Re: Inchcape AGM

Guinness Peat Group PLC
9 May 2001

    TEXT OF STATEMENT FOR CIRCULATION TO SHAREHOLDERS BY
  GUINNESS PEAT GROUP plc IN SUPPORT OF ITS RESOLUTIONS FOR
  THE RETURN OF CASH TO SHAREHOLDERS TO BE PROPOSED AT THE
     FORTHCOMING ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF INCHCAPE plc.

                              
 'The Financial Services business, which is a key component
                           of our
 customer-focused strategy, achieved strong growth in 1999..
   ... The recovery in profitability of our Asian business
                         contributed
                significantly to this growth'
                              
                                               ----------
                              Inchcape 1999 Annual Report
                              
                              
      'The sale of IRB is a further example of Inchcape
                        strengthening
   its balance sheet and refocusing on its core business'
                              
                                               ----------
                        Inchcape announcement, March 2001
                              
                              
The  GPG  letter of 15 February (a copy of which is included
in  the notice of AGM, together with Inchcape's reply  of  5
March)  proposed an immediate return of capital  of  £1  per
share  and an asset realization program estimated to produce
in  excess  of £5 per share in total (arguably, considerably
in excess of £5).

Inchcape's  response conceded a limited capital  return  but
did not accept the merit of an orderly realization of assets
rather   than   persisting  with  the  traditional   trading
structure.

Shareholders  can make their own judgment  on  these  issues
but,  in our view, the Inchcape conclusion outlined on  Page
13,  whilst certainly providing a summary of worthy business
principles, is not a practical strategy which addresses  the
value of assets and their potential returns.

Inchcape Motors Ltd in Singapore is stated to be 'one of the
cornerstones of our global relationship with Toyota' but the
reality   is,  it  is  half  a  world  away,  with  minority
shareholders,  its own administrative base  and  a  separate
Stock   Exchange   listing   (and   presumably,   a   direct
relationship with Toyota).  Obviously, it should  be  wholly
owned   by  Inchcape  or,  more  logically,  sold  to  local
investors   and   the   proceeds   returned   to    Inchcape
shareholders.

The Hong Kong operation recorded an excellent performance in
Year  2000  and is the 'jewel in the crown' of the  Inchcape
group.   The  problem  is, however,  that  the  profits  are
savaged by central costs, taxes and various diversions, such
as  the  £6  million write off in China, before  they  reach
Inchcape's UK shareholders.  Once again, a sale of Hong Kong
would command a substantial premium from Asian investors.

The UK business is clearly 'the weakest link'.  The loss  of
Toyota  GB and the imminent exit from Mazda, leaves a  large
gap  which  is  not  easily filled.   The  danger  is  their
replacement  by  a  ragbag  of fringe  investments  such  as
Autobytel  and the recent rather unappealing acquisition  of
49% of Eurofleet.

Inchcape  is  a famous British trading name with  a  notable
history  and tradition.  It is recognized that an  effective
liquidation  is  not  an attractive  option  for  Board  and
management  in  2001, and should not be lightly  undertaken.
Unfortunately,  however, we believe the same  factors  which
caused  the  previous  Board  and  management  to  quit  the
worldwide  shipping  and  trading  operations  apply,   with
possibly greater force, to the motor industry at the present
time.

Volume  manufacturers  are steadily  moving  closer  to  the
retail  customer in order to complement the role of  private
entrepreneurs  more  suited to niche and  specialist  areas.
Marketing  and geographic diversification now has little  or
no added value.

In   the  first  instance,  we  commend  your  support   for
Resolutions  11  and 12 which provide for a continuation  of
returning  cash to shareholders.   Whatever course  Inchcape
follows  in the future, there is no downside in distributing
funds  which  are  surplus  to normal  requirements  at  the
present time.