WAR VEHICLES INQUIRY

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24960, 22 August 1946, Page 4

WAR VEHICLES INQUIRY

EVIDENCE BY BOARD MEMBERS ”

REASONS FOR BULK SALE

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Augjist 21. It had been the practice to record the decisions rather than the discussions leading up to the decisions m the minutes of the meetings of the War Assets Realisation Board, according to evidence before the Commission of Inquiry to-day by John George Young, deputy-chairman of the board and a former Director-General of the Post and Telegraph Department. The witness said the board certainly was not dominated by the general manager, and his recommendations were not always accepted. Valuations were commonly made of all the assets for disposal, the only exception in the case of vehicles, so far as the witness knew, being those subject to the present inquiry. Tne board considered it wise to dispose of assets as soon as possible after they came under their control. The disposal was commonly made through tne trades dealing with the respective types of goods. ■ After a full discussion of tne methods of disposal of the United States vehicles the board unanimously decided on the general manager’s recommendation to quit them by public tender in large lots. The general manager had pointed out that the vehicles were quite unsuitable for returned soldiers. Three board members had roen the vehicles and all were aware of the abortive negotiations with the motor companies. Mr T. P. Cleary, for the board, asked the witness to read a letter he wrote yesterday or the day before to the Minister of Finance (the Rt. Hon. W. Nash), who was the chairman of the board, asking whether the release of Archibald’s from their contract to buy Dodge trucks and jeeps had the Minister’s approval. Mr W. E. Leicester, appearing for four members of Parliament, objected to the letter being admitted, saying that if the Minister had approved, then the letter saying so would be handed to the commission, and that would be presumed to cover the position. , “But I don’t know that the Minister has any special privilege not to appear here.” Mr Leicester said. He added that the only proper way to introduce such evidence was to get tne Minister to attend and be examined on the question. The Commissioner (Mr J-.H. Bartholomew), after it was explained that the letter was not seeking Mr Nash s opinion on the question for the first time, agreed that his reply would be primary evidence and should be given at the hearing. , ~ Mr Cleary said he hoped the commission did not think an attempt had been made to do something irregular or improper. , The letter was then withdrawn. In reply to Mr S. G. Stephenson (counsel for Brigadier Avery) the witness said he had never found the general manager anything but a man of the utmost integrity and ability in that

Unusual Circumstances Cross-examined by Mr Leicester the witness said unusual circumstances had decided the board to depart from its ordinary policy of valuing motor vehicles before disposal. The vehicles were disposed of in accordance . with the wishes of the board. The witness said the public statement prepared by a committee of the board and released on July 13 had not been to gloss over th Af f the opening of the afternoon’s sitting Mr R. E. Harding announced that he would appear with Mr C. H. Arndt for W. P. Warner who, he understood, would be called x to give evidence. Warner was employed part time by tne board as a motor vehicle valuer. In consenting to the release of Archibald’s, said Mr Young, continuing his evidence, he had probably been influenced by his experience in the Post Office. That department dealt with a great many contracts which included a deposit. When he left the Government had never claimed a deposit. Answering the Commissioner, tne witness saicF Archibald’s threat proceedings did not affect his opinion about their release. . David Alexander Ewen, chairman of directors of Sargood, Son and Ewen, and a member of the War Assets .Realisation Board, said he felt it was the board’s duty to sell the vehicles to the best advantage. To do that time must be saved. In this case, where what might be called a job lot had been bought, a clean, quick sate at a good profit was, he felt when the transaction was being considered, the best thing the board could do. From the point of view of a businessman he. felt that the release of Archibald’s was the w An S swe?i‘ng e Mr Leicester, the witness said it had not occurred to him that the way the board dealt with the release of Archibald’s allowed Archibald’s to substitute a. new tender for their old tender, saving £30,000 and causing a loss to the Government of £ Norman Edwin Hutchings, Undersecretary of the Public Works Department, and a member of the board, said the difficulties of making a valuation of the vehicles given by the general manager satisfied him, although he was still a little unsettled about it, and raised the question at a subsequent meeting. Mr J. Meltzer, counsel for Mr O. Conibear, secretary to the board, announced that the pencilled schedule of tenders, into the loss of which Mr P. B. Cooke, K.C. (counsel for the Crown), had suggested the commission should inquire, had been found as the result of a search. Conibear was giving evidence when the commission adjourned until to-morrow morning.