Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Head of Head of Digital Transformation and Customer Engagement on the new Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

The Cabinet had before it a report * from the Head of Digital Transformation and Customer Engagement on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

The Cabinet Member for Quality of Living, Equalities and Public Health outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

• The rapid emergence of Generative AI technologies, such as Chat GPT, Gemini, and Microsoft Co-pilot had marked a profound shift in the way information was created, analysed, and consumed.
• These tools present significant opportunities for improved service delivery, enhanced communication, and greater efficiency. However, they also introduced a new category of risk that must be proactively managed.
• This Council had a clear framework to govern the use of AI responsibly and ethically across the organisation. At present, the Council had no formal policy in place, leaving a gap in guidance for staff and Members who may be using or exploring AI tools.
• The policy aimed to:

Ø  To safeguard Council data and services, by prohibiting the use of confidential or personal data in external Generative AI tools. This was particularly important to the Council where it held and processed vast amounts of very sensitive data every day.  By using the Council's licensed Copilot tool for sensitive data where authorised to do so to ensure the data stays within the Council’s control;

Ø  To enhance transparency and accountability, especially where AI tools were used to generate content or influence decision-making;

Ø  To ensure human oversight remained central—no AI tool should independently make decisions about residents or services without a human in the loop;

Ø  To identify roles and responsibilities for AI policy compliance, including the Head of Digital Services & Customer Engagement, line managers, the ITIG Board, and others;

Ø  And to provide clear guidance for acceptable use, training requirements, and risk mitigation, particularly as AI tools became embedded into more software platforms.

• This policy aligned with the Council’s Corporate Plan commitments to digital transformation and service excellence. It demonstrated the Council’s readiness to engage with innovation—not passively, but safely, ethically, and proactively.
• Staff would receive appropriate training on governance, ethics, and risk management in relation to AI.
• A comprehensive risk review would be undertaken and added to the Councils risk register.  The legal implications of inappropriate or unauthorised use of AI may expose the Council to risks such as data breaches, copyright infringement, or biased decision-making. Procurement procedures would be updated to include safe routes for acquiring AI-enabled tools.
• The Council would ensure that Equalities Impact Assessments were completed where AI was used to support or automate service delivery.
• It was important to stress that the policy included a shorter than usual review period. This was by design—reflecting the pace at which AI capabilities, use cases, and legal considerations were developing. Delegated authority to the Deputy Chief Executive and SIRO would allow necessary amendments to be made swiftly, with full oversight through the ITIG Board.
• While embracing the opportunities presented by AI, the Council must also recognise there were concerns as well:  AI systems, especially  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160

To receive a report from the Head of Digital Transformation & Customer Engagement proposing a policy to govern and monitor the use of artificial intelligence (AI) within Mid Devon District Council.

The Group had before it a report * from The Head of Digital Transformation & Customer Engagement proposing a policy to govern and monitor the use of artificial intelligence (AI) within the organisation.

The following was highlighted in the report:

·       The purpose of the proposed new policy was to ensure that users were aware of AI methods, the importance of information security, AI’s growing influence and to identify key roles and responsibilities.

·       The policy also set out the acceptable uses of AI.

·       There would need to be data protection assessments for certain AI uses and a need to ensure users were transparent in their use of AI.

·       Checks and balances would need to be in place.

·       A key issue needed to be factoring out biases, ensuring accuracy and maintaining human oversight.

·       As part of the policy there would need to be a number of follow up actions including staff training, regular risk reviews, the issuing of acceptable use guidance, equality impact assessments and ensuring the Council met the strict guidelines of procurement.

·       The policy itself would also need a review every six months to ensure methods were being used safely. Due to this frequency, it was likely this would be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive (S151).

·       AI presented a lot of risk but also a lot of opportunity.

Discussion took place regarding:

·       A Member briefing would be organised to update and inform Members, however, the key focus in the initial stages would be to provide training to staff as the primary users.

·       The proposed policy was thought to provide a very useful framework moving forwards.

RECOMMENDED to the Cabinet that it recommends to full Council the adoption of the Artificial Intelligence Policy.

(Proposed by the Chair)

Reason for the decision

In appropriate or unauthorised use of AI may expose MDDC to risks such as data breaches, copyright infringement, or biased decision making, potentially resulting in legal proceedings.

Note: * Report previously circulated.