VEHICLES FOR TROOPS

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 September 1946, Page 6

VEHICLES FOR TROOPS

INSPECTOR’S ALLEGATION OF “TREACHERY” PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 17. Allegations that defective vehicles were sent overseas with the troops going to the Pacific in January, 1943, - while new vehicles remained in the crates on the wharves were made by George Laing, giving.evidence today before the Defence Committee of the House of Representatives in support of his petition seeking for 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 inspector-general 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 Avear in Suva. Decisions Not Announced. Laing described the actions of those responsible as being treachery to the troops. His petition set out that he had previously petitioned the House on the matter in June, 1943, but withdretv 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, Avere reached. Laing alleged that as a result of the efforts he had made to prevent, faulty vehicles from being sent overseas he had incurred “hostility of persons in high places, who were involved. In these matters,” and that, his official position had been prejudiced as a result of discrimination shown against him. Public Inquiry Sought. He also alleged that disciplinary action had been taken against Army officers who drew his attention to the faulty vehicles. His petition, accordingly, asked for a public inquiry so that those responsible could be dealt Avith “according to their degree of incompetence or guilt,” and to ensure that those who have been wronged or censured should have their probity publicly reinstated. Laing told the committee that; when in January, 1943, three Army officers called at his office to express their concern about the condition of the*vehicles, Avhich 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 Avas that the decision to send defective vehicles aAvay Avas the decision of the AVar Cabinet. He recommended the Prime Minister to take urgent action, but, despite this, the vehicles Avere shipped away. He Avas reluctant to call witnesses, said Laing, because of the action Avhich had already been taken against one of the Army officers concerned. “Interests of Profit” Laing alleged 1 that control of motor transport by Army Headquarters was incompetent with inexperienced men' holding important positions. He also declared that the needs of the Army and the interests of the troops overseas Avere subordinated to the interests of profit for members of the Motor Traders’ Association, to whom neAV vehicles were made available while defective ones were supplied to the troops in the Pacific. Laing said that certain Army officers, who protested at what Avas going on, were warned that as they would doubtless Avish 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 at the time the defective vehicles were sent away there were hundreds of vehicles in good order available while new ones still in their crates were on the Avharves.

When Laing commenced to read to the committee a second lengthy memorandum he had sent to the Prime Minister —on April 1, 1943, Mr. T. P. Cleary, Avho Avith Mr. S. G. Stephenson, represented the Army Department, protested that in this memo Laing made 11 charges against the Army Department, most of them quite unrelated to the present petition. Laing was directed by the .chairman of the committee, Mr. R. M. MacFarlane, to confine his submissions to the subject matter of the petition. Quoting from his second memo to the Prime Minister, Mr Laing said there would have been more vehicles in good condition but for an agreement between the Army Department and. the motor trade, to Avhich new vehicles were released: while the troops going overseas Avere given vehicles Avhich Avere mechanically unsound Laing likened the treachery of those concerned to the trachery which had occurred in France. He said that about that, time 5400 vehicles were being classified by the Army’as surplus, Avhile his information was that some 14,000 vehicles had been over-ordered, although these orders Avere mostly cancelled at a later date. ■ “Casual Scrutiny” Laing said that the agreement made by Brigadier Avery with the Motor Traders’ Association Avas approved by'the Treasury after the most casual scrutiny. About lavo months after sending his second memo to the Prime Minister he met Mr Fraser in a corridor of Parliament Buildings. Mr Frasersaid the War Cabinet had considered Mr Laing’s petition as “terrible” and said something drastic Avould have to be done Avith him if he could not substantiate his charges. When he presented his first petition to the House, Mr Fraser had sent for him and told him he would have to withdraw it. He refused to do so until told that a committee of inquiry would investigate the matter. That committee Avas presided over by Sir William Perry, M.L.C., the other members being Mr A. G. Osborne, M.P., and Mr Adam Hamilton, M.P. This committee was unsatisfactory, because Brigadier Avery, against whem he made serious charges, was not present. Questioned by members of the committee, Laing said he could not recall being told the reason, for the Brigadier’s absence. When Laing continuing his submissions, quoted from a report made to him by an Army lieutenant, who had complained about vehicles, Mr. Cleary said that, according to Major-General Barrowclough, it was largely incorrect. The statements of this lieutenant, sent back from the Pacific, r had’ caused the trouble. ■