Mr. Fred EvansI rise to speak about a matter on which I most humbly seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and a possible ruling concerning what may constitute a breach of privilege by Mr. George Wright, the secretary of a body in Wales which calls itself the Trade Union Congress of Wales. Mr. Wright is also the General Secretary of the Wales for the Assembly Action Committee.
Yesterday, it was my distasteful task to draw to the attention of the House and the appropriate quarters an improper use of the message board for the distribution of propaganda in connection with a fundamental debate. It was obviously an attempt to sway the opinions of hon. Members.
The essence of this matter, however, is rather different. It is contained in the South Wales Echo of Thursday 13th January. The extract to which I wish to draw the attention of the Chair and the House is an article entitled
'Wales out' vote will be treachery—claim ".That is the claim of Mr. Wright, but in an interview with the Press he said that the action of hon. Members who voted 337 against Wales being included in the devolution Billwould not be forgotten by those of us in leading positions and the people we serve.That can apply only to my colleagues and I who have resisted some aspects of the Government's devolution policy and who have called for a referendum. We are now being attacked in this way.More seriously for all hon. Members is that this utterance by somebody who holds a responsible position—Mr. Wright is regional organiser for the Transport and General Workers Union—could jeopardise the political security of hon. Members. That would indeed be serious. This situation has been drawn to my attention by constituents. It has also been pointed out to other hon. Members by constituents who uphold the right of an hon. Member to represent the views expressed in his constituency without fear of any actions, direct or indirect, being taken against him.
I realise, of course, the technical difficulty in this case. It was only after leaving the Chamber for a short while during yesterday's debate that my attention was drawn to the matter. It was not possible for me to have seen the newspaper before. May I humbly suggest for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that this debate will be a long and continuing one. Could not the technicalities be waived as we began only yesterday with a full day's debate on devolution in Wales?
I emphasise that I find it disasteful to have to raise such matters in this honourable House, but I would regard it as a dereliction of my duty, as a democrat and as an hon. Member, if I did not do everything in my power to try to protect the 338 image of Parliament and to protect the rights of individual Members of all parties. It is in that spirit that I submit this matter to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration and guidance.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he intended to raise the matter this afternoon, and I am deeply grateful to him. He knows, and the House knows, that it has been my practice and that of my predecessors to ask for 24 hours to consider a question after it has been raised. But that has applied only when it has been within the power of Mr. Speaker to give a ruling on the matter. The exception—when the Chair does not defer answering—is when it lies outside the power of the Chair to give the matter precedence over the business of the day.
I must inform the hon. Member that this is clearly a case in which I have no power to meet his wishes. The material complained of was published in the South Wales Echo last Thursday night. It is now six days since publication. Although the hon. Member did not learn of the matter until last night, it would have been possible for other hon. Members to have raised it. The fact that the hon. Member did not learn of it until last night is not germane to my powers. It is, therefore, impossible for me to give the matter precedence, but the hon. Member may well find other means of pursuing the matter if he wishes to do so.