OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The St. Omer Deal—Mr. Spurrier Asks for an Inquiry.
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL MOTOR,
[1745) Sir,—Up to now I have refrained from mhking any public statement with regard to the purchase by my company (Leyland Motors, Ltd.) of the dump at St. Omer, as until the committee had made their report, the matter was, so to speak, "sub judice."
Now, however, this report has been before the House, and I feel that, in justice to ourselves, somethine' must be said on the question. The two main grounds of complaint appear to have been first, that Leyland Motors were favoured in that they had better facilities and terms offered to them than Messrs. Lever 'Bros. ; and, secondly, that this was due to the fact that Lieut.-Col. Spurrier was at the Disposal Board, and two of his brothers are directors at Leylands Motors. I propose to deal with these two points separately.
Identity of Conditions.
(1) Exactly the same. list of vehicles was shown to each firm.
(2) To each firm it was said that no guarantees as to the accuracy of the list could be given.
(3) In neither case were shipping facilities promised.'
(4) Lever' Bros. were offered the dump for 2500,000, after our offer had been received, but refused it.
With regard to (1.)—the number of Leyland vehicles—a certain amount of confusion has arisen, and certain people have been led into making 'false statements, through ignorance, as to the number of these Leyland lorries. For instance,, in the list some are called lorries, some workshops, some lighthouses, some crocks, and some by other names. As a matter of fact, all these are exactly the same, but with different kinds of bodies.
General Page Croft, for instance, says that in the list shown to Lever Bros. there were only 683 Leyland lorries. This is perfectly true, and the number was just the same in the list shown to us; he omits,
however, to say that there were considerable numbers of all these other • classes, and consequently
allows it -to be thought that we were offered more than Lever Bros. were. This was certainly not the case.
With .regard to (2), both firms agree that the Ministry refused in each case to give guarantees. With regard to, (3)—Shipping facilities—these were never premised. We set about arranging for shipment as quickly as we could, and were getting these vehicles brought over in small quantities -by private owners at a charge of 215 per vehicle. Every
difficulty was put in our way by Government authorities, and it was considerably later that they approached us with an offer to bring them over for 230 -per vehicle—exactly twice as much as we were getting them, done for.
I turned this generous offer down without the slightest hesitation, and I was just upon the point of concluding another contract with a private firm to bring them over in large quantities for 215 each, when I received an a-mended offer from the Ministry to do the work for 216 each. So anxious were they to get the business that they sent an official down to see me on the matter. This official stated that no private firm could do the shipping as well as or as expeditiously as they could, and the result was that a contract was entered into, and the vehicles were brought over. With regard to (4), I would inerelY say that it seems manifestly unfair, after we had made our
4affer of 2500,000, that Messrs. Lever Brothers should have been told that they could have the dump for that sum, and I certainly think that the Disposal Board, on this point, gave an unfair advantage to Messrs. "Lever Brothers.
Much mudjhas been slung and many base insinuations have been made because Lieut.-Colonel Spurrier, as adviser to the Disposal Board, dealt with his brothers in this matter. These insinuations I can only call wicked and monstrous. Now comes the worst point of all, In his speech in the House, Sir Frederick Banbury made the following statement :- "A witness before the Commission said he was informed by one of the Mr. Spurriers that it was never intended that Lever Brothers should have an opportunity of buying this dump ; it, was always meant to be..kept for Leylands, and Leylands had not interfered before because they were waiting for somebody to come along, and then they were going to step in and get it, and they said, 'That is what our brother is there for.' "
On reading this irk the paper I at once requested Sir Frederick Banbury to let me have.the:na,meof this witness, as I told hira there was not one, word of truth in it. He has been kind enough to send me this gentleman's name. His letter says:—
"The witness was Mr. Horniman, and his statement was that the words in question were used over the telephone in a.conversation between Mr. George Spurrier and himself." Now Mr. George Spurrier is the Lieut.-Colonel Spurrier who was at the Disposal Board, and he therefore is made to say " our brother was put there in order to do these things." The whole thing is manifestly absurd. There ought to be a, public inquiry into the whole matter, and this is certainly what-we should like to see, and what we think, in the circumstances, should be granted.—Yours faithfully,
Arernint SPURRIER,
Director, Leyland Motors, Ltd.
Morshea.d House, Richmond, Surrey. •
Service.
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
11746] Sir,—I was interested to note in your editorial columns last week a reference to a Motor Service Society which has been formed. If such a society can do anything towards the improvement of " service " in this country it is certainly to be hoped that success will attend'its efforts. It.seems to me, however, that societies of this kind seldom contribute anything of real benefit to the industry.. It is true thatthey enable discussions to take place, and by the exchange of ideas amongst the persons who are most competent to deal with the subjects whichthey embrace, make for a wider understanding -of them, but so often, they develop into mere debating societies, whose members are prone to talk more for the sake of effect and of advertisement, than in an endeavour to disseminate knowledge and to get to the bottom of really contentious matters. I trust that such will not oe the case with the society in question. After all, it. seems to me that efficient " service," and all that it -implies, is such an, obvious.necessity in modern commerce that there really should be no need for a. society specially to deal with it. Every manufacturer' and trader should be able to appreciate.fully, if he has any intelligence at all, that it is only by the previsionof efficient " service " that any business can be built up with hope of permanent success.—Yours faithfully, Birmingham. INTERESTED.