Whenever I speak to people across Blackburn, one message comes up time and again.
They are proud of the NHS and grateful for the staff who work tirelessly within it, but they are frustrated by how difficult it has become to access care when they need it.
Whether it is struggling to get a GP appointment, waiting months for treatment, or seeing local hospitals operating under immense pressure, many people feel the NHS is being stretched to its limits.
Against that backdrop, it is understandable that people want to know whether changes being made to the NHS are genuinely in patients’ interests.
This is not a debate about whether the NHS should embrace modern technology. Of course it should. Better technology can help clinicians work more efficiently, improve services and reduce delays.
Nobody wants doctors and nurses spending precious time wrestling with outdated systems instead of caring for patients.
But there is a difference between using technology to support the NHS and becoming dependent on a single private company to manage some of the most important infrastructure within it.
What is Palantir?
Palantir is an American software company specialising in data analytics, AI deployment, and enterprise software platforms.
It is widely used within healthcare systems, such as the NHS, to integrate disparate data systems, reduce waiting lists, and optimise patient discharges.
Some MPs and politicians across the political spectrum have raised concerns over its use in the NHS, claiming it is a security risk, but the company has defended its technology as being vital for solving the fragmented NHS patient profile system.
It also said it has “no interest in patient data”, likening itself to how Microsoft products are used in the NHS with no access to patient data.
For most of us, the NHS is built on trust. We trust doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals with the most personal details of our lives. We trust the NHS because it exists to serve patients, not shareholders.
That is why many people are uneasy about the increasing influence of a private technology company at the heart of our health service.
Our medical records contain deeply personal information.
People have a right to know who is handling that data, how it is being used, what safeguards are in place and who is ultimately accountable for decisions made about it.
These concerns are not limited to campaign groups or privacy campaigners.
A cross-party parliamentary committee recently warned that the growing reliance on Palantir across the public sector could create an “unacceptable point of weakness”.
Its warning was clear: government should not become overly dependent on a small number of powerful technology firms.
That should concern all of us.
Once public services become reliant on a single supplier, it becomes harder and more expensive to change course.
Competition is weakened, accountability is reduced, and public confidence can suffer.
We have seen too many examples over the years of major government contracts becoming difficult to unwind once a system is embedded.
At a time when patients are already worried about the future of the NHS, the last thing we should be doing is asking them to simply take assurances on trust.
The NHS belongs to the public.
The data generated through our use of it belongs to patients.
Decisions about how that data is stored, managed and governed should remain firmly under public control and subject to proper democratic oversight.
This debate is about more than technology. It is about who ultimately exercises influence over one of our country’s most valued public institutions.
People want an NHS that is easier to access, better resourced and focused on delivering care.
READ MORE:
They do not want greater dependence on private corporations, particularly when legitimate questions remain unanswered about accountability and long-term control.
The Government should listen to those concerns. Public trust in the NHS is too important to gamble with.
The NHS was built by the public, paid for by the public, and exists to serve the public. Its future should be shaped by the people who rely on it, not by decisions imposed despite their concerns.