§ Mr. Douglas Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Defence why disclosure in full of the design rights transferred to Royal Ordnance plc by the scheme made under section 1 of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Act 1984 would be contrary to national security and to the commercial interests of Royal Ordnance plc.
§ Mr. ButlerFor those few cases where national security is concerned, it would not be appropriate or in line with normal practice to give detailed justifications for non-disclosure. In the vast majority of cases where detailed information has not been published, it is because, when taken together, it would be commercially sensitive and its disclosure could place Royal Ordnance plc at a disadvantage against its competitors. No other commercial company would publish such information. Royal Ordnance plc is subject to the normal Patent Office rules governing patents applications and registered designs and appropriate details of these were set out in the published scheme.
§ Mr. Douglas Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify those design rights transferred to Royal Ordnance plc by a scheme made under section 1 of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Act 1984, publication of which he does not consider to be contrary to national security or the commercial interests of Royal Ordnance plc.
§ Mr. ButlerA copy of the scheme, and the lists referred to in the scheme, made under section 1 of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Act 1984 was laid before the House on 9 January 1985. The published scheme contains all the information, disclosure of which would not be contrary to national security or the commercial interests of Royal Ordnance plc.