§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Inspector Syme reported in October, 1909, that he was unable to move his residence from Westminster to Fulham pending the result of his appeal of the 26th August, 1909, against his transfer, and was travelling to and fro at the public expense; whether the Receiver refunded to Inspector Syme the sum of £1 15s. 3d. for travelling expenses so incurred; whether inspectors of the Metropolitan police are permitted to reside three miles from town stations at which they are performing duty, and are they allowed travelling expenses; and will he explain why this claim for travelling expenses was allowed if Inspector Syme's transfer did not involve removal of his residence?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes; Inspector Syme was allowed as a temporary arrangement to remain in his existing residence, and his travelling expenses were paid. The reason was to prevent his transfer, which was not a punishment, from operating to any way to his disadvantage.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked whether Chief Inspector Shervington recommended the transfer of Inspector Syme from Gerald Road to North Fulham in August, 1909; did he give his reasons in a written minute or report dealing with a refused charge; did he allege that the inspector was familiar with subordinates; did he make any reference to supposed friction between the inspector and his superiors; did the inspector have any knowledge of the allegation of familiarity, and was he allowed an opportunity to refute it before he was transferred; did Chief Inspector Shervington admit to the Disciplinary Board that 615 his only reason for alleging familiarity was that the inspector spoke for his subordinates; was it shown in evidence, and un questioned, that one of the two constables, whom the chief inspector alleged the inspector was familiar with, had only been one week at the station and had never been spoken to by Inspector Syme prior to the refused charge; did the Disciplinary Board find that Chief Inspector Shervington had failed to prove the alleged familiarity; and did Inspector Syme at his interview with the Home Secretary explain that he appealed not against his transfer, but against the alleged grounds for his transfer?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have already, in reply to questions, given full information with regard to the circumstances leading to Inspector Syme's dismissal from the Metropolitan Police, and have laid on the Table a copy of the Commissioner's judgment. As the case cannot be reopened, no useful purpose would be served by any further discussion of the details of the case by way of question and answer. The matter can, of course, be fully discussed at the regular opportunity.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay the evidence be put at the disposal of Members to enable them to discuss the matter?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have already said that I have laid the judgment of the Commissioner, and I do not propose to lay other papers on the subject.