Martin Wrigley
MP for Newton Abbot · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Q11. US big tech has exploited us for far too long, so I am delighted that the Met police followed my advice and pushed Apple and Google to implement the stolen handset blacklist, curbing resales and cutting mobile theft by almost half.”
“It sounds like the Secretary of State is hearing a fairly unanimous view from members of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which is good. Today’s ban is a welcome start, but it is only a start and is not sufficient.”
“Palantir appears to have a habit of avoiding competitive tender and scrutiny by using free trials and locking up the contract specifications after getting a foot in the door. I congratulate the London Mayor on stopping the recent potential contract offered by the Met police without a competitive tender process.”
“I was trying not to interrupt his flow— [Interruption.] Until I did. Throughout the files there are mentions of Palantir and Peter Mandelson, including a memo in which he tries to introduce Peter Thiel to No. 10 staff in June last year.”
“I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. We heard earlier how Kevin Dixon of Devon gives us excellent reports of what is happening with Healthwatch. The modern NHS must run on data, but critically, on data that carries the consent of patients.”
“The Government admit that but claim it is partial and fragmented. They also claim that the data will remain in the systems where it currently exists.”
The complete record
Every one of 380 lines we hold for Martin Wrigley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Q11. US big tech has exploited us for far too long, so I am delighted that the Met police followed my advice and pushed Apple and Google to implement the stolen handset blacklist, curbing resales and cutting mobile theft by almost half. Likewise, does the Prime Minister agree that it is time to stand up to social media companies and reclassify them from platforms to publishers, holding them responsible for the harmful and addictive content that they recommend, promote and profit from?”
“It sounds like the Secretary of State is hearing a fairly unanimous view from members of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which is good. Today’s ban is a welcome start, but it is only a start and is not sufficient. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the Committee that, in addition to parents and children taking action, the responsibility must be on the companies, as well as enforcement, because they are providing the product? Recommendation engines make them publishers of dangerous and addictive content; they are not passive platforms, as they would put forward, and they are doing it for financial gain.”
“Will the Minister pause the signing of that contract, which is due this Thursday, so that appropriate scrutiny can take place to ensure that a competitive tendering process has been followed transparently?”
“Palantir appears to have a habit of avoiding competitive tender and scrutiny by using free trials and locking up the contract specifications after getting a foot in the door. I congratulate the London Mayor on stopping the recent potential contract offered by the Met police without a competitive tender process. However, last week, the estimated £17 million contract for the National Firearms Licensing Management System was won by a bid from Palantir of just £7.5 million, just 44% of the expected price. That suggests either a massive error in estimation, or Palantir buying the job, giving it unfettered access to whisper in the ear of all 43 police forces.”
“I was trying not to interrupt his flow— [Interruption.] Until I did. Throughout the files there are mentions of Palantir and Peter Mandelson, including a memo in which he tries to introduce Peter Thiel to No. 10 staff in June last year. Even though Mr Louis Mosley has written to me today suggesting that Peter Mandelson was not intervening regarding Palantir business with the Government, does the Minister agree that he still was doing so?”
“I will focus on two things: the changes in data privacy and access to support a centralised single patient record, and the abolition of Healthwatch. Healthwatch is not the same as the other regulators and it should not be amalgamated. Regulators can be amalgamated only if they have a single purpose and a single viewpoint. Healthwatch today is not a regulator but a patient advocate and there are no others in the system. Without Healthwatch, the remainder of the checks and balances come from the medical profession and the health establishment—and we have seen cases where that goes wrong. Healthwatch guards against that. It is a vital body to speak up for the patient, rather than the NHS itself.”
“Systems built over years with focus on patient treatment and defined use cases could be rolled out today with no change required in law and privacy by design built in from day one. Greater Manchester and others have the single patient record capability and the hard-won foundation of trust. I will be tabling amendments to remove the relaxation of data privacy from the Bill. The measures are unnecessary if NHS England does not follow the Palantir advice and instead follows what has been proven to work in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Shropshire and many other places. Perhaps it is an example of something that has worked in Manchester that might work everywhere.”
