§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if those responsible for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system selection in 1983 included any officers with previous experience of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system trials and development work carried out by his Department; and if he will make a statement;
(2) how the mechanical efficiency of the Boughton demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system 778W equipment criticised by his Department for its higher hydraulic pressures compared with that of other systems selected in preference to it; and if he will make a statement;
(3) to what factors he attributes the failure of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system procurement to meet its in-service date; what effect the non-involvmenent of his Department's demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system experts in the assessment of proposals had in this regard; and if he will make a statement;
(4) if his Department's team of demountable rack offloading and pick-up system experts making the 1983 selection were aware of the conclusions of project 226 regarding the use of trailers to provide the low mobility demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system function; and if he will make a statement;
(5) what changes have been made to the equipment specifications proposed in 1982 by the successful demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system competitors; to what extent those changes introduce any features proposed and costed in Boughton's production cost estimates but not costed in the selected competitors' original estimates; and if he will make a statement;
(6) if the prices and production cost estimates put forward by Foden and by Scammell in respect of their 1982 demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system equipment proposals were the subject of disclaimers and caveats; if Boughton's prices or production cost estimates were accompanied by any such disclaimers; and if he will make a statement;
(7) what specifications formed the basis of the production cost estimates of the successful demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system contenders in 1983 in comparison with those which were the subject of Boughton's production cost estimates; and if he will make a statement;
(8) how the specification for the MM LC demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system equipments proposed by (a) Foden and (b) Scammell in the 1982 demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system feasibility study response compared with those for the MMLC demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system equipments proposed by Boughtons in respect of the engine power, transmission and all features including the number of wheels and axles; and if he will make a statement;
(9) how the price put forward in 1982 by Scammell in respect of Boughtons' demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system load handling systems compared with the price put forward by Scammell for Multilift's flat flatrack load handling system, for Multilift's A-frame flatrack load handling system and for Powell Duffryn's A-frame flatrack load handling system; and if he will make a statement;
(10) when the requirement that the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system requirement that the vehicle be able to transmit power to the wheels at the same time as operating the hydraulic load handling system a live hydraulic facility was first formally recognised by his Department; and if he will make a statement:
(11) if, at the time in 1984 when he gave as a reason for the non-selection of the Boughtons' demountable rack offloading and pick-up system equipment that it lacked power to lift the load of 14 tonnes required by the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system statement of requirement, he was aware of the United States Army trial reports stating that the Boughton 779W equipment had regularly picked up l6½ tonnes without difficulty in the worst of conditions; and if he will make a statement;
(12) what was his Department's assessment after Boughtons proposed the inclusion of live hydraulics in its 1982 demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system submission, of the role of live hydraulics as a deciding factor in the ability of the demountable rack off-loading system to pick up loads sunk in mud; and if he will make a statement;
(13) what his Department has told Boughtons about the implications of live hydraulics for the cost of demountable rack off-loading and pick-up systems; whether the prices and production cost estimates of any competitive equipments proposed in 1982 without live hydraulics were adjusted for this and other increases in the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system specification before the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system selection team compared these prices and production cost estimates without Boughtons' submissions; and if he will make a statement;
(14) what criticisms his Department made of Boughtons' proposed demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system regarding the hydraulic pressure at which it worked; and if he will make a statement;
(15) if, in the 1982 statement of requirements for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system any requirement was stated indicating either a maximum acceptable hydraulic pressure or a preference for low hydraulic pressures; and if he will make a statement;
(16) if he is satisfied that his Department's demountable rack off-loading pick-up system team of experts in 1983 understood the nature of all the offers submitted to them; that they were able to reconcile their drawings, their performance calculations and their written statements; and if he will make a statement;
(17) what engine power was called for in the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system 1982 statement of requirement; whether Boughtons met that requirement in respect of both its IMMLC and MMLC proposals; and if he will make a statement;
(18) if the equipment (a) as proposed in 1982 and (b) as built in 1984 by Fodens and Scammels met the stated minimum power requirements for demountable rack off-loading pick-up system IMMLC and MMLC vehicles contained in the 1982 stated requirements; and if he will make a statement;
(19) what figure has been determined as the minimum power-to-weight requirement for the low mobility trailer combination of demountable rack off-loading pick-up system to comply with the United Kingdom or Federal German legislation or army mobility requirements; and if he will make a statement;
(20) when Boughtons first proposed that the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system vehicle should have live hydraulics; what proposals were made regarding this facility by Fodens, Scammell and Multilift in their 1982 demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system submissions; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonI shall answer shortly.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what evidence he has that British military technology related to the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system project is being passed to the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement;
780W(2) what evidence he has that the parent company of Multilift, recently awarded the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system contract, Partek of Finland has engaged in work for the military forces of the Soviet Union or any of its Warsaw pact allies; and if he will make a statement;
(3) what evidence he has that the parent company of Multilift, recently awarded the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system contract, Partek of Finland has any connection with the Russian civilian truck industry; and if he will make a statement;
(4) what was the value of the production order for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system programme;
(5) how many firms were shortlisted for competitive trialling of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system;
(6) what representations he has received from the company, Hearncrest Boughton in connection with allegations concerning intellectual property of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system project;
(7) what steps he plans to take to ensure that the technology of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system contract is safeguarded for use by the United Kingdom and her allies;
(8) when invitations were first issued for proposals to supply a combined vehicle and load handling system (DROPS);
(9) if his Department retains any copyright to the Multilift mark IV demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system; and if he will make a statement;
(10) if he will describe the export licensing controls to which the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system contract awarded to Multilift, Shrewsbury will be subject; and if he will make a statement;
(11) if the Comptroller and Auditor General has informed him when he expects to complete his investigation into the awarding of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system project; and if he will make a statement;
(12) how his Department defines a defence product for the purposes of export control and security classification; and if the Multilift mark IV demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system falls within that definition.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonI shall answer shortly.