Mr. NUGENTasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether, in view of the fact that he referred the case of Thomas Croke to the Wilson-Byrne Committee and of the undertaking that if no evidence could be submitted thereat to prove the complicity of Croke in the Sinn Fein rebellion he would be reinstated in his position and paid his salary during the period of his suspension, he will say if it is the practice of Government offices to permit men to be discharged on false and misleading information so as to procure suitable positions for others; if he will grant a sworn or other inquiry into the manner in which this man has been deprived of his livelihood; and if it is the intention to pay this man his salary during the period which the Commissioners were preparing a pretext to dispense with his services?
§ Mr. C. ROBERTSAs this man was not a Civil servant his case did not 623W come within the scope of the Commission referred to, and no such undertaking was given as the hon. Member suggests. The allegations contained in the latter portion of the question are unfounded, and I see no reason for instituting any further inquiry.
Mr. NUGENTasked whether Thomas Croke, an employé of the Insurance Commission, was arrested by the Sinn Feiners and deported; if, after receiving permission to communicate, he intimated the cause of his absence to the Insurance Commission, and received there from an acknowledgment that on his release the position of his employment would be considered; and whether this communication was suppressed by the officers of the Insurance Commission and the nominee of another Commissioner, who was in receipt of a pension, appointed to his place?
§ Mr. ROBERTSThomas Croke, who was employed at the Irish Insurance Commission as a temporary porter on a weekly engagement, was arrested by the authorities on the surrender of the rebels in the General Post Office, Dublin, and deported. He did not communicate with the Commissioners until some six weeks after his deportation, and a letter was sent to him on 20th June to the effect that the question of his re-employment could be considered on his release, but that he must understand that his place could not be kept open indefinitely. I am informed that the person who was subsequently taken on to fill the vacancy was a pensioner of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but there is no truth in the suggestion that it was owing to any suppression of papers, that Croke did not obtain reemployment.