“The Government admit that but claim it is partial and fragmented. They also claim that the data will remain in the systems where it currently exists. However, with the Bill, the Government are asking to remove all protection of patient data—look at proposed new sections 250E(1) and (3) to the National Health Service Act 2006 as set out in clause 47(2) of the Bill. We are asked to trust somewhere below primary legislation that it will all be okay—we should trust the regulation. It is a big-tech approach to deliver an overreaching centralised system, rather than a distributed interoperable solution. NHS England has ignored and discounted UK sovereign systems that can and do provide what is required along with patient trust.”
“I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. We heard earlier how Kevin Dixon of Devon gives us excellent reports of what is happening with Healthwatch. The modern NHS must run on data, but critically, on data that carries the consent of patients. A single patient record is undeniably critical to see the data of patients all in one place, but it must be built from a patient’s point of view, not from a centralised data-analysis point of view, and with privacy by design from day one. We obviously need GPs to see hospital data and vice versa, and ambulances to see everything that they need to help, but we do not need the new regulation to do that. The single patient record already exists in a federated model; in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Shropshire and more, trusts already run interoperable access for care services, GPs and hospitals.”
“All the features that the hon. Member is asking for are available to people within the Greater Manchester area. Exactly those things are there and work today, even down to the remote monitoring he mentions.”
“When incentives drift, when control is lost, when systems become extractive, the social contract begins to fail. We have talent in this country, and we have capability. The question is whether we choose to use it. In the end, I want to see systems that work and a social contract that people can trust. The King’s Speech does not sufficiently address sovereign capability, and it lacks ambition. The Government need to go further and faster for us to truly be defence ready.”
“This is where the Government have a role—not to replace markets but to make them work properly again. In sector after sector we see systems that continue to function but no longer serve the people they were designed for. That applies equally to defence and security. Resilience is about not just spending levels but design. It is about ensuring that we do not build national capability on systems that can fail at a single point—whether that is a supply chain, a digital platform or a dependency on external actors. Sovereign capability is not an abstract concept. It is the practical ability to continue operating when conditions are difficult. It is the ability to serve our country and our constituents through thick and thin, whatever the weather. What links all of this is simple.”
“From a national perspective, it raises the question: what happens if that capability is withdrawn, restricted or simply becomes too expensive to change? We have British firms, British engineers, and a strong, open-source capability that could deliver these systems, so the issue is not capability but choice. We cannot make the same mistake with the new single patient record in the forthcoming health Bill, announced in the King’s Speech. That should be transformational, allowing access to patients’ details wherever they originate, and it must be a sovereign capability. The same principle applies to business more broadly. Markets should reward value creation, but too often now the incentives cause value to be extracted instead, whether through monopoly positions, weak regulation or misaligned incentives.”
“I want to use one example: the Palantir contract with the NHS. That example demonstrates, in one place, how we have got it all wrong. We have a major national system that handles highly sensitive personal data where the procurement model is subscription-based, not delivery-based, and where the intellectual property is wrapped up in “know-how”, as much of what is built does not sit clearly with the public. If we become dependent on a single supplier over time, that is not just a procurement question but a question of control, resilience and long-term cost. From a systems perspective, it creates lock-in. From an economic perspective, it allows value to flow out, rather than being built here.”
“We are wasting it on our own bureaucracies, while too often the gains are captured elsewhere. We need to move back to something much more fundamental: an economy and a set of systems that we build, understand and control. That means having real capability on sovereign technology, UK business and intellectual property, and a resilient defence and security. But this is not abstract. It is directly connected to whether this country is affordable, liveable and works for the people in it. Ultimately, this is about the social contract. My constituents need to know that the systems that they rely on—public services, housing, business, using buses and trains—have purpose to the people and are not just bottom lines to fill. They need to know that they are designed in their interest and will continue to work for them over time.”
“We have had a very interesting debate, with interesting speeches from many Members. I, too, am fully behind the rapid increase in funds for defence and I wish to add my thanks to our serving personnel. Defence readiness requires a whole-society response and sovereign capability. Across a wide range of issues in our technologies, defence, infrastructure, housing and regulation, the same pattern keeps appearing. Services and systems that are set up to serve the public gradually drift away from having purpose to simply extracting rents and our time, all wrapped up in a bureaucratic mess. The overriding demand for quarterly profits and denial of early intervention, instead rationing resources at the point of maximum need, has driven perverse outcomes in strategic change. We are renting our entire economy to ourselves.”
