§ 43. Captain SHEEHANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any claim has been received from the Mills' Equipment Company for payment of royalty in respect of the pattern 1914 Infantry equipment; if so, on what grounds was their claim based; whether their claim was admitted by the War Office, the date on which it was admitted, and the amount per set paid as royalty; whether, as a matter of fact, any of the 1914 equipment was manufactured by the Mills' Company, and, if so, the number of sets; and what is the total amount to present date paid to this company in the way of royalties in respect of the 1914 Infantry equipment and pattern 1908 web equipment, respectively?
§ Mr. FORSTERI am not yet in a position to give this information, which involves much research.
§ Captain SHEEHANIs it not the fact that this question was put over a year ago, and the right hon. Gentleman did not reply as to whether a royalty was paid?
§ Mr. FORSTERThere are many items of information for which the hon. Gentleman has asked and as to which I have not been able to get the replies in time.
§ 44. Captain SHEEHANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the pattern 1908 web equipment described in patent No. 28812 was actually invented by Major (now Colonel) Burrowes; whether this officer handed over his design to the War Office prior to patent No. 28812 being granted to the persons named therein; can he state the circumstances under which the War Office allowed a public company to acquire a right in a War Office invention; was Major Burrowes subsequently allowed to enter into private relations with the Mills' Equipment Company and what were these relations, whether patent No. 28812 of 1906 is void by reason of the fact that it does not give the name of Major Burrowes as the real, true, and first inventor of the equipment described in that patent; whether the fact that this patent was so void was known to the War Office officials concerned at the time that the question of payment of royalty to the Mills' Equipment Company on the pattern 1908 equipment and the pattern 1914 equipment was considered by them; and, if so, why was not the claim of the Mills' Company contested by them?
§ Mr. FORSTERI would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply on the 4th July, 1916, to the hon. Member for East Leeds, of which I am sending him a copy.
§ Captain SHEEHANHaving already seen the reply, may I state that it does not answer any of the specific questions which I have raised here, and can the right hon. Gentleman state the conditions under which the. War Office allows a public company to acquire the rights of a War Office invention? That was not answered.
§ Mr. FORSTERI think it was.
§ Captain SHEEHANHaving regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the subject in the course of this afternoon's Debate.
§ 67. Captain SHEEHANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a claim for reward in connection with the invention of the pattern 1914 Infantry equipment was submitted, through the usual channels, to the War Office by Major C. Honey, Army Ordnance Department, in August, 1915; whether Major Honey's claim was investigated and considered side by side with the claim for royalty put forward by the Mills' Equipment Company by the War Office patent expert and the Department of the War Office and Ministry of Munitions Inventions Department concerned; on what date was Major Honey informed that his claim for reward could not be admitted; and can he explain why Major (now Colonel) Burrowes was allowed to make his own peculiar arrangements with a manufacturing company, the Mills' Equipment Company, whilst Major Honey's claim for an improved and distinctive and adopted invention has been summarily refused and no reward whatever given to him?
§ Mr. FORSTERA claim for reward was made by Major Honey in August, 1915, but was held over pending the settlement of a claim for royalties by the Mills' Equipment Company. The Department were advised that the 1914 pattern Infantry equipment infringed the company's patent of 1906, and Major Honey's claim was, therefore, not considered valid.