-
Question
The shadow Secretary of State raised serious questions about transparency in MOD contracts, particularly regarding a £240 million contract with Palantir. He queried if Peter Mandelson’s firm Global Counsel had undue influence and requested details on the February 2025 meeting between the Prime Minister, Mandelson, and Palantir.
Minister reply
The decision was made solely by the Secretary of State without any influence from Peter Mandelson or his firm. The enterprise agreement with Palantir builds on the one signed in 2022 and is essential for maintaining vital defence capabilities. Publishing relevant documents will be done as per transparency guidelines while considering national security.
-
Question
Why was this particular Palantir contract not subject to the usual competitive procurement processes? The key question is about avoiding costs at the expense of transparency and trust.
Minister reply
The Palantir enterprise agreement was a direct award justified under the Procurement Act 2023, covering existing services with robust technical justifications. All procurement procedures were followed, including publishing a transparency notice.
-
Question
Will the Minister explain why there was no competitive process for Palantir’s recent £240 million contract? Was the Defence Secretary aware of Peter Mandelson’s commercial links to Palantir when making this decision? Will data collected by Palantir be shared beyond the Ministry of Defence?
Minister reply
The direct award followed procurement regulations and was a sole-source basis. The UK has a strong security partnership with the US while deepening European alliances. Data used in Palantir software remains sovereign to the UK, controlled by the MOD, and resides within the country.
-
Question
Asked about concerns regarding the £1 deal with Palantir and its founder's connection to Epstein files, seeking transparency and safeguards in AI use by organisations like Palantir.
Minister reply
Acknowledged ongoing investigations and commitment to transparency. Mentioned existing safeguards around AI usage and support for UK firms involved in defence decision making.
-
Question
Stressed the seriousness of the scandal compared to others, advised the Minister to answer all questions put forth by members, especially about the lack of competitive process and a meeting in Washington.
Minister reply
Replied that transparency is necessary and important. Stated MOD publishes procurement decisions as per usual practice.
-
Question
Inquired about the availability of relevant papers to the Intelligence and Security Committee, raised concerns about civil servants moving to Palantir post-service.
Minister reply
Confirmed commitment to publish necessary documents per last week’s agreement. Mentioned obligations for ex-defence employees working with defence contractors.
-
Question
Asked if minutes were taken during the Washington meeting and questioned Lord Mandelson's appointment without severing links.
Minister reply
Noted that the question about the minutes is being looked at by Downing Street.
-
Question
Pressed for safeguards against vendor lock-in and exit strategies in case of contract changes.
Minister reply
Stated that data sovereignty is maintained in the Palantir contract, which resides within the UK.
-
Question
Challenged the Minister's statement about DSIT involvement and queried exit strategies for a high-value contract.
Minister reply
Emphasised that contracts are reviewed to ensure delivery of agreed services, aiming to support more British AI companies in defence.
-
Question
Expressed concerns about Palantir's business ethics and the national security implications of working with US companies.
Minister reply
Confirmed continued close relationship with US for national interest, ensuring agreements are in UK’s best interests.
-
Question
Asked if the Prime Minister was aware of Palantir's connection to Peter Mandelson's firm Global Counsel during a February meeting.
Minister reply
Directed question towards Downing Street for clarification.
-
Question
Highlighted patterns in Palantir contracts' expansions and sought publication of all contacts with Global Counsel across Government.
Minister reply
Confirmed adherence to Procurement Act, committed to compliance with the agreement on data/document publication.
-
Question
It shows yet more extraordinarily poor judgment on the part of the Prime Minister that he met personally with Palantir—a highly questionable organisation that is complicit in the ruination of Palestine and the devastation wreaked in the US by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Palantir are into the United Kingdom taxpayer for half a billion pounds, half of which was not competed. We should be concerned about Palantir, full stop. We should be concerned, in addition, about a direct award. We should be further concerned by the company being a client of Peter Mandelson and then having a meeting with the Prime Minister—for which there are apparently no minutes. When will Downing Street come up with a confirmed position on whether minutes were or were not taken in that meeting with Mandelson?