“I thank the hon. Member for securing this valuable debate. I have a good number of park home sites in my constituency. Not only do they suffer the 10% commission, poor maintenance levels and high service charges, but they have atrocious service on the utilities that they have to buy through the park home owner. Some years ago, one site collectively was charged £100,000 for a water leak, which was £1,000 a home. I got that refunded from South West Water. The same site recently had blocked drains over a weekend, so people could not flush their toilets, and their Calor gas system was deemed unfit for use, so they had no heating. Is that an acceptable way to run a site? Does the hon. Member agree that residents need better enforcement and support, and not just from the site owner?”
“Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister about the security vetting condition that required Peter Mandelson to be accompanied when visiting previous clients. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to find out whether the lack of accompaniment when visiting Palantir in Washington with the Prime Minister was a one-off or simply Mandelson continuing business as usual?”
“I understand that Peter Mandelson’s vetting clearance was conditional on his being accompanied to meetings with former clients, such as Palantir. Will the Prime Minister clarify why there is no record of his and Peter Mandelson’s meeting with Palantir in Washington, and will he tell the House what it was all about?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for her report from our Select Committee, which I particularly enjoy working on. I find it very useful to bring people such as the social media companies before the Committee. We had a very—shall I say—vibrant meeting with them recently. Does the hon. Member agree that they are not doing enough in this space, and that we need to get them to do an awful lot more and to take responsibility?”
“Although I understand the appeal of a slick salesman who persuades that they can solve all the problems in the NHS, build that one system to bind them all, and use AI like magic to provide all the answers, sadly, it is not reality. Is Palantir’s FDP a product that the NHS can own and trust, or have we bought the emperor’s new clothes that, after huge investment, leave us with nothing? I will outline why this solution is wrong in three significant points: the contract is wrong, the solution is wrong and the supplier is wrong and simply not delivering on its promises.”
“The Government’s contracts tracker describes a data platform owned and controlled by the NHS “to unlock the power of NHS data to understand patterns, solve problems, plan services for local populations and ultimately transform the health and care of the people they serve.” Sadly, the FDP developed by Palantir is far from that description. The NHS is an inherently distributed organisation, with trusts in charge of their own IT. Although NHS England has been working on a unified data dictionary and standards, imposing a single central IT solution has yet to work. Indeed, a single central system can become a single point of failure. Such a critical element of national infrastructure must be under full control, fully owned and trusted.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the NHS Federated Data Platform. We are at a key time for the NHS as it changes from analogue to digital, and data is key to achieving better health results for all our constituents, as well as to the future of the NHS. AI analysis of scans can spot patterns of disease before the human eye, and modern communications can be much more effective than sending letters, which often arrive late. We are, however, at a junction where we can correct a series of mistakes made in the direction of travel in this process. I ask the Government to mind the gap between expectation and reality. We can and need to change. In November 2023, a contract for services approaching £500 million was signed for the federated data platform.”
“When in front of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the only benefit offered by the supplier and by NHS England was an improvement in managing staff rotas to deliver a higher operation throughput, which these days can be done by a relatively simple app. That is beneficial, but it perhaps relates more to the Government’s improvements in staffing and pay than to any magic from Palantir. It claims to have achieved waiting list reductions by removing people who do not respond to messages, but there is no external scrutiny or validation of results. This is a dreadful contract, and it is not in the national interest.”
“It uses external AI platforms from OpenAI and Anthropic and brings questionable value itself. Prior to it buying an opportunity to provide its system to help manage the data from the covid vaccine programme, the supplier had no expertise in health. The three-year contract asks for 13 core capabilities to be delivered. According to the National Audit Office and the supplier, after nearly three years, it has partially delivered on three or four of those capabilities. Hon. Members may have received letters from the supplier, which has also taken to sponsoring newsletters that we see every day.”
“The current contract delivers a subscription service that leaves no deliverables after the subscription—no software, no improvements and no intellectual property after spending more than £330 million. All the specially written software and intellectual property rights belong to the supplier, says the contract. All the rights to any know-how are explicitly retained by the supplier and not passed across on termination of the contract. The contract delivers no software—not one line—just a subscribed service; a permanent lock-in; a single point of failure. Why are we building a leased service wrapped in glossy marketing promises, rather than a product that the NHS can own and trust? We are paying the supplier to hire Accenture, PwC, NHS experts and consultants to create a solution that we do not own—the supplier does.”
