London's deputy mayor refused to approve a £50 million Palantir contract because the Met failed to follow proper procurement processes. Now Commissioner Mark Rowley says the savings he expected from automating intelligence and data-processing work are at risk, putting roughly 700 jobs on the line. The standoff raises familiar questions about handing sensitive policing data to a US firm with deep ties to intelligence agencies.
The Metropolitan Police Service has warned it may cut around 700 additional frontline posts after London's deputy mayor blocked a software contract worth up to £50 million from going to the US data analytics firm Palantir. The decision, and the public threat that followed, exposes a tension that privacy advocates have flagged for years: what happens when a police force builds its budget plans around handing sensitive personal data to a single external contractor.
What happened
On May 20, Kaya Comer-Schwartz, London's deputy mayor for policing and crime, refused to approve the Met's plan to award its Unified Operational Analytics (UOA) contract to Palantir. The contract, valued at up to £50 million over two years, would have given the company a central role in processing police intelligence, analyzing mobile devices, and handling data across the force.
The refusal was not a rejection of the technology itself. According to a spokesperson for the Mayor of London, the problem was procedural. The Met "did not present its procurement strategy for approval, as required, and the process followed by the Met did not adequately demonstrate value for money for Londoners for a proposed contract at this value." In plain terms, the force tried to route a very large public contract to a chosen supplier without showing the working that public procurement rules demand.
Writing in his report to the London Policing Board on June 11, Commissioner Mark Rowley framed the blocked deal as a budgetary crisis. The Met needs to cut its full-time equivalent headcount by 1,150 this financial year to balance its budget. The UOA was supposed to absorb around 500 of those reductions by automating backroom work, including intelligence reports, mobile device analysis, and data processing. Rowley said a further 200 posts tied to serious and organized crime investigations were also expected to disappear thanks to the software. "The delivery of these circa 500 FTE reductions are now at risk," he wrote, warning that without new funding the force must now make in-year cuts to services "rather than using technology to automate administrative and research-heavy areas."
The legal and regulatory basis
The deputy mayor's authority here flows from public procurement rules that govern how taxpayer money is spent. Large public contracts in the UK must demonstrate fair competition and value for money, and a force cannot simply name a preferred supplier and proceed. The Mayor's office stressed that "as with all procurement, we must always ensure the correct processes are followed."
There is a second legal layer that sits underneath the procurement question, and it is the one that matters most for ordinary Londoners. The UOA contract would have placed Palantir at the center of how the Met processes personal data about suspects, witnesses, victims, and members of the public. Under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, police forces processing personal data must satisfy strict conditions, particularly when that data is used for law enforcement purposes under Part 3 of the Act. Any large-scale system that ingests intelligence reports and mobile device extractions triggers obligations around data protection impact assessments, data minimization, and controls on who can access what.
When a private contractor processes policing data on this scale, the force remains the data controller and carries legal responsibility, but the practical control over how data is structured, queried, and linked shifts toward the vendor. That is exactly the arrangement that data rights groups have scrutinized in Palantir's other UK public sector work, including its contracts with the NHS. The company already operates inside the Met's professional standards investigations into its own officers, and it recently won a £9 million contract to run UK firearms licensing, a system that holds records on guns, explosives, and poisons.
Impact on users and the public
For Londoners, the dispute cuts two ways, and both deserve attention.
On one side, the Met argues that automation frees officers from desk work and returns them to frontline policing. If the savings vanish, the force says the alternative is direct cuts to services. That is a real consequence, and Rowley is not wrong that a hole in the budget has to be filled somehow.
On the other side, privacy advocates would point out that the speed and scale of the proposed automation is precisely what warrants careful scrutiny. A system designed to link intelligence reports, mobile phone data, and crime records into a single analytical platform concentrates enormous amounts of sensitive personal information in one place. The more powerful the linking, the greater the risk of function creep, where data gathered for one purpose is reused for another, and the harder it becomes for an individual to know how information about them is being used or to exercise their rights of access and correction. Comer-Schwartz's intervention, whatever its budgetary fallout, forces those questions into the open before a contract is signed rather than after.
The framing of the Commissioner's report is itself worth examining. Presenting a blocked contract as a direct threat to frontline jobs puts public pressure on the oversight body that did its job by demanding proper process. Accountability mechanisms exist precisely so that £50 million decisions about sensitive data are not waved through on a preferred-supplier basis.
What changes now
The Met says it "may be able to take the edges off these reductions" if it can find an alternative route to UOA functionality quickly, but any fresh procurement would take months. In the meantime, the force is planning deeper frontline cuts and pressing for national funding, with the Mayor's office blaming the shortfall on cuts by the previous government and chronic underfunding of London's capital-city policing duties.
The standoff lands at the same moment the Home Office is expanding AI across policing in England and Wales. Large-scale pilots in up to ten forces this financial year aim to help officers process digital evidence, coordinated centrally by a new body called PoliceAI. That centralization could reshape the debate. If common standards, oversight, and data protection safeguards are built into a national approach, individual forces may have less room to strike opaque bilateral deals with single vendors. Whether PoliceAI becomes a genuine check or simply a faster procurement pipeline will determine how much the public can trust where their data ends up.
For now, the lesson is straightforward. A police force built its budget on the assumption that a US data firm would run a critical part of its operations, and an oversight body refused to rubber-stamp the deal until proper process and value for money were shown. The resulting threat to jobs is real, but so is the principle at stake. Public bodies handling the personal data of millions should have to justify how they spend the money and how they protect the data, before the contract is signed.
Comments
Please log in or register to join the discussion