34 
THE HOUSING QUESTION 
mons believe this, the Minister knew well that by far 
the greater part of the money borrowed was on short- 
period loan, e.g., Housing Bond money and the whole 
of the Local Loans Fund, which is the " banker " for 
all Local Authorities of under £200,000 rateable value. 
Does he mean to say that the Treasury borrowed 
money in 1919 and 1920 at 6 per cent, for periods of 
60 years ? Had they done so, the sooner the National 
Exchequer were removed from the custody of his 
colleagues the better. 
The facts, of course, are that for most of the 60 year 
period the rate of interest on housing loans will, it may 
reasonably be expected, be nearer 4 per cent, than 
6 per cent. 
Let us take another point. The subject under 
discussion on the 21st July was not so much a lament 
on the cost of houses contracted for before that date 
as whether Local Authorities should be allowed to 
build more houses in the future. The factor to take 
into account was the probable cost of future houses. 
When the Minister was speaking he knew well that the 
cost of houses had at that date dropped from £950 or 
more to £750 or so, and was likely to drop much further. 
(To-day the same house is less than £500.) But his 
whole calculations and argument were based on the 
house at £1,000. He was again wilfully deceiving the 
House of Commons. 
What then may we expect to be the annual " loss " 
per house to-day ? Assume a £500 house (i.e., more 
than the cost to-day). Add £75 for land, streets,