to "uncertainties" in the data.

At the end of last year I wrote to the then Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, to voice my concerns about this guidance and urge him to expand access to prostate cancer screening - the most common type of cancer in men, which causes 12,000 deaths across the UK each year. Below is the letter that I sent him:

Following on from this, more recently, I was pleased to see a trial announced whereby tens of thousands more black men aged 45-74 will be invited for prostate cancer checks. This pilot aims to find better ways of testing.