Minister demands overhaul of UK's leading AI institute
Peter Kyle said it was clear further action was needed to ensure the government-backed Alan Turing Institute met its full potential.
In a letter to ATI's chair, seen by the Guardian, Kyle said the institute should be changed to prioritise defence, national security and 'sovereign capabilities' – a reference to nation states being able to control their own AI technology.
The call for new priorities implies a downgrading of ATI's focus on health and the environment, which are two of three core subjects for the institute, alongside defence and security, under its 'Turing 2.0' strategy.
'Moving forward, defence and national security projects should form a core of ATI's activities, and relationships with the UK's security, defence, and intelligence communities should be strengthened accordingly,' Kyle wrote.
Making clear that the Turing 2.0 strategy did not meet government requirements, Kyle indicated that he expected leadership changes at ATI.
'To realise this vision, it is imperative that the ATI's leadership reflects the institute's reformed focus,' he wrote. 'While we acknowledge the success of the current leadership in delivering reform at the institute during a difficult period, careful consideration should be given to the importance of an executive team who possesses a relevant background and sector knowledge to lead this transition.'
ATI is chaired by Doug Gurr, the former head of Amazon's UK operations and interim chair of the UK's competition watchdog.
The institute is going through a restructuring under the chief executive, Jean Innes,which one in five staff have said puts ATI's credibility in 'serious jeopardy'. At the end of last year, ATI employed 440 staff, but it has since launched a redundancy process.
Although the institute is nominally independent, it recently secured £100m from the government in a five-year funding deal. The letter said ATI's 'longer-term funding arrangement' could be reviewed next year. The government would maintain its current level of research and development from national security and defence for the next three years, Kyle wrote, and would increase the number of defence and national security staff embedded in the institute.
Dame Wendy Hall, a professor of computer science at the University of Southampton and the co-chair of a 2017 government AI review, said ATI would cease to be a national institute under the government's proposed changes.
Sign up to TechScape
A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives
after newsletter promotion
'If the institute focuses on defence and security it ceases to be a national institute on AI,' Hall said. 'It's not broad enough. If the government wants an AI institute that does defence and security then it should just call it that.'
In February, the government indicated a focus on national security with its AI strategy by renaming its AI Safety Institute, established under the premiership of Rishi Sunak, the AI Security Institute.
Kyle's letter also referred to the government's 50-point AI action plan as a 'testament' to the UK's AI ambitions, The plan's targets include a 20-fold increase in the amount of AI computing power under public control by 2030, and embedding AI in the public sector.
ATI has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Millions of tonnes of toxic sewage sludge spread on UK farmland every year
Millions of tonnes of treated sewage sludge is spread on farmland across the UK every year despite containing forever chemicals, microplastics and toxic waste, and experts say the outdated current regulations are not fit for purpose. An investigation by the Guardian and Watershed has identified England's sludge-spreading hotspots and shown where the practice could be damaging rivers. Sludge – the solid matter left over after sewage treatment – is laden with Pfas 'forever chemicals', flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, microplastics, and toxic waste from homes and industry. Water companies rebrand it as biosolids and give or sell it to farmers as a nutrient-rich fertiliser. It is spread over vast areas under light-touch regulation and minimal scrutiny, unmonitored for toxic substances. 'On the outside it appears to be 'black gold' – containing nitrogen and phosphates valuable for soil,' a water industry expert said. 'But hidden within it are microplastics, Pfas forever chemicals, endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals and heavy metals.' About 87% of the UK's 3.6m tonnes of sewage sludge is applied to farmland. An Environment Agency (EA) officer, speaking anonymously, said: 'People have seen the sewage in rivers … they need to know about the sludge, where it goes and what's in it.' The water industry's own chemicals investigation programme found hormone-damaging nonylphenols and phthalates, the banned carcinogen PFOS, antibiotics, antimicrobials and anti-corrosion chemicals in every sample tested from 11 treatment works. Scientists from Cardiff and Manchester universities estimate that 31,000 to 42,000 tonnes of microplastics are spread on European farmland annually via sludge, with the UK possibly facing the worst contamination. Rules set in 1989 require testing only for a few heavy metals, and EA insiders say they are 'not fit for purpose'. The investigation identified about 34,000 registered sites in England where sludge is stored, usually before being spread at the same site or on a field nearby, although it can sometimes be transported long distances. Of these, about 33,000 sites are defined as being agricultural land. In 2023 alone, more than 768,000 tonnes of dry solids were spread across 152,000 hectares. Figures from the past decade consistently fall between 715,000 and 800,000 tonnes. Some counties are more affected than others: Hampshire, Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire and Essex have the highest number of sites, with 6,371 between them. Sludge-spreading is governed by waste exemptions, allowing companies to store or apply waste on land without an environmental permit, provided certain conditions are met such as avoiding significant risk to water, soil, air or wildlife. But enforcement is weak. 