THE Social Security department has denied going £3m. over budget on its computer project.
This follows the Public Accounts Committee’s report which identifies the overspend.
The department’s minister, Diane Lewis, said that the committee’s report was too negative.
‘First and foremost, the project started in the knowledge that it would be an evolutionary approach and costs were indicative, not fixed,’ she said.
Deputy Lewis expressed frustration at the PAC presenting its findings as an overspend.
There had not been a positive financial business case for the investment in IT infrastructure, she said.
‘It was done because the technology was becoming obsolete.’
Public Accounts Committee chairman Leon Gallienne said that the total cost was £9.23m.
But the Social Security minister disputes the figure and said that it was only £6.4m.
Public Accounts’ figure is arrived at by its consultants, PricewaterhouseCoopers.
It included other costs such as feasibility studies, a pilot scheme, software licences and some hardware costs, said Deputy Lewis.
Defending her department’s actions she said that, to keep administrative costs down, a high level of investment in IT infrastructure was required and that services must be delivered on reliable and sustainable platforms.
‘Our consultants at the time, Deloitte and Touche, agreed we should be getting away from mainframes in a controlled manner,’ she said.
But the Public Accounts Committee report said that Deloitte and Touche had also warned that the proposal by Atos (the firm responsible for the upgrades) did not represent best value and advised the authority to go out to tender.
The minister insists that the PAC report had been rushed and had compromised a fair exchange of views.
She also criticised the Treasury Department for its response to the report.
‘Treasury and Resources has shown no interest in hearing the other side of the story from the Social Security members or staff before making their unfairly critical comments in the Billet d’Etat,’ she said.
Treasury and Resources minister Lyndon Trott writes in his letter of comment: ‘Social Security chose not to inform States members at any time of the difficulties that were being faced and the escalating costs.’
Article posted on 22nd February, 2008 - 2.29pm
Most Commented: