Agenda item

To seek Policy Development Panel comments on the proposed AI Policy (report of the Assistant Director – Corporate enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Corporate which sought Policy Development Panel comments on the proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

The Business Intelligence and Change Manager introduced the report and raised the following points:

• The Policy had been drafted by ICT (PSPS) with extensive input from the Data Protection Team; Senior Leadership Team; Portfolio Holders and the Business Intelligence and Change Manager and his team;
• The proposed policy provided a governance structure for the use of AI within the council, which addressed both the benefits and risks;

The term AI covered a wide range of functionality and was outlined as follows: When computers and digital systems were programmed to mimic human thinking and learning, utilising large amounts of data to learn patterns and make decisions, perform tasks and understand speech and emotion.

·       Improved AI performance aligned with the greater processing of data over time;

• The policy outlined the types of AI and applications and established mechanisms for accountability, transparency and risk management; and
• Members were encouraged to contact the Business Intelligence and Change Manager regarding any aspect of AI they wished to discuss including whether the need existed for further briefing sessions on the topic.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members welcomed the report and the recent ‘Artificial Intelligence in Local Government’ member briefing.

• Members expressed concerns in connection with the control of AI programming.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager responded that:
    • Programming control was dependent upon the system being utilised however any new system would be subject to the partnership’s Procurement Framework process and would need to be approved by the ICT Strategy Board (chaired by the Section 151 Officer) and Portfolio Holders;
    • Data impact assessments would be undertaken; and
    • Robust governance procedures would be followed with heightened caution practiced due to the risks associated with AI as an emerging digital technology.

• Members asked whether the operation of AI technology included the utilisation of an AI bot to answer online queries from residents. 
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager responded that the technology allowed for AI implementation to answer basic questions which would therefore release customer contact resources to deal with more complex calls. Development explorations in this area were underway.

• Members queried if the regulatory standards in respect of AI were driven by central government and whether ‘best practice’ could be interpreted as ‘best value’. Would AI serve to reduce costs.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager responded that:
    • The policy derived from the central government framework and any interim guideline changes would be considered and reflected at the annual review of the policy;
    • Whilst AI systems may lead to efficiencies, the safety and ethical use of the technology was paramount. An aim of the policy was to ensure that the correct governance procedures were in place for any such developments; and
    • The use of AI could provide a more efficient and broader service for residents since direct responses to certain queries could be received at the time of request, rather than being limited to within normal office operating hours. Where an answer could not be provided by AI, or customer dissatisfaction to AI responses was sensed, the enquiry would be referred through to traditional channels.

• Members queried whether the policy allowed for a back-up system to be in place during ICT downtime periods.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager responded that:
    • Any AI system would be run as a cloud-based solution and associated risks would be assessed during the procurement process, including data impact assessments;
    • AI would serve to offer an additional channel of access to an existing service rather than being the sole access point; and
    • Nonetheless, checks would be made with the Head of ICT and Digital (PSPS) as to whether the ‘back-up’ solution needed to be included within the AI Policy or whether this matter was covered by a separate policy.

• Members asked for examples of how AI could be used immediately to support council tasks and queried whether, as a result, there was an anticipated impact upon staffing resources. It was stated that some South Holland residents preferred to deal with a human rather than being referred to digital means for engagement and that the capacity to utilise digital technology across rural parts of the district could be challenging.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager responded that:
    • Initial ideas for the use of AI to support the council included:
      • Responding to simple customer queries and Freedom of information requests where the information was publicly available on the website;
      • Becoming integral to the ICT Strategy Board and the Digital Programme, subject to the governance process; and
      • The embedding of the technology within the PSPS transformation programme; and
    • In respect of jobs, it was understood that the council’s ambition for AI enabled the refocussing of capacity and that any resource liberated as a result of a new automation process, could be redirected where needed.

• Members agreed that a policy update be presented to the panel 12 months from its approval at Cabinet.

AGREED:

a)    That the comments of the Policy Development Panel, to shape the final version of the Policy at Appendix A, be noted; and

b)    That a policy update be presented to the Policy Development Panel 12 months from its approval at Cabinet.

Councillors Mark Le Sage and Jan Whitbourn left the meeting after this item at 19:37.