Last night a suggestion was made that it might be possible to refer certain matters to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, and I think the adjournment was specially made to allow opportunity for agreement on the terms of a motion. The motion has been circulated. With the leave of the House I move its acceptance, it being understood that the debate, both on the amendment and on the main motion, stands adjourned until such time as the Committee has reported back to the House.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY OF DUBLIN NORTH.
We are not opposing this, seeing that the debate on the main motion and the amendment will be resumed afterwards. We want it clearly understood that our opinion is that any of these matters ought not to be investigated at all by this House, that they should be investigated by a proper court, and this is an arrogating by a Committee of the House to itself of certain judicial functions. However, as it is not going to affect materially the amendment, we are not going to oppose it.
I take it, therefore, that the motion of reference to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges of the matter is agreed to. Until when is the debate on the main motion and amendment adjourned?
I would be able to say if I could get some light as to when the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will be likely to meet.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges could meet on Tuesday or Wednesday morning, whichever suits the convenience of the Deputies who are members of it. I am Chairman of that Committee. I can summon a meeting whenever suitable, but I would naturally summon a meeting only after consultation with the members who have to travel to attend it. We could hold a meeting on Tuesday, in which case the matter might, perhaps, be concluded. If the debate were adjourned until Thursday of next week, the matter would stand without prejudice.
Ordered: That the debate on the motion and the amendment be adjourned until Thursday, 8th March.
Resolved:— That the questions—
(1) Whether James Larkin, described as of Unity Hall, 31 Marlboro' Street, in the City of Dublin, returned by the Returning Officer for the Borough Constituency of Dublin North as one of the eight persons returned to serve in the Dáil for that Constituency at the General Election held on the 15th day of September, 1927, is one and the same person as James Larkin, described as of 54 Beechwood Avenue, Ranelagh, in the County of Dublin, Labour Organiser, who, on the 21st day of November, 1924, was adjudicated bankrupt by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann; and
(2) if James Larkin, described as of Unity Hall, 31 Marlboro' Street, in the City of Dublin, be one and the same person as James Larkin, described as of 54 Beechwood Avenue, Ranelagh, in the County of Dublin, whether the said James Larkin, described as of Unity Hall, 31 Marlboro' Street, in the City of Dublin, was on the 15th day of September, 1927, an undischarged bankrupt under an adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction in Saorstát Eireann,
be referred for inquiry and report to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges;
That for the purposes of its inquiry the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be empowered to send for persons papers and records.—Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Orders No. 5 and 6 postponed.