The accusation landed without warning. During a routine select committee session, Labour MP Samantha Niblett turned to the minister for digital government and data and stated plainly that Microsoft had ripped off the NHS. It was a rare moment of candour in a space usually defined by careful phrasing. It also reopened a long simmering argument about whether Britain’s public services have become too dependent on a handful of American technology firms.
The numbers are stark. The NHS signed a five year deal with Microsoft to supply productivity tools, reportedly worth more than seven hundred million pounds. Across the wider public sector, government spending on Microsoft software licences reached one point nine billion pounds in the last financial year. These figures sit at the centre of a digital state whose most essential infrastructures are almost entirely underwritten by overseas corporations.
Niblett, who previously worked in data and technology, offered little additional evidence for her claim. She did not need to. The committee chair reacted with a note of surprise, prompting Niblett to repeat that the allegation stood. Her broader critique was aimed not at a single contract but at the imbalance of power implied by such long term arrangements. In her view, Microsoft is able to offer attractive terms at the outset, secure vast public sector contracts and then gradually escalate costs once dependency has been established.
That argument is not new. Successive governments have tried to break the cycle, only to conclude that the alternatives are too limited, too immature or too risky for services that cannot afford downtime. The NHS, which relies on interoperability, stable productivity platforms and consistent cybersecurity guarantees, is particularly vulnerable to lock in. Once embedded, a suite of tools becomes woven into every department, every workflow and every basic communication. Replacing it is difficult and expensive.
Yet the scale of current spending is forcing a reconsideration. Parliamentarians from across the political spectrum are asking why so much of the public sector computing budget is flowing to the same handful of companies. The question is not about whether Microsoft products are competent. It is about whether the balance between national capability and foreign dependency has tipped too far.
For the NHS, the stakes are even higher. A service already under financial strain cannot afford contracts that ratchet upwards over time. Ministers argue that the deals provide value, noting the security, reliability and scale that come with a global provider. Critics counter that this creates a static market where British firms cannot compete and where leverage is permanently skewed.
Niblett’s intervention has forced the discussion into the open. It invites a broader shift in mindset, one that recognises the strategic importance of digital sovereignty while still taking advantage of proven global technologies. The challenge for government is to decide whether it is willing to fund and develop credible British alternatives or whether it will continue to rely on the same international players.
What is clear is that the issue can no longer be dismissed as technical procurement. It is a question of control, cost and the character of the modern state. Parliament has signalled that the conversation must now begin in earnest.
