34

THE  HOUSING  QUESTION

mons  believe  this,  the  Minister  knew  well  that  by  far
the  greater  part  of  the  money  borrowed  was  on  shortperiod
  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,