§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the selected demountable rack offloading and pick-up system MMLC truck designs proposed by Foden and Scammell in 1982 provided sufficient engine power to pull the fully laden LMLC trailer; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The Foden and Scammell original 308W proposals provided a number of engine options and powers allowing a selection fully adequate for the DROPS vehicle and trailer configuration envisaged.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence when the need for the demountable rack offloading and pickup system was first formally identified by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The DROPS requirement was first formally endorsed in August 1982.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence when funds for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system were first put into his Department's budgeted expenditure; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: 1982.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the shortcomings identified by his Department in the Boughton's 1982 demountable rack offloading and pick-up system proposal; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The Boughton system proposals in 1982–83 though competent in many respects fell short of those of its competitors both technically and economically. It would not be normal practice to disclose details of tender offers and assessments. The firm was afforded the opportunity of constructive debriefing after the competition.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what requirements on stacking flatracks was included in the 1985 specification against which the definitive demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system equipment was tendered; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The 1985 specification required that empty flatracks could be stacked for storage and transit.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what part the issue of flatrack stacking played in Multilift's 1982 demountable rack off-loading pick-up system proposal; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c.. 504]: Flatrack stacking was fully considered as requested in the statement of requirements in all main contractor proposals to which Multilift contributed.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what weight was given by the demountable rack off-loading pick-up system selection team to stackability of flatracks; and if he will make a statement;
(2) to what extent the question of stacking was a criterion in the selection of demountable rack off-loading pick-up system; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: Flatrack stacking was addressed in the statement of requirements and was thus an element fully considered in the assessment along with the many other factors.
309W
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment was made by the 1982 demountable rack off-loading pick-up system selection team of the implications of the stacking of loaded flatracks for the size of field storage areas; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what assessment was made by his Department in 1980 of the implications of the stacking of loaded flatracks for the space required in storage areas; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: None.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of Boughton's shortcomings in its presentation for the demountable rack off-loading pick-up system contract; and if he will make37a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: No.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if those companies involved in 1982 provided drawings of their proposed load handling systems drawn onto the prime contractor's chassis under consideration for the demountable rack off-loading pick-up system; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what was the nature of such drawings as Multilift produced via the main contractors in 1982 in connection with the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December c. 504]: All companies' submissions for the 1982 DROPS competition provided adequate drawings or other supporting detail covering the widest field of vehicle-load handling system combinations.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were received from any demountable rack off-loading pick-up system prime contractors in 1982 on Multilift's presentation and management; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: Multilift load-handling systems featured prominently in a number of main contractor submissions including those of the main contractors finally selected. I cannot, of course, discuss details of particular tender or contract submissions.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what allocations were introduced into the equipment produced for trials in 1984 after its feasibility study response in 1982; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The equipment furnished for the Department's DROPS traps in 1984 was based upon proposals of the selected competing main contractors. The final specification took up certain options offered and other changes ordered by the Department affecting engine power (340 bhp), adoption of automatic transmission and hydraulic power take-off. "Live" power take-off was the only feature not offered by companies other than Boughton's. Its specification had no significant cost implications.
