Colonel THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he is aware that Mr. R. Grant, of 145, Plashet Road, Upton Park, sent along on 5th and 14th February, 1916, a plan of defence against enemy aircraft to the Comptroller of Munitions Inventions, Princes Street, Westminster; if he is aware that the balloon device submitted in the plan has been used in every detail, except that anchors were used instead of miniature bombs; if he is aware that the Government invited suggestions and inventions, and promised to pay for same; and if he can state the reasons why Mr. R. Grant has not received any compensation for the balloon device submitted?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYThe answer to the first part of the question is Yes, Sir. I am advised that the proposal submitted was crude in conception, and did not contain the technical data on which the success of such a device depends. More than fifty similar suggestions had been received by the Munitions Inventions Department before the date of Mr. Grant's communication. The scheme of defence eventually adopted was not on the lines of Mr. Grant's proposal.