Minutes:
Rosalind Barden explained that she had worked for a number of years implementing PC systems, which followed strict rules. This led to her question:
“I note that the delays in finalising SCDC's 2018/19 accounts are being blamed, in part, on issues around the implementation of the Fixed Asset Register.
I'm struggling to understand how the Council got itself into the position of what looks to be issues with data migration over three years after the new Register was implemented.
“I would therefore like to ask the Committee if there has been any investigation into what went wrong and, if so, what changes to procedure have been put in place to avoid similar issues arising?
“And if not, will the Committee recommend that such an investigation and 'lessons learned' exercise be carried out so that the Council can avoid further implementation problems?”
The Chair explained that the asset register was originally implemented over three years ago and issues with the data migration were identified by the Capital Accountant currently managing this in the autumn of 2019. Work had been undertaken to correct this data and update the register but this had taken longer than expected.
The Chair stated that the register now contained the correct data but there was no evidence of a project plan or that proper testing had been carried out when the data was originally migrated in early 2018. Quite clearly this was unsatisfactory and the Council needed to understand what went wrong and why.
The Chair concluded that once both the Council and External Audit team were happy that the register was accurate the necessary review will be carried out. The Council had asked our Internal Audit team to investigate this matter so they can satisfy themselves that all the correct controls and processes will be in place going forward.
As her supplementary question Rosalind Barden asked if the Council’s ICT section had fully considered the risks around software implementation and whether this should be part of the Council’s Risk Register. The Chair stated that the Council’s ICT section would need to provide a written response to this question.
Daniel Fulton asked the following question:
“Is the Chair of the Audit and Corporate Governance committee satisfied that there are appropriate governance arrangements in place for the shared services in which the council participates?”
The Chair replied that he was satisfied with the current governance arrangements of the Shared Services, and that they were appropriate for each of the Services, with member oversight from each council. He concluded that these arrangements had been in place for a number of years and were subject to a review to ensure they were fit for purpose moving forward as our services and relationships continue to develop.
As his supplementary question Daniel Fulton suggested that the head of the 3C ICT service did not have sufficient time to prepare for the risk of a service failure and he asked if the Chair of the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee could discuss with the Chair of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee if the issue of ICT governance could be reviewed at a future meeting of the Council.
The Chair stated that he would consult with the Chair of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee on this matter and provide Daniel Fulton with a written response.
It was noted that members of the Committee would also receive the written responses to both supplementary questions.