Agenda item

Members’ use of private email addresses

Deputy Brian Mooney asked a question of the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee regarding the introduction of a new policy in respect of the use of private email addresses.

Responding, the Chairman outlined the changes which were necessary as a consequence of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) coming into force. She advised that legal advice had been obtained from leading information law counsel and reminded Members of their duty to ensure that information, especially personal data, was properly and securely protected. She also confirmed the various dates on which committees had considered and approved the introduction of the new policy.

In reply to a supplementary question from Deputy Mooney, the Chairman observed that the same laws and regulations applied to City Corporation Members despite the voluntary and unpaid nature of their roles.

Deputy Roger Chadwick sought confirmation as to the impact of the new policy on those co-opted Members and Governors who served on City Corporation committees. Replying, the Chairman confirmed that those co-opted Members who served on decision-making bodies would be subject to the same policy as City Corporation Members, advising that all were in the process of being written to with clear instructions and IT support offered.

Responding to a further supplementary question from Graham Packham, the Chairman agreed to explore whether Members’ private email addresses could be used in emergencies, such as major City IT outages, as an alternative channel for providing alerts and status updates, provided consent had been given for their private email addresses to be retained.

In answer to a question from Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark concerning the positive efforts of the VIP IT Team in helping affected Members transition to new email addresses and devices, the Chairman echoed the Member’s comments and was pleased to note that, of the 57 Members who had previously used private email addresses for City Corporation business, all but two had now been supported to transition successfully to City of London email accounts.

Motion – That Standing Order No. 13(6) be suspended for a period of ten minutes.

Upon the Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

James Tumbridge spoke to challenge the interpretation of the new Regulations and of the legal advice received, clarifying that that the new Data Regulations did not require the sole use of City Corporation email addresses by Members. He suggested that the summary of the legal advice received and outlined in the Chairman’s responses was not accurate, observing that whilst Counsel had accepted that the solution proposed was one way to meet the requirements, this did not constitute advice that this was the only solution. He asked the Chairman to accept it was important for Members to be fully informed when making decisions, particularly in relation to the permissibility of the continued use of private email addresses in certain circumstances. He also requested for the use of private email in appropriate circumstances to continue. Replying, the Chairman noted that these were complex Regulations and observed that the advice of both the City Corporation’s own legal department and its external Auditors was to use only City Corporation email addresses. She noted that the advice received had been carefully considered by the various committees when deliberating the policy and all had made their decisions accordingly, urging that Members should now abide by the decision which the committees had made.

Responding to a supplementary question from Alderman Matthew Richardson, the Chairman confirmed that hard copies of committee papers could still be sent to private postal addresses.

City of London Cemetery and Crematorium

Dhruv Patel asked a question of the Chairman of the Port Health and Environmental Services Committee concerning the provision and facilities at the City of London Cemetery and Crematorium, particularly with regard to whether they were suitable to meet the demand and cultural requirements of local communities.

In reply, the Chairman advised that the Cemetery and Crematorium worked closely with all local communities and offered a range of choices to meet the needs of the multicultural local community. He outlined some of the various options provided by the Cemetery and Crematorium and reassured Members that these were kept under regular review to respond to changing needs.

A supplementary question was asked by Dhruv Patel concerning the needs of the local Hindu and Sikh communities, specifically regarding the potential to accommodate larger numbers of mourners and the possibility of allowing family members to initiate cremation. Responding, the Chairman outlined the various ways in which capacity might be extended, but advised that operational and risk issues meant that it was not possible to allow for family members to initiate cremation at this time. However, the Superintendent of the Cemetery and Crematorium had advised that he would be pleased to meet with the Honourable Member to discuss the restrictions and future possibilities in more detail.