310W
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the weight (a) originally estimated by Multilift for its Mk II flat flatrack system and (b) of the equipment built; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The difference was 7.5 per cent.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence when the decision was taken by his Department that the requirement for low mobility demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system was to be provided by the use of a trailer; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The use of a trailer in this role was envisaged in the DROPS requirement first formally approved in 1982.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the main conclusions of the project carried out by his Department into how the low mobility transport role after the introduction of demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system would he carried out; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: I am not clear to which project my right hon. Friend is referring.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what degree of detail the selected main contractors and subcontractors proposed designs and analysis of a trailer for demountable rack off-load and pick-up system LMLC; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The selected main contractors' proposals fully met the Department's essential assessment needs in these regards.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if Boughton's put forward detailed proposals for, and recommendations on, a trailer as the preferred solution for demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system LMLC; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: Yes.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of Stale for Defence whether the trailers proposed by the selected main contractors and subcontractors met the stated requirement for LMLC demountable racking off-loading and pick-up system in respect of one-man operation and maximum loading; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: Trailers proposed by the selected main contractors were judged adequate in both respects and for the subsequent trials.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made by his Department in reviewing the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system feasibility study in 1983 of the implications for road traffic law of trailer-truck combinations selected to fulfil the low mobility demountable rack off-loading and pickup system role on the roads; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The Department's competition 311W assessments in 1983 took due account of proposed truck-trailer combinations in the context of the relevant construction and use regulations.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the gross weight of (a) Boughton 1982 proposed demountable rack off-loading and demountable system LMLC truck-trailer combination and (b) the combinations selected; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The gross estimated weight of the selected combination is some 3,000 kg more than the weight estimated in Boughton's proposals.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposal was made at the time of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system submissions in 1982 by the two selected contractors as to the most cost effective way of meeting the stated requirements for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 16 December 1986, c. 504]: The proposals made by the selected contractors covered a wide range of solutions and options and I regret I cannot disclose particular details of tender offers.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: The DROPS assessment process took place under the direction of professional procurement staff responsible for the development and procurement of armed services vehicles of all types. They worked in close conjunction with the Army's logistic authorities who commissioned and directed the earlier research and concept trials which established the DROPS requirement.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence how the mechanical efficiency of the Boughton demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780.]: The Department judged the Boughton system to be inferior in performance to others on a number of technical grounds, including the higher hydraulic pressures mentioned.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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-involvement of his Department's demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system experts in the assessment of proposals had in his regard; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780.]: There has been no failure. 312W DROPS will enter service in 1989. The original staff requirement of 1982 envisaged a date of late 1988 subject to the results of the considerable feasibility study and other work which still had to be undertaken.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department's team of demountable rack off-loading 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780.]: Yes.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780.]: The equipment furnished for the Department's DROPS trials in 1984 was based upon proposals of the selected competing main contractors. The final specification took up certain options offered and other changes ordered by the Department affecting engine power (340 bhp), adoption of automatic transmission and hydraulic power take-off. "Live" power take-off was the only feature not offered by companies other than Boughton's. Its specification had no significant cost implications.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: The production cost estimates and associated commercial terms of all firms in the 1982–83 DROPS competition were related to the particular equipment proposals, designs and specifications they offered. It is not the usual practice to disclose detailed tender information provided commercially in confidence.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence how the specifications for the MMLC 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 Boughton in respect of the engine power, transmission and all features including the number of wheels and axles; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: It is not the usual practice to disclose detailed confidential tender information of this character.
313W
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence how the price put forward in 1982 by Scammell in respect of Boughton's 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: I cannot disclose details of particular tender prices.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: The Department's decision to adopt live hydraulics in DROPS vehicles was taken in 1985 following its extensive field and engineering trials of this and alternative forms of power take-off.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if, at the time in 1984 when he gave as a reason for the non-selection of the Boughton's demountable rack off-loading 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 equipment had regularly picked up 16.5 tonnes without difficulty in the worst of conditions; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: The Department's decisions not to select Boughton came from its assessment of the particular equipment proposals which the firm submitted in the competition in 1982. These assessments were the subject of the then Secretary of State's correspondence with my right hon. Friend in February 1984. They could thus take no account of United States Army trials of other equipment which took place only subsequent to the British Army competition and whose reports were available only later in 1984.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was his Department's assessment, after Boughton 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: Based upon its consideration of all the proposals and solutions offered by industry as well as its own experience the Department's assessment in 1983 was that its trials should cover live hydraulics and alternative forms of power take-off across the full spectrum of operating conditions.