“I agree with the hon. Lady entirely. The secret meeting in 2019 between Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings and Peter Thiel—the founder and chair of Palantir—that started this whole thing, for which there are no minutes, must be clarified as well. I ask the Minister to consider using the contract renewal point to stop the chaotic expansion of the Palantir platform monopoly, to work to a staged exit with a retender for British companies to build a replacement for Palantir, and to deliver a better, long-term solution providing British sovereign capabilities in line with principles outlined by the Science and Research Minister and the Prime Minister.”
“I think my hon. Friend has been reading my speech in advance. I absolutely agree with him. I see that the outgoing NHS England chief data and analytics officer, Ming Tang, has publicly joined Palantir’s fightback, saying that the system is delivering—but having introduced Palantir and lobbied to deploy it, she would say that, wouldn’t she? Given Palantir’s habit of lobbying civil servants and the revolving door from Government, I wait to see where she will end up. I ask the Minister to review the contract, particularly in the light of the Government’s policies on investing in UK tech, value for money, technical lock-in, key performance indicators and strategic supplier status, which suppliers should have. I ask the Minister to reject extending the existing contract, which locks in the NHS forever and delivers nothing tangible.”
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, as do the Prime Minister and the Science and Research Minister. Turning to the solution, the solution is wrong. There have been many attempts to unify the NHS by using a single IT system; each one has failed. In reality, we must think of the NHS as thousands of independent organisations. NHS England has been guiding organisations towards a combined data dictionary for more than 10 years, combining definitions of what data means, how it is recorded and the way it is used. After three years, about half of the 200-odd NHS trusts across 42 integrated care boards are quoted as live on the FDP, and only a quarter of them report benefits from using it.”
“It can also be built by a UK tech consortium in parallel with phasing out Palantir, which would build UK sovereign solutions, tech skills and competencies. Meanwhile, NHS England’s October 2025 medium-term planning framework mandates all NHS providers of acute, community and mental health services to sign up to the FDP, and it demands that any existing local data analysis systems are removed. That results in further lock-in.”
“It has just gone live in Torbay trust, which serves most of my Newton Abbot constituency. In an organisation as diverse as the NHS, with such distributed responsibility, we can either impose one massive system to rule them all or build interoperability. Interoperability would allow GPs to see hospital records and vice versa. Palantir is not doing that. Interoperability is how massive systems, such as the internet or mobile phone networks, work. They do not rely on one single system or supplier. In that way, a modular system, a bit like Lego, can be constructed that, overall, is immune to changes elsewhere in the wider environment, providing only the specific data required to deliver improvements in services. That form of system builds long-term capability and delivers without requiring a locked-in, expensive subscription.”
“I do agree. Palantir will not enable GPs, paramedics or anybody else to see hospital data. They will have to go through Palantir to see that data, and they will not be able to access patient records from the hospital to the GP or vice versa. Like any data warehouse, Palantir requires connecting software that reaches into each of the NHS’s internal systems and gathers data. That data gathering is being done NHS trust by NHS trust, as there are differences inside each one. That is embedding the use of Palantir-owned code inside every NHS trust by creating custom connecting software to connect and translate data. In Devon, the local ICB has celebrated as a major success the adoption of the same electronic patient record across Devon’s four main hospitals.”
“The British Medical Association says that “an FDP has the potential to transform how care is delivered, but only if it is done right—via a UK-owned FDP that has the full confidence and support of the profession and patients.” I ask the Minister to take action now to stop the expansion of the Palantir solution, to review the dreadful subscription contract with Palantir, and to rebuild the FDP project to deliver a sound, sovereign system to make our NHS thrive in the world of data-driven health.”
“After secret meetings and intensive lobbying in 2020, Palantir won a £27 million border control contract—without competitive tender, just like the Ministry of Defence contracts. The border system was subsequently terminated as it had no users and no value. We need to replace Palantir, the chaotic, all-seeing, single-point-of-failure, data-hungry AI solution. We need a well-architectured, security-by-design, resilient and nationally significant bedrock FDP in the NHS for years to come that must be powered by UK technology. That will build UK skills and business, pay dividends for years to come and build trust from the UK public.”
