VEHICLES SENT TO PACIFIC

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24983, 18 September 1946, Page 8

VEHICLES SENT TO PACIFIC

ALLEGATIONS ABOUT CONDITION

INQUIRY BY DEFENCE COMMITTEE

(P.A.) WELLINGTON. Sept. 17. Allegations that defective vehicles were sent overseas with troops going to the Pacific in January, 1943, while new vehicles remained in crates on wharves were made by George Laing, giving evidence to-day before the i Defence Committee of the House of Representatives, in support of his; petition seeking an inquiry into the matter. Laing, in his petition, which was presented to the House on November 23, 1945, claimed that in his capacity of Government Inspector of Motor Vehicles he had done his utmost to prevent the sending overseas of a group of 500 vehicles, many of which were unfit for service overseas, having already had hard wear in Suva. Laing described the actions of those responsible as being treachery to the troops. His petition set out that he previously had petitioned the House on the matter in June. 1943 but had withdrawn that petition on being assured that a Committee of Inquiry would start on the following day. He alleged that this previous inquiry was unsatisfactory and that he had never been able to learn what decisions, if any, were reached. Laing alleged that as a result of efforts he had made to prevent faulty vehicles being sent overseas he had incurred the “hostility of persons in high places who were involved in these matters.” and that his official position had been prejudiced as a result of the discrimination shown against him. He also alleged that disciplinary action had been taken against Army officers who drew his attention to faulty vehicles. His petition accordingly asked for a public inquiry so that those responsible could be dealt with “according to their degree of incompetence or guilt” and to ensure that those who had been wronged or censured should have their probity publicly reinstated. Report to Prime Minister Laing told the committee that when, in January, 1943, three Army officers called at his office to express their concern about the condition of vehicles which were to be sent to the Pacific he prepared a memorandum for the Prime Minister reporting the position as those officers had told it to him, His information was that the decision to send defective vehicles away was the decision of the War Cabinet. He recommended the Prime Minister to take urgent action, but in spite of this the vehicles were shipped away.

He was reluctant to call witnesses, said Laing, because of action which already had been taken against one of the Army officers concerned. Laing alleged that the control of motor transport by Army Headquarters was incompetent, with inexperi-, enced men holding important -posi-' tions. He also declared that the needs of the Army and the interests of the troops overseas were subordinated to the interests of profit for members of the Motor Traders’ Association, to whom new vehicles were made available, while defective ones were supplied to the troops in the Pacific. Certain Army officers who protested at what was going on. said Laing, were warned that as they would doubtless wish to re-enter the motor trade after the war they should, in their conduct as Army officers be more sympathetic to the trade. Laing said that at the time the defective vehicles were sent away there were hundreds of vehicles in good order available, while new ones still in crates were on the wharves. Second Memorandum When Laing began to read to the committee a second long memorandum he had sent to the Prime Minister—April 1, 1943—Mr T. P. Cleary, who, with Mr S. G. Stephenson, repre. sented the Army Department, protested that in this memorandum rating S ade -J 1 char g e s against the Army Department, most of them quite unrelated to the present petition. was directed by the chairman (Mr R. M. Macfarlane) to confine his submissions to the subject matter of the petition. Quoting from his second memorandum to the Prime Minister, Laing said there would have been more vehicles in good condition but for an agreement between the Army Department and the motor trade, to which new vehicles were released, while troops going overseas were given vehicles which were mechanically unsound Laing likened the “treachery” of those concerned to the “treachery which ocFran ce.” He said that about -hat time 5400 vehicles were being classified by the Army as surplus , mf °rmation was that some vehicles had been over-ordered, ■itnough these orders were mostly cancelled at a later date. Laing said that an agreement made by Brigadier Avery with the Motor Traders’ Association was approved by the Treasury after a most casual scrutiny. About two months after sending his second memorandum to the Prime Minister he met Mr Fraser in a corridor of Parliament Buildings, said Laing. Mr Fraser said the War Cabinet considered Laing’s petition “terrible.” and said something drastic would have to be done with him if he could not substantiate the charges. When he presented his first petition to the House. Mr Fraser sent for him and told him he would have to withdraw “■ . He refused to do so until told that a committee of inquiry would investigate the matter. That committee was presided over by Sir William Perry. M.L.C.. the other members bemg Mr A. G. Osborne. M.P., and the Hon. Adam Hamilton. M.P. This committee was unsatisfactory, because Brigadier Avery, against whom he had made serious charges, was not prelent.

When Laing, continuing his submissions. quoted from a report made to him by an Army lieutenant who had complained about the vehicles. Mr Cleary said that, according to Majorgeneral Barrowclough, it was largely the incorrect statements of this lieutenant. sent back from the Pacific, that had caused the trouble. Laing was questioned by several members of the committee as to the nature of this officer’s report to him. Laing claimed that, as inspector-gen-eral of motor vehicles, he exercised general supervision of Armv vehicles. While the action of the officer concerned in coming to himself—a civilian —was highly unusual it was because that officer’s protests to his superiors had been without effect. General’s Statements Laing, cross-examined by Mr Cleary, said he was not prepared to accept the statement by General Barrowclough that there was no danger to life caused by the sending of those particular vehicles overseas. He had made allegations to the Prime Minister that certain vehicles were being directed to the trade, and not to the 3rd Division. Mr Cleary: Did you know that those vehicles were rejected by the Army? Mr Laing: 1 did know, but 1 was very suspicious of the grounds on which they were rejected. Laing said he was prepared to accept the statement made by General Barrowclough on February 6, 1943, that there had not been risk of injury, far less risk to life, as a result of the condition of the vehicles, but if the vehicles had been in action there would have been risk. Mr Cleary, quoting from the findings of the committee presided over •a Sir Perry, said that the Army officers concerned had been exonerated. Laing’s language concerning those officers was condemned, and the suggestion was made that he offer an apology. Laing said the crux ot his complaint was that worn-out vehicles were going Overseas while the proper vehicles remained in the country Mr Cleary asked if one Army officer’s statement was made to Laing While the officer was under open arrest Laing: Yes. and he was cleared of all charges against him. The committee adjourned until 11 Ojn. to-morrow.