Palantir chief on taking Sadiq Khan's office to court

[00:00:00]Tell us why Palantir now are taking the mayor and the mayor's office to court. Well, firstly, this is not a decision that we've taken lightly and it's one that we take frankly quite reluctantly. We have asked for clarifications from the mayor's office as to why this decision was taken. Why did they veto the contract?

[00:00:20]As you mentioned, there has been briefings from the mayor's office that the reason for this was values that Palantir's values were misaligned with those of London and we think that's a very concerning development for lots of reasons which I'm very happy to go into.

[00:00:34]But the key thing here is as as you heard directly from the commissioner, the impact of this will be up to 700 fewer officers on the front line policing in London.

[00:00:44]>> We do actually have that grab now. So why don't we slightly change the order of things, but let's listen to what Sadiq Khan told us 10 days ago.

[00:00:51]>> Now that's been blocked.

[00:00:54]We're going to be taking sort of between 5 and 700 officers out of front line services equal >> That will have an effect on the on the streets of London. That's why we're trying to do a sort of rapid tech procurement to to make a difference for London.

[00:01:07]>> Will it make London less safe? Is that what >> Well, we're going to be smaller at the end of the year. So it'll be it'll be less safe at the end of the year than it would otherwise have been.

[00:01:15]>> Can I just pick up on the reasons you say that the mayor has blocked this because you kind of allude to it being about the company's values, but a spokesperson for the mayor of London said the mayor fully supports them at using modern technologies to drive efficiencies and improve the performance of the police. However, as with all procurement, we must always ensure the correct processes are followed and that London's get Londoners get value for money. They're focusing it on suggesting that the procurement process wasn't fair.

[00:01:41]>> Yes, and that's where we've sought clarifications from them. So what is it about the procurement process that they feel was believe was not done correctly and that's where they have been so far I'm afraid uncooperative and opaque. And as you heard from the the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, he doesn't believe that his organization undertook that process incorrectly. So, that's why we've been left with no avenue but, I'm afraid, the courts.

[00:02:05]>> Um, the mayor's also said that your service doesn't offer value for money. What's your response to that?

[00:02:12]>> Well, again, I would I would I would go to the the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's comments where, very clearly, he has explained that he believes the only way he can get within the budget envelope that he's been set by the mayor this year is by making those efficiencies in the back office, which will allow him to deploy more staff to the front line. That's what we were going to help him do.

[00:02:32]>> Is it a sort of short-sighted view that a contract that is 50 million pounds per year can't yield a positive return on investment for the the Met Police?

[00:02:42]>> Well, I I think those are questions you'd have to address to the mayor. I think, as you're implying, it's absolutely false. I think AI is going to drive extraordinary efficiencies for all kinds of administrative work, particularly in the police. And this is also proven. We have been working with the Metropolitan Police for the last 6 months or so, specifically on their professional standards. So, you could think of that as the the team that do the line of duty work, like the television show, so investigating Metropolitan Police officers.

[00:03:10]>> This is a different area.

[00:03:11]>> Uh, this is this was a the pilot the pilot work that we have undertaken with the Met over the last 6 months was specifically on that kind of investigation. So, not crime more broadly in London, just that which is inside the Met. We do work, though, with a dozen other police forces around Britain on that broader crime, so domestic abuse, serious organized crime, and the like.

[00:03:32]>> Um, and is it your expectation now that there'll be no further Met and Palantir relationships going forward?

[00:03:38]>> That is my concern. We're still waiting to find out whether that professional standards work, so the investigating of Metropolitan Police officers can continue. We we've been expecting a decision on that for for a number of days now, and it it's still not forthcoming.

[00:03:52]>> Um, let's touch on the NHS as well, because uh there have been further questions, even though your your work with them goes back to to 2023. That's been running longer. There have been more recent questions over the procure procurement process then, as well.

[00:04:07]What's your response to those questions?

[00:04:09]>> Well, the NHS ran the most open and competitive process that it's actually possible to run under UK government procurement law to award the Federated data platform contract, which is the work we performed the NHS. That was a process that lasted almost 18 months.

[00:04:25]Every tech company you can probably name was a bidder. It was whittled down over four stages with 30 independent assessors, and we came out the winner on our merits.

[00:04:35]>> Um, in terms of the performance thus far, are you pleased with the performance in the NHS?

[00:04:40]>> Yes, I think it's it's extremely strong.

[00:04:42]As as you may have heard the minister explained to the health select committee last week, it's performing ahead of all of the targets. And it's also the only green-rated major infrastructure program in technology that the Department of Health has, which is the highest rating the government can give.

[00:04:58]>> Is it more focused, the positive numbers, in just a select number of trusts? Is that a fair point?

[00:05:04]>> So, the the rollout is ongoing. Uh so, we have, I think, 139 trusts are now live with the software. And then, depending on the product, not all of them are using each product within the suite that the Federated data platform offers. So, some are using it, some aren't. Some are using it very effectively. Some there's still work to do, but I think that's normal in a in a program of this scale.

[00:05:25]>> Um, what happens with all the data that you gather? I mean, this is a broader question for the AI industry as as a whole as as you feed off data, you improve your models, you improve your performance and and the software and AI that you can offer people.

[00:05:38]You benefit from the data you're gathering from the NHS?

[00:05:41]>> We don't, and I think that's a really important clarification to provide people with. We're not like certain other tech companies where what you're describing is the case. In our case, we don't have access to the data. The data remains entirely under the control and ownership of the NHS. They're simply using our software to process their own data, but Palantir does not have access to it.

