Examination of witnesses (Questions 140
- 147)
MONDAY 15 JUNE 1998
MR ROBIN
MOUNTFIELD, CB,
MR MARK
GLADWYN, SIR
ALAN LANGLANDS
and MR FRANK
BURNS
140. What, to buy new equipment?
(Sir Alan Langlands) Sorry?
141. To buy replacement equipment?
(Sir Alan Langlands) To buy replacement equipment.
I said earlier we spend on that heading of medical surgical supplies
and equipment nearly a billion pounds a year in the Health Service,
often to buy new equipment by drawing it forward if you like from
its natural time cycle, in other words bringing it forward, say,
from 2003 to——
142. Writing it off early?
(Sir Alan Langlands) No, no. Perhaps in the case
of a piece of equipment that may be eight or nine years old and
due for replacement in 2002 or 2003, bringing it forward to 1999
to be absolutely clear that compliance is achieved.
143. In the last resort you assure us that
is what you will do?
(Sir Alan Langlands) That is what trusts and health
authorities and others have been asked to do, the money has been
set aside for that purpose.
144. Can I ask you one personal question.
Are you due for retirement before or after the year 2000?
(Sir Alan Langlands) I hope that I will be here
in the year 2000 to answer to the Committee but, of course, that
will not be my decision.
145. I look forward to seeing you in the
first PAC after 1 January 2000.
(Sir Alan Langlands) I will make a date.
Chairman
146. Thank you, gentlemen. My two questions
that I was going to ask have been, as I suspected, picked up in
general questions. I will actually extend Mr Williams' questioning
to you, Mr Mountfield. When we have the February 2000 PAC, the
sweep up, mop up, or whatever it is, will you be with us? I notice
you were born in 1939?
(Mr Mountfield) No, I shall not, I shall be retired
by then.
147. So whoever takes over from you will
be appearing in that Committee. It is a problem we have had before
with accounting officers. A last question to the Treasury before
we wrap up. It has become very apparent that the costs are going
to escalate on a number of fronts on this. You gave a very smooth
answer, if I may describe it in that way, to Mr Clifton-Brown.
I want it put clearly on the record, what you are saying is—yes
or no will answer this—Treasury policy is these costs will
be absorbed by the Department irrespective of how difficult the
problem, irrespective of existing ITCL, irrespective of available
staff capable of transfer, irrespective of the types of budget
and irrespective of how dangerous trailing will be?
(Mr Martin) I do not think, Chairman, I said anything
like that at all. The Government's current policy is that the
costs as they have so far been identified should be met from within
existing plans. I am fairly confident that neither this nor any
other Government is actually going to allow a situation to arise
where compliance could not be achieved because of financial constraints
of some sort. I am quite sure that if Mr Mountfield in the departmental
returns were to identify that there was a cost increase that could
not be absorbed he would bring it to the attention of the Treasury
and the Treasury would react sensibly to that.
Chairman: There you
are, Mr Mountfield, a helpful PAC meeting for you. Can I just
say to you and to Sir Alan, thank you for your time, it is a very
important question. Thank you.
| 
