§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a short personal statement.
Yesterday, in winding up the debate on the Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I said that
…one large burgh in the industrial area has found that the problem of overcrowding in the existing stock of houses could be solved if the town could rearrange its tenants according to the numbers in their families."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 1466–7.]In answer to an interjection, I said that the burgh concerned was Paisley.While Paisley has, indeed, reported that overcrowding in council houses could largely be abated by rearranging its tenants, the authority which has reported that rearrangement could completely solve the problem of overcrowded tenants in council houses is Hamilton Town Council.
I am sorry that I confused the two burghs in this way and that I did not perhaps make it entirely clear that I was thinking of overcrowding in the local authority's houses and not overcrowding in the burgh generally.
1550 I wish to apologise for misleading the House in this way.
§ Mr. T. Fraser rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, we cannot have a debate on this statement.
§ Mr. FraserI do not think that anyone will want a debate, Sir, but my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) was very excited last night and objected vigorously when his constituency was mentioned in this connection. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would not give way, but now he says that what he said about Paisley he should have said about my constituency. I just want to say that what the Under-Secretary said about Paisley last night is just as inaccurate in its application to Hamilton, and that—
§ Mr. SpeakerNo, we do not allow debates on personal statements.