[00:06:03]>> Um does the patient benefit from their data being used?

[00:06:09]>> I think very materially, yes. And as an example, the NHS has been able to conduct 110,000 operations using the software that would not otherwise have happened. So, that's 110,000 people up and down the country who've had their knee or hip replaced, which would not otherwise have happened.

[00:06:27]And just in terms of scale, that's the equivalent of roughly two entire hospital trusts worth of operations per year.

[00:06:35]>> Um clearly there's been quite a lot of pushback, particularly in fact from employees within the health service as well, uh of not wanting to partner with Palantir. I think a lot of it comes back to the work you do with the defense uh the defense department, particularly the US defense department.

[00:06:53]Can you understand why people who work in health don't particularly want to partner with a company that helps deliver death?

[00:07:05]>> Well, I would challenge that characterization that there's a lot of pushback. I think there is uh a minority who are noisy, but in an organization of that employs 1.5 million people as the NHS does, I think you would you would be very surprised not to discover the full range of views about every conceivable topic. But, I think actually if you were to go and ask the tens of thousands of NHS workers who are using our software every day whether it makes a difference, they would say a resounding yes. It's helping them treat more patients faster and more efficiently than they would otherwise. And I think that's their primary objective.

[00:07:41]>> Okay, but you must acknowledge there's a lot of pushback across the country because of the work you also do in defense about your company being used in in other areas.

[00:07:52]Can you understand those concerns? I mean it's different. I get that you are a tech company, an AI company trying to deliver efficiencies in multiple areas, but it is quite rare to see an industry like health partnering with a firm that is so big in defense.

[00:08:10]Can you understand the pushback there?

[00:08:12]>> I Well, so again, I think most people most people are concerned with a health care system that works. That's what they want. They want their operations delivered on time and efficiently. And the fact that we may work also in defense is not the primary issue.

[00:08:27]>> But I think it is for a lot of people.

[00:08:28]Like you can say it might be the wrong issue and that you're maybe delivering on your remit, which is to drive efficiencies and deliver value for money, but but it is a big issue for a lot of people.

[00:08:40]>> You perhaps. I'm That's not been my my experience.

[00:08:45]I I found that for most people they want our NHS to work. They want our armed forces to be as effective as they possibly can. The fact that we work with both is not doesn't preclude working with the other. That there isn't a contradiction there. We're helping public services, whatever form they may be, be the best version they can be of themselves.

[00:09:04]>> Can you understand a different pushback on US tech dominance? I mean it's really interesting.

[00:09:09]Just last week that there's been a clampdown by the US government on Anthropic's technology being used by by foreign countries cuz it's so powerful.

[00:09:19]Could that not happen in the years ahead? The US government saying to Palantir, we also don't want you to be using your technologies in foreign countries, even if they're friends, and that we have a problem here by building up a reliance on your services.

[00:09:32]>> I know I think that is that is more of an issue. And I think the experience that we've all had with Anthropic over the past week and the withdrawal of Fable is a should be a a canary in the coal mine for this that the the dependence on technology which is going to be essential to our public services, essential frankly to our economies and our way of life is going to become already is arguably a critical supply chain risk. And the government should be thinking very hard about how to secure that sovereign capability. I don't believe that means that companies like Palantir need to be domestic champions.

[00:10:06]You don't need to rebuild British versions, but you do need safeguards and you need assurances. And the the government has a long history of managing those kinds of dependencies. I I I guess the nuclear industry would be a a good example.

[00:10:19]>> And and do you think that it's plausible in the foreseeable future that the UK could build uh its own domestic champions?

[00:10:28]>> So I think in some areas of the tech stack uh the a the emerging AI tech stack definitely. You the UK is is really the only country I think outside of the United States and China that has the quality and quantity of engineering talent that we we required to do that.

[00:10:44]Now, I don't think that means that the UK should try and build every single layer of the stack in an indigenous champion way. So you know, its own operating system, its own large language models, its own chip manufacturers. But there are definitely definitely talented individuals in this country who could build world-leading companies in those areas.

[00:11:03]>> And just to be clear, if tomorrow the president of the United States said to Palantir, "Stop using your technologies in foreign countries." You would adhere to that.

[00:11:11]>> No. That that's that couldn't be done.

[00:11:13]That would be a breach of contracts. It would be a breach of the law. It would it would it's not possible for Donald Trump to do that.

[00:11:22]>> But how is it possible for him to do it with Anthropic but not with Palantir?

[00:11:25]>> Because that model had only just been released.

[00:11:28]So it's a it's it's a new technology.

[00:11:30]Palantir is currently contracted to the NHS. The NHS controls its instance of Palantir's software. Palantir can't withdraw that from the NHS. It can't withdraw that from the Ministry of Defense. They control and own their versions of Palantir's software.

[00:11:44]>> Well, it'd be interesting to see how things would react if if Donald Trump did try that. Just finally, um Andy Burnham has has been a critic of Palantir.

[00:11:52]Um as as obviously have some other members of of uh well, he's now a member of the House of Commons. Um as a member of the House of Commons, um do you worry you're going to have to go through these processes again? Is things going to get harder for you going forward?

[00:12:04]>> No, I think I think that the Labour Party and whoever uh is Prime Minister remains Prime Minister is going to be wholly focused on delivering good public services for people up and down the country. And we're going to be an essential part of helping them do that.