Agenda item

This paper provides an update on the Council’s governance and adoption of Artificial Intelligence solutions. Building on a strong foundation of digital innovation, the Council is in the early stages of exploring how service ambitions might be translated into practical outcomes. Current work continues to focus on experimentation and learning to inform future improvements in efficiency, service delivery and insight.

Jo McCormick (Director of Procurement, Commercial, and Digital) introduced the item which was an update on the Council’s governance and adoption of Artificial Intelligence solutions. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) was moving away from isolated AI pilots towards embedding AI into Council processes. An Ethics Board had been put into place to ensure that any AI that was being used by LBHF had been deemed ethical. LBHF was learning from other Councils in London and across the UK regarding scaling, and LBHF was receiving help from the London Office of Technology and Innovation (LOTI). Eddie Copeland (Director of LOTI) and Sarbjit Bakhshi (Digital Best Practice Manager at LOTI) attended the meeting on behalf of LOTI to answer Member questions. Sarbjit Bakshi explained that LBHF was taking a cautious approach to the adoption of AI which included business cases for all procurement, and all cases were done on evidence. He added that this was the best and most well rounded approach.

Councillor Natalia Perez noted that it was good to hear examples of good practice and asked how innovative approaches were being co-produced, how models were being tested, and how residents were being involved in shaping projects. Jo McCormick explained that the Resident Experience Access Programme had led to detailed work with residents, which was feeding into changes being made, alongside wider changes arising from the Digital Inclusion Strategy. Jo McCormick confirmed that pilots referenced in the report were being used to identify necessary changes before considering how technology could enhance services.

The Chair asked about AI being tested in the housing department and how residents were involved in the testing. Jo McCormick stated that the housing trial was currently an internal project focused on streamlining internal processes. The Chair queried what structures existed within housing to allow service user testing, and Jo McCormick confirmed that tenant groups would assist with this. Tara Flood (Head of Co-Production) added that in the new year, the team had been supported in recruiting a wider co-production group, which would be broader and not limited to just disabled residents.

Councillor Rory Vaughan raised questions regarding Co-Pilot, noting that there were many business cases for the full version and asking who within H&F could approve access. Councillor Rory Vaughan also asked what training would be provided for staff using AI and technology. The Chair queried who the 1,200 members of staff who had access to Co-Pilot, referenced in the report, were. Jo McCormick clarified that Co-Pilot was available across the whole organisation for all staff, with business cases required for enhanced versions for more in-depth work, and that expansion of its use was being considered. Umit Jani (Strategic Relationship Manager – Procurement and Commercial) explained that strong business cases would be triaged and, if justified, progressed to the next stage with support to demonstrate efficiency. He confirmed that M365 Co-Pilot was the universal version and that staff were directed there first. He stated that training was provided on prompts and ethical use, ensuring data remained within LBHF. Councillor Rory Vaughan asked about structured training, and Umit Jani confirmed that initial training was given and that ethical guidance was included.

Councillor Rory Vaughan referred to the current suite of tools AI tools that were available and asked whether at the moment LBHF were currently mostly Co-Pilot-based. Jo McCormick confirmed that Co-Pilot was being used as much as possible as part of the Microsoft package, while a range of other tools were being trialled to assess where they might help.

Councillor Rory Vaughan asked how rollouts were monitored to check for errors in AI outputs, citing concerns about fraud recovery and ensuring genuine savings. Jo McCormick explained that fraud recovery work had identified areas for efficiency, noting that not all efficiencies were cash savings. Jo McCormick confirmed that governance processes ensured initiatives were robust, with sensitive proposals referred to the Ethics Board and others to the usual working group. Councillor Rowan Ree (Cabinet Member for Finance and Reform) added that Fraud, Recovery and Error Detection (FRED) detection software helped identify potential issues, which were then reviewed by the team, and noted £1m in recovery.

Councillor Rowan Ree asked whether benchmarking beyond local authorities had been undertaken to learn lessons. Sarbjit Bakhshi highlighted that other councils often focused on cost-cutting, citing Westminster’s use of Google Street View to identify discrepancies in business rates for bus stops.

Councillor Jacolyn Daly asked LOTI to elaborate on LBHF taking a slower and more grounded approach to the implementation of AI. Sarbjit Bakhshi explained that while there was enthusiasm around AI, procurement decisions were critical, and some boroughs had invested heavily in licences without validating use cases. LBHF had instead rolled out some licences and then paused to validate business cases.

Councillor Jacolyn Daly asked how many AI proposals had been reviewed by the Ethics Board and how many had been changed or rejected. Jo McCormick confirmed that most AI tools had not required Ethics Board review due to low sensitivity, but Smart Box AI and CCTV changes had been referred.

Councillor Jacolyn Daly asked whether the Ethics policy and thresholds to be referred to the Ethics Board had been published. Jo McCormick confirmed these were set out in a paper presented to the Committee last year.

Councillor Jacolyn Daly queried the number of working groups at LBHF that were looking at AI, and Umit Jani confirmed that the AI working group met monthly, though less frequently now as best practice had been developed, and that other groups such as the People Digital Transformation Group and the Smart City working group also discussed AI. Councillor Jacolyn Daly asked whether these groups could be scrutinised, and Jo McCormick confirmed that updates were provided to POB.

Councillor Jacolyn Daly asked what success would look like. Jo McCormick stated that success meant delivering an inclusive vision of services for residents aligned with borough values.

Councillor Nicole Trehy asked about feedback loops from LOTI to LBHF. Eddie Copeland confirmed that opportunities were regularly created for colleagues to meet peers and that LBHF was ahead of the curve on ethics. LOTI published free resources and guidance on designing use cases in areas such as housing and social care. Umit Jani noted that LOTI acted as a central hub.

Councillor Nicole Trehy asked about Microsoft’s responsiveness to feedback. Eddie Copeland stated that collective action from London boroughs was needed to influence Microsoft. Sarbjit Bakhshi emphasised neutrality on technology and noted that Microsoft expected greater licence usage. Jo McCormick stressed the need for a UK-wide local authority approach, ensuring tools met local needs and supported data ownership. Umit Jani confirmed that similar scrutiny applied to Agent AI and other tools. Jo McCormick added that discussions were ongoing with waste providers about AI use.

The Chair asked for examples of poor council practice, and Eddie Copeland noted that some boroughs mistakenly assumed procuring AI would automatically deliver savings, without considering staff training and resource redeployment. The Chair acknowledged that this was an easy path for financially struggling councils.

The Chair raised concerns about residents resisting technology, citing examples of CCTV obstruction and opposition to 5G, and asked what reassurances they should be giving to residents. Jo McCormick confirmed that LBHF aimed to provide accessible, modern services and pointed to its ethical framework.

Councillor Natalia Perez asked about mitigation measures for AI risks. Jo McCormick confirmed that detailed risk assessments were undertaken before use, with high-sensitivity cases referred to the Ethics Board.

Councillor Natalia Perez asked whether LBHF was learning from other local authorities. Jo McCormick confirmed that lessons were being drawn from both councils and the commercial sector, noting that some US initiatives had been rolled back after failing to demonstrate value.

The Chair concluded by requesting future updates on the effectiveness of the Ethics Board, including what decisions had been made by the board and how its governance was working in practice.

RESOLVED

1. That the Policy and Oversight Board noted and commented on the report.