“Gaining the public’s trust for research that involves AI will be hard enough anyway, without a company like Palantir controlling it all. Palantir and its NHS England advocates claim big benefits for the NHS. The BMJ this week published analysis of the initial Palantir trial at Chelsea and Westminster hospital that shows the benefits to be exaggerated and untrue. The National Audit Office has yet to assess the value of the deliveries to date and cannot confirm the numbers in Palantir’s claims. Even if we accept that Palantir has delivered some benefits, they are hardly worth £330 million or the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s estimated whole-life cost of over £1 billion. In addition, Palantir’s history with the Government is not good.”
“Palantir’s stated aim is to have domination over most Government Departments across the US and allies, including healthcare Departments. Louis Mosley of Palantir UK recommended that the UK Government develop a “common operating system”, combining healthcare and central Government data. That is just mad. Palantir is a company that builds lock-in into its architecture as a clear business tactic. Palantir’s Foundry system was installed for £1 to manage covid vaccination programmes, after high-pressure lobbying and persuasion. It bought the advantage for future contracts by providing the system for free. The company had no healthcare experience prior to the pandemic, and demonstrates a lack of data security by design. However, the main issue is trust. The future of the NHS depends on intelligent use of data with patients’ trust.”
“I ask the Minister to use the change from NHS England to allow a change of direction towards a distributed, interoperable UK sovereign solution. Will the Minister cancel the expansion of the FDP to community and mental health service providers? Palantir is the wrong supplier. Its name comes from a magical seeing stone in “The Lord of the Rings”. It is how the evil lord Sauron corrupted the good wizard Saruman—I think we should have known at the beginning. Funded initially by the CIA as a defence contractor, Palantir’s vision is to become the default operating system for data-driven decisions in high-stakes institutions. Palantir’s chair, Peter Thiel, wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” He has warned about the coming of the Antichrist in the form of an oppressive world government.”
“An NHS data analyst said: “Not only could similar functionality have been delivered at a fraction of the cost, but the existing tools are already better integrated, more intuitive, and more conducive to collaboration”. In early 2025, Greater Manchester ICB reported that the FDP “does not currently have any system-level products that offer the same or better functionality, compared to the custom-built system already in use for NHS GM”. An NHS developer concerned about Palantir wrote to me to say: “There are any number of reassuringly boring companies that could deliver this contract, many of them based in the UK, and then we could just get on with the exciting work of using technology to improve care for our patients”— quite right too. We must halt this path of chaos before the costs build any higher.”
“If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the contract, he will see that it is subscription only: deliveries under supplier software—none; deliveries under third-party software—none. Any programming written under the contract is owned by Palantir. The contract has to be adapted for any next phase so that Palantir can be moved out. Palantir is not only the wrong technical solution; NHS users report that it is awful to use. An open letter to NHS England said: “we already have similar tools in use that presently exceed the capability and application of what the FDP is currently trying to develop or roll out”. An NHS worker said: “We’re being forced to use a convoluted system that makes even the simplest tasks feel like pulling teeth. It’s demoralising, and honestly, it’s a waste of everyone’s time and public money”.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments. However, I do not think he has been accurately informed about the status of the contract. I have the unredacted contract with me, which says nothing about software delivery. The whole thing is based on subscription, and the intellectual property of all specially written software, which is defined to include the data collection software, belongs to Palantir. None of this belongs to NHS. That is in this contract—I can show it to the Minister, if he likes. I thank him for his agreement to work towards a better future for our constituents, and we all agree that what we need is a trustable route forward in working with data that will make the NHS a real force in the 21st century. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the NHS Federated Data Platform.”
“In the light of the previous intervention, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the case just mentioned is not unique. Many such cases are happening in my constituency. People are not getting into work, and firms have gone out of business because work coaches are not being paid. Will the Minister stress upon on the Minister for Social Security and Disability the need to get this sorted?”
“That designation would enshrine protections in law, meaning that central and local government would have a legal duty not to cut these services, and to maintain adequate funding to keep them open, as they are critical to the national health.”