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department has told Boughton about 314W 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 prodution cost estimates without Boughton's submission; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: The tender assessment process in 1982–83 took full account of all relevant considerations including differences in detailed specifications and prices offered by all the competing firms. I am not aware of any particular information passed to Messrs. Boughton on live hydraulic costs or other implications.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what criticisms his Department made of Boughton's proposed demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system regarding the hydraulic pressure at which it worked; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: Higher hydraulic pressures are generally considered less desirable on grounds of maintainability, reliability and, in certain instances, safety.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: No. These are matters of normal professional engineering judgment.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that his Department's demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system team of experts in 1983 understood the nature of all the offers submitted to it, that it was able to reconcile their drawings, their performance calculations and their written statements; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: Yes.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: The original DROPS requirement statement to industry called for minimum engine powers of 10 bhp per tonne and 12 bhp per tonne for the medium and improved mobility vehicles respectively. The Boughton proposals considerably exceeded the requirement in both instances.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if the equipment (a) as proposed in 1982 and (b) as built in 1984 by Fodens and Scammells met the stated 315W minimum power requirements for demountable rack offloading pick-up system IMMLC and MMLC vehicles contained in the 1982 stated requirements; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: Both Foden's and Scammell's proposals and equipment fully met the indicated power requirements in the medium mobility range. In the improved medium range the power requirements were fully satisfied by Scammell: Fodens were slightly below.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what figure has been determined as the minimum power-to-weight requirements for the low mobility trailer combination of demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system to comply with United Kingdom or Federal German legislation or Army mobility requirements; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: No particular figure has been determined: however the Army's DROPS equipment fully meets the requirements of United Kingdom legislation in these regards.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence when Boughton 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 Multilift in their 1982 demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system submissions; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: The Boughton 1982 proposals employed live hydraulics: those of other firms provided for alternative solutions.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: None.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: None. I understand that, as a matter of policy, Partek does not engage in such work.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: I have no knowledge of any such connection, although I understand that Partek has provided some commercial hydraulic equipment for waste disposal.
316W
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of the production order for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system programme.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: The DROPS production orders so far announced are worth some £220 million.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many firms were shortlisted for competitive trialling of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: Initially 11 firms provided main contractor proposals involving over 20 firms as main or subcontractors. Five firms were shortlisted for full main contractor assessment. Two main contractors (Foden Trucks and Scammell Motors) were finally selected to provide main equipments for the subsequent competitive trials, together with Multilift (two systems) and Powell Duffryn (load-handling systems), Marshalls of Cambridge and Multilift (flatracks), and Craven Tasker and Scottorn (trailers).
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department retains any copyright to the Miltilift mark IV demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: The Multilift mark IV system is in essence proprietary. The Department's rights are limited to minor modifications to secure interoperability.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: Like any other licensable equipment DROPS will require an export licence under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1985 before it is exported. There would be full consideration of all relevant factors before an export licence was granted.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: No. The Comptroller and Auditor General's current study of the DROPS project is part of his regular review of the Department's procurement.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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 Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1985 sets out, often in detailed terms, the specification of those goods and materials which require an export licence before they can be exported from this country. The Multilift mark IV DROPS system, although unclassified, requires, under the definitions contained in the order, an export licence.
317W
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 780]: The production cost estimates and associated commercial terms of all firms in the 1982–83 DROPS competition were related to the particular equipment proposals, designs and specifications they offered. It is not the usual practice to disclose detailed tender information provided commercially in confidence.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: DROPS technology is wholly conventional in nature and is readily available in many forms throughout the commercial vehicle and load handling system industries. Proprietary rights are safeguarded by their owners within the prevailing legal framework for intellectual property rights. DROPS equipment is subject to export licensing control in the usual way.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence when invitations were first issued for proposals to supply a combined vehicle and load handling system (DROPS).
318W
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: August 1982.
§ Mr. Conwayasked the Secretary of State for Defence 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.
§ Mr. Archie Hamilton[pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1986, c. 782]: Hearncrest Boughton has made a number of representations to the Ministry. In October 1985 the company claimed that 17 ideas which it believed to be original to Boughton had been incorporated in the DROPS concept of the trials equipment. To assist in formulating its claims the company was subsequently given special facilities to inspect this equipment but, in March 1986, following a careful examination by the Ministry's own intellectual property experts, Boughton was advised that, on the basis of the information that had been provided by the company, the Ministry did not believe that any unauthorised use would be made of any Boughton original ideas in the DROPS procurement. The reasons for the Ministry's views were fully explained in the correspondence with the chairman of the company, but the company was, nevertheless, given the opportunity to offer additional evidence in support of its claim if it so wished.
The company has not so far offered any such additional evidence, although it has been agreed that further discussions between relevant experts will take place as soon as the company is in a position to proceed.