OBE-awarded prison governor appointed in Jersey
Previous governor Susie Richardson stepped down in July 2024. The government said Mr Yates was appointed to the role after a "detailed selection process".
Mr Yates said he was very pleased to take on the role in Jersey. He said: "My priority is to build on the excellent work already in train by the team at HMP La Moye and I am looking forward serving the States of Jersey, and the people of Jersey."At HMP Nottinghamshire I have pursued a passion for building a rehabilitative culture, reducing reoffending and public protection."
Minister for Justice and Home Affairs Mary Le Hegarat said Mr Yates was chosen from a "very strong field of external candidates"."I welcome Paul to the Justice and Home Affairs family in this important senior leadership role, and look forward to the skills and experience he has built in his diverse career benefitting the States of Jersey Prison Service," she said. La Moye Prison has accommodation for up to 200 prisoners, but usually had an average of 140 prisoners at one time, the government said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Britain's AI strategy: the risk is that it is dependency dressed up in digital hype
There was a time when Britain aspired to be a leader in technology. These days, it seems content to be a willing supplicant – handing over its data, infrastructure and public services to US tech giants in exchange for the promise of a few percentage points of efficiency gains. Worryingly, the artificial intelligence strategy of Sir Keir Starmer's government appears long on rhetoric, short on sovereignty and built on techno-utopian assumptions. Last week Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, was promoting the use of AI-generated discharge letters in the NHS. The tech, he said, will process complex conversations between doctors and patients, slashing paperwork and streamlining services. Ministers say that by applying AI across the public sector, the government can save £45bn. But step back and a more familiar pattern emerges. As Cecilia Rikap, a researcher at University College London, told the Politics Theory Other podcast, Britain risks becoming a satellite of the US tech industry – a nation whose public infrastructure serves primarily as a testing ground and data source for American AI models hosted on US-owned cloud computing networks. She warned that the UK should not become a site of 'extractivism', in which value – whether in the form of knowledge, labour or electricity – is supplied by Britain but monetised in the US. It's not just that the UK lacks a domestic cloud ecosystem. It's that the government's strategy does nothing to build one. The concern is that public data, much of it drawn from the NHS and local authorities, will be shovelled into models built and trained abroad. The value captured from that data – whether in the form of model refinement or product development – will accrue not to the British public, but to US shareholders. Even the promise of job creation appears shaky. Datacentres, the physical backbone of AI, are capital-intensive, energy-hungry, and each one employs only about 50 people. Meanwhile, Daron Acemoglu, the MIT economist and Nobel laureate, offers a still more sobering view: far from ushering in a golden age of labour augmentation, today's AI rollout is geared almost entirely toward labour displacement. Prof Acemoglu sees a fork: AI can empower workers – or replace them. Right now, it is doing the latter. Ministerial pledges of productivity gains may just mean fewer jobs – not better services. The deeper problem is one of imagination. A government serious about digital sovereignty might build a public cloud, fund open-source AI models and create institutions capable of steering technological development toward social ends. Instead, we are offered efficiency-by-outsourcing – an AI strategy where Britain provides the inputs and America reaps the returns. In a 2024 paper, Prof Acemoglu challenged Goldman Sachs' 10-year forecast that AI would lead to global growth of 7% – about $7tn – and estimated instead under $1tn in gains. Much of this would be captured by US big tech. There's nothing wrong with harnessing new technologies. But their deployment must not be structured in a way that entrenches dependency and hollows out public capacity. The Online Safety Act shows digital sovereignty can enforce national rules on global platforms, notably on porn sites. But current turmoil at the Alan Turing Institute suggests a deeper truth: the UK government is dazzled by American AI and has no clear plan of its own. Britain risks becoming not a tech pioneer, but a well-governed client state in someone else's digital empire. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why bats and newts are being blamed for Britain's sluggish economy
