asked the Minister for Local Government whether he has issued instructions to local authorities to the effect that a married daughter who, with her husband and family, reside in a local authority house may not be considered for rehousing.

I have not issued any instructions to this effect.

Is the Minister aware that Wexford Corporation are under the impression that they cannot house a family in which the husband takes his wife to live with her parents? He is regarded as a lodger and not as an occupier of a local authority house.

I am afraid there must be some misunderstanding there because that does not debar his being housed and I do not think such an instruction was ever issued.

Is it not a fact that where a local authority houses a person, such as the person mentioned in the question, the local authority will not get a State subsidy for the house? In other words, local authorities—for instance, the Cork Corporation—would drop something in the nature of a £400 subsidy on a house given to a person such as the person mentioned by Deputy Corish. Is that not the fact? Is that not tantamount to saying to a local authority that they may not rehouse this type of person?

They lose half the subsidy.

That is not the position.

Tell us what the position is.

They do not lose the subsidy because of that.

They lose half the subsidy——

Order. Deputy Corish.

They lose half the subsidy, otherwise £500. I ought to know. I am dealing with them every day.

In this case there is a daughter who married. She has one child. Wexford Corporation say she is not eligible to be housed by Wexford Corporation.

She is eligible.

And there is no question of the local authority being denied the ordinary subsidy in that case?

The ordinary subsidy would be payable in that case.

Would the Minister indicate that fact to corporations generally because there is a misapprehension about it?

Let me say this lest there be any further confusion about the matter: the ordinary subsidy is one-third, the extraordinary subsidy is two-thirds. Such a case as has been quoted here now is entitled to the ordinary subsidy.

Would the Minister not consider that unfair if a girl in a house gets married and has nowhere else to go and the husband comes to live with his in-laws? I suggest it is unreasonable.

It depends on the mother-in-law.

They can be rehoused in an older house and there will be no question of a subsidy arising.

Would the Minister say why he regards the one-third subsidy as the ordinary subsidy and the two-thirds subsidy as extraordinary, whereas in fact, so far as our local authority housing schemes are concerned, the two-thirds subsidy applies to 90 per cent. of the houses? Very few receive only the ordinary subsidy.

It is one-third in the ordinary way.

That is a bandying of words.

Not really.

I made a statement and it was correct. I said where a person lives in a Corporation dwelling he gets half. That is admitted. The Minister said the ordinary subsidy is one-third and the extraordinary one two-thirds. Would the Minister try to listen to me?

Order!

I am dealing with this 50 times a day.

Order!

I am brushed off as if I were a "clock".

Order!

I am right. It is admitted I am right.