'No one checks. No one cares,' said one EA insider. An EA officer explained that sludge toxicity depends on local sources: 'Anywhere with an industrial estate will likely produce more contaminated sludge than a rural area.' Industrial waste, such as landfill leachate, is often tankered into sewage works, mixed with domestic waste, and the resulting sludge is spread under the same rules as any biosolid. Contaminated fields become silent sources of pollution. Even uncontaminated sludge can be a problem if mismanaged. When too many nutrients reach rivers, they fuel algal blooms that block sunlight and starve aquatic life of oxygen – a process called eutrophication. The investigation found that one in 20 sludge storage sites in England are within 100 metres of a river, and 1,277 sites are within 500 metres of waters already classed as eutrophic by the EA. The investigation found that 73% of all sludge sites – 23,844 – are within nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs), where strict rules apply due to pollution risks. In England, no rivers meet chemical standards and just 14% meet ecological ones. Sludge-spreading occurs in Wales and Scotland, too. Almost a quarter of sludge storage sites in Scottish locations that could be identified are within NVZs. A study from the James Hutton Institute found microplastic levels rose by 1,450% after four years of sludge-spreading in North Lanarkshire and remained elevated 22 years later. In Northern Ireland, most sludge is incinerated. Richard Benwell, Wildlife and Countryside Link's chief executive, said: 'Though sludge could be a beneficial fertiliser, it is mixed with the dregs of chemical pollutants. Damaging Pfas, BPA and glyphosate are prevalent in sludge. Regulation must be strengthened to protect public health and the environment.' Prof Rupert Hough, of the James Hutton Institute, said: 'At the moment, sludge will only be checked for metals and the receiving environment is checked for metals but I don't think it gets checked rigorously. 'We all put chemicals down the drain, take medicines – these end up in the sludge and on land, and can enter the food chain.' He said the alternative options – landfilling and incineration – had capacity limits and high costs. 'The cost of removing chemicals from sludge is also prohibitively expensive … the industry has few options,' he said. A water industry source said: 'Colleagues in the industry are not out to commit evil in their public service of water management. They're just constrained by a lack of research and development.' A spokesperson for Water UK said water companies were backing research and trialling new uses for bioresources, including as aviation fuel. 'The UK has banned some products with microplastics – we need the same for Pfas, plus a national cleanup plan funded by polluting manufacturers. Contaminants cross borders, which is why we're calling for coordinated action across Europe.' Shubhi Sharma, of the charity Chem Trust, said the government used lack of funding as an excuse for 'failing to prevent our farmlands from being poisoned'. She called for tighter chemical restrictions and a 'polluter pays' model. 'France has already introduced taxes for Pfas polluters. The UK should follow,' she said. The EA said sludge must not harm soil or water, and that it enforced strict rules, including through more than 4,500 farm inspections last year, resulting in more than 6,000 pollution-reducing actions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it wanted safe, sustainable sludge use and it has launched an independent water commission to review the regulatory framework in collaboration with the EA, farmers and water companies.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
EU's von der Leyen defends record in face of censure motion
BRUSSELS, July 7 (Reuters) - European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended her record on Monday as the European Union's executive body faced a censure motion proposed by a group of mainly far-right lawmakers in the European Parliament. The vote on the motion, scheduled for Thursday, is destined to fall far short of the two-thirds majority needed to force out von der Leyen's Commission as centrist groups that hold a majority in the parliament have said they will not support it. But the motion was an unwelcome political headache for the EU executive chief just as her Commission is in the midst of negotiations to try to avoid hefty tariffs on European products from U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. Speaking in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, von der Leyen pushed back against criticism in the motion of her handling of the COVID-19 crisis, arguing her strategy had ensured all EU members had equal access to vaccines. "This is the Europe of solidarity that I love - and this is the Europe that the extremists hate," von der Leyen, a German former defence minister, declared to applause in the chamber. Speaking before von der Leyen, the motion's lead sponsor, Romanian nationalist Gheorghe Piperea, accused the Commission of lacking transparency and failing to respect justice. "The decision-making process has become opaque and discretionary and raises fears of abuse and corruption," he said. Von der Leyen rejected those accusations. But, in an apparent nod to discontent from some lawmakers who see her governing style as high-handed, she said she was committed to working with the parliament "every step of the way". "I want to say that I hear your concerns loud and clear," she said. Even as the centrist groups rejected the motion, the debate exposed tensions among them. Several criticised von der Leyen's centre-right European People's Party for siding with the far right on migration, climate and other policies. "Do you want to govern with those who want to destroy Europe or those of us who fight every day to build it?" Iratxe Garcia Perez, leader of the centre-left Socialists and Democrats group, asked von der Leyen in her speech.
Finextra
an hour ago
- Finextra
Mastercard and Pay4You form spend management partnership
Mastercard has joined forces with self-service payment portal Pay4You to pitch a tail spend management offering to firms in Europe. 0 The partners are focusing on the 20% portion of a company's expenditures that are not actively managed by procurement. They claim that by integrating Pay4You's platform with Mastercard's virtual card technology, corporations can reduce costs, increase process efficiencies, and ensure compliance while offering employees a better user experience. The collaboration will also help issuers capture new flows on cards that are traditionally account-to-account payments. 'We are proud to partner with Mastercard to offer companies a smarter way to handle small, high-volume supplier payments, combining working capital optimization with seamless transaction flows. Corporate credit cards have long been underused in this area. That is about to change,' says Lourens Stamhuis, CEO, Pay4You. Johanna Waara, SVP, head, corporate solutions, Europe, Mastercard, adds: "By leveraging our virtual card technology within the Pay4You platform, we are enabling corporations to better manage their expenditures and drive greater financial efficiency."