Bad news for bats: the government is considering further changes to planning regulations in order to boost economic growth. Specifically, Rachel Reeves – desperate for the UK economy to grow and provide more jobs, homes and tax revenues – wants to relax the rules on wildlife and the environment, hence some headlines about bats, newts and snails. What does the chancellor want? To keep her job. That means getting Britain's wayward public finances under control, which means making the economic pie bigger so that tax receipts start rising without having to hammer workers and businesses every year with tax rises. She's not prepared to allow any flying mammals, rare amphibious creatures, fish or a few wildflowers to get in the way. Retained EU rules designed on the precautionary principle that a developer must prove there will be no net harm will go, and there'll be a cull in the list of 'protected species'. She wouldn't admit as much, but this is very much what Leavers would call a 'Brexit freedom'. Not much of a bonus for bats, though. Aren't they doing this already? No. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill before parliament proposes to restrict grounds for objection to a scheme, strengthen the powers of mayors and development corporations to impose decisions, and give developers more flexibility regarding nature migration schemes. Another law would be required to wage war on wildlife. Perhaps. He singled them out in an infamous speech last year that derided the '£100m bat tunnel holding up the country's single biggest infrastructure project', ie HS2. He is the Ozzy Osbourne of politics. What do we get in return? Growth. Specifically, 1.5 million new homes, 150 major infrastructure projects and, in the words of the prime minister: 'a very clear message …To the nimbys, the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats … The alliance of naysayers … The people who say, no, 'Britain can't do this. We can't get things done in our country'. We say to them – you no longer have the upper hand … Britain says yes.' The country will almost certainly be better off, materially, from the additional investment, but it is equally apparent that all the new runways, power lines, roads and greenfield housebuilding will have an unfortunate impact on the environment and visual amenity. There's always a trade-off. Why didn't the Tories do this? They are, or were, the party of the countryside, hence their determined opposition to onshore windfarms, rural solar panel installations, housing developments in 'nice' areas and pylons marching across green and pleasant lands. What will happen? Labour will bulldoze both bits of legislation through, albeit with some grumbles from the new generation of Labour MPs who represent historically rural Conservative constituencies. Most opposition parties, including Reform, who don't think we need any green energy or housing projects at all, will make their objections clear. At the next general election, Labour will probably find its country seats much the hardest battleground.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Call for urgent cross-party action to save Lough Neagh
There has been a call for urgent cross-party action to save Lough Neagh. The lough has been blighted with blue-green algae in recent summers, with noxious blooms covering large swathes of the surface. However Gary McErlain, chairman of the Lough Neagh Partnership, said the devastation this week following recent warm weather is the worst he has seen in 40 years. Mr McErlain said urgent cross-party action is needed to save Lough Neagh. 'It is not news that Lough Neagh is in the midst of an unprecedented ecological crisis but with the weather providing the blue-green algae with the perfect conditions to bloom, this is an emergency that demands urgent and united political leadership,' he said. 'I believe the time for talking is over. In more than 40 years I have not witnessed the devastation on the lough that I am seeing today.' Nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural fertiliser running off fields and from wastewater treatment are said to be a contributory factor in the blue-green algae blooms. The spread of the invasive zebra mussel species is also understood to have played a role in the blooms, as they have made the water clearer, allowing more sunlight to penetrate, stimulating more algal photosynthesis. Climate change is another factor as water temperatures rise. The Stormont Executive last year launched an action plan to deal with the environmental crisis at the lough. Mr McErlain said all parties should enter into constructive engagement with Agriculture and Environment Minister Andrew Muir regarding the implementation of the proposed nutrient action plan. 'It is plain to see that the health of the lough is deteriorating at an alarming rate, threatening not only the delicate balance of its natural ecosystem but also the communities, livelihoods and cultural heritage that depend upon it,' he said. 'For too long, responsibility for Lough Neagh has been fragmented, with agencies and departments working in isolation and often without the resources or mandate to make meaningful progress. 'What is needed now is joined-up thinking, decisive action, and a clear solution that places the immediate, short and long-term health of the lough at its centre. 'The people who live around Lough Neagh, who rely on it for recreation, fishing, tourism and water supply, deserve to see that those elected to serve them are capable of rising above party politics to work together for the common good. 'I fear that if we fail to act collectively and urgently, the damage to Lough Neagh could quickly become irreversible, with devastating consequences for biodiversity, the local economy and our shared natural heritage.'
