NHS executive lobbied data watchdog to rewrite criticism before Palantir deal

The UK government’s independent adviser on health data agreed to a “substantial rewrite” of a statement criticising a controversial data project after lobbying from a senior NHS official, amid growing public concern that US tech giant Palantir would be the supplier.

The statement by national data guardian Nicola Byrne came in the final stages of the procurement process for the Federated Data Platform, three months before Palantir won the contract.

Ministers are under growing pressure to trigger a 2027 break clause in Palantir’s contract following scrutiny of the tech group for its ties to the US defence sector and the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Emails from August 2023 obtained by the FT through a freedom of information request show Byrne delayed publishing the statement about the FDP after Ming Tang, NHS England’s then chief data officer, warned it would “create significant problems” for her.

Tang raised concerns about what she argued was “inflammatory” language and a lack of balance in the statement after Byrne shared an advance copy.

In the statement, Byrne said she was responding to widespread concerns about “privacy, procurement and commercial matters” to do with the FDP, a system designed to link disparate data sets.

“Most notably in the public discourse, the involvement of one potential supplier, Palantir, is particularly contentious,” she wrote in the original version.

The published version was reworded. “Some of these concerns have arisen because public discourse about one of the potential commercial suppliers, Palantir, has been particularly contentious,” it said.

“I am really disappointed that you wish to publish this document as the content will create significant problems for me and the programme,” Tang wrote to Byrne.

This message led to a phone call, according to the emails, after which Tang sent a number of “high-level points of feedback” and specific suggestions on phrasing.

These included requests to soften “very inflammatory” language about the lack of a communications strategy for the FDP and “provide balance” in Byrne’s criticism by acknowledging that concerns about privacy, procurement and commercial matters were “not well founded”.

“We delayed publication to allow for a substantial rewrite of the framing of the blog given the concerns you raised, and having seen that there is now a communications plan,” Byrne wrote in response.

In the years since, the FDP project has been beset by controversy, with repeated calls for greater transparency.

The FT revealed NHS England had quietly added GP data to the platform and retrospectively added a caveat to widely cited claims about its effectiveness, prompting an investigation by the statistics watchdog.

Byrne has also written to NHSE officials in recent months to seek clarification on why she had been incorrectly told that only health service staff with a “legitimate need” could see identifiable patient information in the FDP after the FT uncovered that Palantir staff had access.

The emails have also amplified concerns that NHS England has sought to suppress criticism of the FDP after the FT reported that staff had been threatened with their jobs for questioning its rollout.

The National Data Guardian is responsible for safeguarding patients’ confidential information and operates with “independence, autonomy and freedom to challenge the government on data matters”, according to official documents.

The Office of the National Data Guardian said it was “normal practice” to share documents ahead of publication, adding that they retained editorial control over the content and Byrne had “upheld her independence and impartiality”.

The published version was “as robust and comprehensive as the draft” but it was appropriate to “correct any factual inaccuracies”, it added, noting it had taken the opportunity to “improve wording for clarity and flow” and make the statement “more direct”.

While acknowledging NHSE had made “reasonable efforts” to inform the public, the Office of the National Data Guardian added: “Two years on, arguably it may be concluded that the provision of information, while important to do, has not been sufficient to meet public concern. Not all problems are communications problems.”

Ben Coleman, a Labour MP who sits on the health select committee, said: “I’m troubled that NHS England tried to suppress criticism of the FDP rollout and the data guardian let this happen.”

“This desperation to quash critics while overstating results raises questions about officials’ objectivity,” he added.

Layla Moran, Liberal Democrat chair of the health committee, added: “It is deeply concerning that an independent adviser appears to have been overridden in this way.”

Tang, who no longer works for NHS England, did not respond to a request for comment.

An NHS spokesperson said the national data guardian “operates entirely independently of NHS England and there was no expectation that changes would be made to the blog, other than to correct any factual inaccuracies”.

Graphics by Chesca Taylor