Minister reply
As I have been clear to the House in a number of answers, we will continue to have a security and defence relationship with the United States, and it is in our national interests to do so. We are a party that takes defence and security very seriously, which is something that I hope the hon. Gentleman’s party would do more of, although I have much respect for him. I will continue to ensure that we get the best services for our armed forces as we move to warfighting readiness. I have answered the question about minutes, and it will be for Downing Street to publish that in due course.
-
Question
I welcome this Government’s record funding for our defence, and I also recognise that the US is one of our closest allies. In this House we often talk about energy security, but I sometimes think that we do not talk enough about the security of security. What more can this Government do to invest in UK tech firms so that we are less reliant on foreign firms?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should look at security, data security and the opportunities here. In the strategic defence review, we set out our direction of travel in defence, and investing in new technologies, including artificial intelligence, is key to securing our national security. I want to see the best-in-class products used by our armed forces, and I also want to see more British small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, being able to access this area. We have set up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, and we are looking in particular at how we can support small defence AI companies to onboard their software in a whole range of defence utilities. We will continue to do so as we look to spend more of our rising defence budget with UK SMEs.
-
Question
The Minister and the Secretary of State have said that Peter Mandelson was not involved in the decision on Palantir. However, the issue is not the decision itself but the run-up to it. We know that Peter Mandelson, or executives from Global Counsel, were flown into embassy parties, and we need to understand more about whether Peter Mandelson, in pushing for deliverables for the state visit, was pushing for deliverables with Global Counsel clients. Will the Minister confirm that Peter Mandelson was not involved in any way, at any stage, in the decisions on the contracts given not just to Palantir but to Anduril Industries?
Minister reply
I am afraid that looking for deliverables ahead of a state visit is pretty standard practice, and it is something that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government looked at just as much as we do. We will continue to have conversations with our ambassadors in all circumstances, as he would expect. The right hon. Gentleman raises questions that should be answered by the publication of the information. We as a Government have committed to publish the relevant information that the House asked for last week, and we stand by that.
-
Question
The Government’s ongoing relationship with Palantir is deeply concerning, given the company’s involvement in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Palantir’s AI technology has been used to destroy entire neighbourhoods, schools and hospitals. If we claim to want an ethical foreign policy and pride ourselves on being a rules-based nation, why are we still signing contracts with such a company?
Minister reply
I entirely appreciate my hon. Friend’s position. Palantir provides services to the United Kingdom that keep our troops safe and enhance our national security. We have a range of contracts with US firms in procuring not only services but platforms. All those contracts go through the necessary rigour and assessment before they are signed. Some are subject to competitive tender and some, for other reasons, are subject to direct award. We will continue to work with our US partners.
-
Question
The co-founder of Palantir, Peter Thiel, maintained a close financial and personal relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. There are profound ethical concerns about the web of connections between Thiel, Epstein and Mandelson. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is absolutely right: the MoD’s contract with US-based spy-tech giant Palantir absolutely stinks. Will the MOD now cancel that contract? Will we get a fast and independent inquiry into the Government’s contracts with Palantir, as it currently has several billion pounds-worth of further framework contracts with the UK Government? Will we find out whether Mandelson shared privileged information with Palantir? If it is true that Palantir is hosting a party in Mayfair tomorrow for MOD officials, as The Times has alleged, will the Minister get that stopped?
Minister reply
The hon. Lady’s position would be stronger if the Greens were not so soft on defence. We will continue to invest in our national security, and we will invest in the contracts that keep our troops and our country safe. That will involve investing not only in UK firms, but in international partners at the same time. I have been clear at the Dispatch Box that we will comply fully with the agreement made on the Humble Address last week, and we will publish information in the right way in due course. I hope that will be able to provide more of the answers that the hon. Lady is looking for.
