British Members of Parliament have intensified scrutiny of government contracts awarded to Palantir Technologies, a United States data analytics company, following the publication of a year-long investigation in Switzerland that has raised concerns about the suitability and security risks of its technology for national institutions.

The Swiss probe, led by investigative collective Republik and research group WAV, revealed that Swiss federal agencies repeatedly declined to adopt Palantir’s software over a seven-year period, in part because military evaluators concluded it was unclear whether sensitive data could be safeguarded from access by American intelligence services given the company’s US origins.

This finding has prompted multiple UK MPs to call for greater transparency in the oversight and ethical review of contracts that span the National Health Service and defence sectors.

Labour MP Clive Lewis said the Swiss army report underscored why the British government should exercise caution in its procurement practices, particularly when awarding substantial contracts for data management and analytics.

Fellow MP Rachael Maskell pressed for enhanced parliamentary oversight and comprehensive due diligence into Palantir’s role in the NHS’s Federated Data Platform (FDP) and other public sector engagements, noting the importance of ethical considerations in technology partnerships.

Ministers have maintained that data security and contractual safeguards are embedded in current agreements and that sensitive information remains under UK control, but these reassurances have not quelled all concerns.

The Swiss report’s central contention — that it could not be definitively determined whether American intelligence might obtain access to data processed by Palantir — has resonated beyond the UK, fuelled debate in Germany’s legislative and intelligence oversight circles, and sharpened broader European discussions about reliance on foreign software for critical public functions.

Palantir has rejected the premise that its software poses security risks, insisting that its contracts are predicated on robust technical and contractual controls that ensure clients retain full control over their data.

Against this backdrop, UK MPs have signalled plans to pursue further questions and possible inquiries into how the government evaluates national security implications when awarding and renewing technology contracts with international firms.