“We know that swimming has enormous benefits for our health and wellbeing, and that those who get into swimming are more likely to remain active than those who participate in other forms of exercise. Public baths and lidos are vital community assets and public places for relaxation and mental wellbeing. However, some communities simply do not have access to them. Among people with long-term health conditions or disabilities, participation in swimming is much higher than in other sports. Investing in public baths and lidos is an investment in the nation’s health. The Liberal Democrats have called for swimming pools and leisure centres to be designated as critical health infrastructure to protect them from closure; if things are not statutory in councils’ budgets, they can and will be cut in these times of hard choices.”
“It is also unusual in that it opened in 1976, but it has been an important part of Teignmouth’s history ever since. As a vital community asset, it is used by around 10,000 people every year. Swimming at the lido is one of the most accessible activities to support an active and healthy lifestyle. Swimming pools such as the Teignmouth lido play a vital role in the community for those of all ages, backgrounds, ethnicities and financial circumstances. Devon has one of the highest proportions of people who swim regularly; residents are twice as likely as those in the rest of England to swim regularly in an outdoor pool. The lido offers residents of Teignmouth and the surrounding areas the ability to swim. I welcome the calls for Government support for lidos across the country, which would help save Teignmouth lido for future generations.”
“National insurance increases and the volatile cost of living have not helped either. These vital public health resources are run by cash-strapped councils and small independent charities operating on ever-tighter margins, often within the constraints of heritage facilities and outdated equipment. I apologise; at the beginning of my speech, I should have reminded Members of my registered interest as a member of Teignbridge district council. In Teignbridge we have six pools: Chudleigh, Bovey Tracey, Kingsteignton, Ashburton, Moretonhampstead, and Teignmouth lido. Of those, Teignmouth is the only one by the sea, and the only one that is still council-run, but hopefully it is under transition to a community group—a familiar story that we have heard across the Chamber.”
“We saw dozens of lidos reopened in the 2000s and 2010s after vigorous community campaigns. Many have been transferred to community-led charities, as we have heard from across the Chamber today, where innovative and responsive models maximise the positive impacts. Others have been revived and sustained by councils that saw the benefits to public health, community cohesion and the local economy. Future Lidos, which connects, represents and advocates for lidos across the UK and Ireland, lists 125 operating lidos and 40 projects either developing new pools or working to revive these precious heritage assets. The lido sector is flourishing, collaborative, imaginative and resilient, yet these pools are being sustained against considerable odds. Alongside indoor pools, lidos have been hit hard by energy crises and costs.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on obtaining this debate and on the delightful picture he painted of the Peterborough lido. It is concerning to hear from the Members who have spoken so far about the precious yet precarious position that lidos are in. At their peak, there were over 300 active public outdoor pools in the UK, but during the 1960s and 70s, policy and funding for lidos shifted away. Many were closed, filled in, or turned into car parks, supermarkets or garden centres. This continued in the 1980s and 90s, when the national stock of outdoor pools shrank by almost two thirds. But even as this was happening, communities were starting to fight back. The 21st century has seen a national lido revolution gaining ever-growing momentum.”
“Q5. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced £2 billion of funding for UK sovereign artificial intelligence and quantum capabilities. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee was told that Government procurement will adapt to encourage UK companies to develop sovereign AI systems for Government use. In the light of those positive events, will the Prime Minister ensure that key digital systems in health, defence and policing are made sovereign and retendered to UK companies, not to politically motivated US companies such as Palantir?”
“In my investigations into Palantir, it has been brought to my attention that 20 years ago Peter Mandelson was lobbying the Government very hard to take on board a strategic supplier from the United States that was not an obvious choice at the time. That sort of decision is something that a financier like Epstein would have taken advantage of and made money from. We see the same things with influence and persuasion from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Will the Government commit to following the money and the money trail to ensure that we are not continuing to pay into Epstein’s estate through the deals that we are doing with large American contractors such as Palantir?”
“I thank the hon. Lady and Chair of my Select Committee for giving way. Does she agree that a definition of sovereign tech is something that a foreign power could not switch off, so that the systems on which we rely could not be pulled out from under our feet, much as the Microsoft ones were for the International Criminal Court?”