-
Question
Does the Minister appreciate how appallingly bad it looks for the Prime Minister of this country and the then ambassador in Washington, the disgraced Peter Mandelson, to have met Alex Karp, the chief executive of Palantir, in February last year without any written record of the meeting being made? Is he at least able to say which officials—other than, of course, our then ambassador—were present at that meeting?
Minister reply
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the photographs that appeared on No. 10’s Twitter feed, to which I referred in response to the earlier question about the publication of information. He will also recall—perhaps from his time as a Defence Minister—that in 2021 the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, also met Alex Karp.
-
Question
Does the Minister really understand the depth of anger and feeling across the country when people read and hear about Palantir—the way in which it has wormed its way into Government contracts and the national health service, and its behaviour on behalf of the Israeli Defence Forces in the destruction of Gaza and other places using artificial intelligence technology? Do we really want to be involved with a company like that? Can we not just distance ourselves from Palantir altogether and have an ethical procurement policy across Government—not just in the Ministry of Defence, but in other Departments as well?
Minister reply
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing position on a number of the items he asks about. I have been clear to the House today that we will continue to work with our US friends—they are our closest defence and security partner. Where appropriate, we will look at working with US technology firms that can provide best-in-class products that deliver increased defence for our armed forces and our nation. We will continue to do that, as well as investing in UK firms.
-
Question
I am not qualified to make observations about the enduring value for money or effectiveness of Palantir, but I am concerned that Mandelson’s dynamics with every aspect of this Government have toxified the integrity of their processes. Unless the Minister can make absolutely clear what quiet, unspoken influences Mandelson had on this follow-on order with Palantir, people are bound to question the integrity of the process. To respond to the Minister’s earlier point, if we are to have a viable alternative and meaningful competition in future, he will need to do a little more to advance the case for alternatives, beyond just saying that he has an SME strategy.
Minister reply
The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is important that people can have confidence in the system, including the procurement system. As I have set out to the House, the decision to extend the contract with Palantir was originally signed in 2022 by the previous Government, of which I think he was a part at the time. That decision was made by the Secretary of State, and by the Secretary of State alone.
I do want to see more British AI companies working in defence—something we have been very clear about. Indeed, I think even the last Government set out an ambition to do more in that space. We have stepped up to make sure we can grow our own indigenous AI industry, with its software and services able to be onboarded into a more AI-friendly defence environment, because AI provides a decision advantage for our forces that is necessary to keep our country safe. However, I take very seriously the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and when we publish the information that we have committed to publish, that will hopefully answer some of his questions.
-
Question
Palantir has links to Peter Mandelson, Peter Thiel and Jeffrey Epstein. The Government are reluctant to scrutinise the deal properly. Why cannot the Minister tell us why there are no minutes of the February 2025 meeting? Does he feel any embarrassment about this?
Minister reply
The decision was made by the Secretary of State alone, and the extension of the contract delivers a benefit to the UK, securing £1.5 billion investment and supporting SMEs and armed forces.
-
Question
Can the Minister confirm whether Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister, or public official has shares in Palantir which would financially benefit from Government contracts?
Minister reply
The role of defence is to disrupt adversaries for national security. This includes capabilities that can disrupt, deter and defeat our adversaries if necessary.
-
Question
There was no formal tender process for the £1 million contract with Palantir by Leicestershire police in 2024. Will all information about this contract be released? Did Peter Mandelson play a role in this?
Minister reply
The Minister does not know details of Home Office policing contracts but suggests contacting colleagues in the Home Office for more information.
-
Question
Issues exist regarding relationships with political parties and companies such as Quadrature hedge fund, which invests in Palantir and donates to Labour. Will the Minister look into this influence on contract awarding processes?
Minister reply
The Government have already set out changes for transparency in political donations; will look into specific donation details if provided.
-
Question
How can the Government assure us that Palantir was awarded the contract due to its capabilities, not connections? Public confidence is low due to the Mandelson debacle.
Minister reply
The decision to extend the 2022 contract was made by the Secretary of State alone. We are procuring AI for defence to counter adversaries' use of it.