In-year, there is a single budget holder (CDM) with responsibility across both EPP and ESP programmes for delivery of new equipment and support to existing equipment.
It is therefore possible to "borrow" from the ESP to pay for the EPP, and vice versa. In reality, the two areas are now integrated to such an extent that verifiably articulating actual Departmental spending against either the ESP or the EPP is not possible.
This situation gives DE&S considerable flexibility over the deployment of financial resources in-year across both new equipment and support to existing equipment. But it also leads to considerable complexity in understanding true progress with delivering new capabilities whilst supporting existing ones.
In their recent health check of TLCM87, the OGC recognised that the current level of overheat in the equipment programme as a whole militates against making short-term spending commitments which are easily justified by reference to long-term benefits. This observation echoes concerns raised in discussions with staff from DE&S.
The Review team has also noted concerns voiced by the FLC that the ESP is effectively a "black box" with no easy way for customers to monitor what was spent and for what purpose. In particular, this gives rise to the suspicion that monies are routinely diverted to other areas for which DE&S is financially responsible.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
87 Healthcheck on TLCM project (25 Mar 2009)