§ 63 Sir Cooper Rawsonasked the Lord Privy Seal (1)whether his attention has been drawn to a device for masking lights on vehicles during air raids which has been designed by a resident at Brighton; whether he is aware that at a demonstration given at Shoreham Aerodrome on 20th May four vehicles equipped with this device were able to drive comfortably at over 15 miles an hour, while at the same time competent observers, including personages from the police and local air-raid precautions services and retired Royal Air Force officers, were unable to detect the transport or its lights from an aeroplane; and, in view of this evidence, why this device has not been approved by his Department;
(2) whether the Air-Raid Precautions Department have in view the production of a device of their own for masking the lights of motor cars during air raids; and whether he can give any indication of the cost of this device to local authorities;
(3) whether he is aware that lack of guidance on the method of masking lights on essential vehicles during air raids is causing concern to local authorities and is handicapping the technical and inventive talent of the country in aiding national defence, and when recommendations will be issued; and whether it is intended to approve one or more methods for masking lights?
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson)The device to which my hon. Friend refers was brought to the notice of my Department in March, 1938. It was examined by the Department's expert advisers, who came to the conclusion that it was unsuitable for general adoption. The device was examined again in the light of reports on the tests carried out in May last, but my advisers found no grounds for modifying the conclusion which they had previously reached. The Department has for some time been carrying out investigations to determine the most suitable type of mask for headlights, and I hope to be in a position to issue a memorandum on the subject at an early date, for the guidance of motorists. It is intended that the memorandum shall prescribe the conditions of light distribution and intensity, and shall also give particulars of the masking device which is recommended as complying with those conditions, but any 1018 other headlamp device which produces the same effect will be permitted. I am not at present in a position to give details of the cost of the recommended device.
§ Sir C. RawsonIs my right hon. Friend aware that his Department merely gave a bald statement that the filter either gave too little light for driving comfortably or gave so much light as to be visible from the air; and is he aware that that is in conflict with the reports given by the chief constables of East Sussex, Brighton, Hove, and other towns and districts in the country who have tested this apparatus from the air?
§ Sir C. RawsonOn a point of Order. I do not often waste the time of this House. I am getting one answer to three questions, and a very bad one at that.
§ Sir J. AndersonThe problem of combining minimum visibility from the air with adequate lighting for traffic purposes and an absence of dazzle under black-out conditions is a very difficult one, and many competing suggestions and claims have had to be thoroughly investigated. I hope we have at last reached finality, and, as I have indicated, it is proposed to convey the conclusions reached to the public at once.
§ Sir C. RawsonWill my right hon. Friend submit this and other devices to a scientific committee, for the purpose of ascertaining what is the best procurable; and will he answer my Question No. 63, as to the cost of the instrument he has in mind?
§ Sir J. AndersonI have said that I cannot give a final figure at the moment.