"Liberal" Provision for the Workers.

One of the most illuminating illustrations of what the present Government mean when they talk about making liberal provision for workers is to be found in the Workers' Dwellings Bill, as introduced by Mr. Seddon. This precious proposal provided that the worker should be able to acquire the freehold of his dwelling on the following characteristically liberal terms:—

If the worker elected to pay for his dwellings by payments extending over 32 years, he had to pay in each year 4 per cent, by way of interest or rent, 1 per cent, for depreciation, and 4 per cent, for sinking fund to obliterate the capital amount expended by the State. Under this scheme the tenant paid to the State £205 for every £100 spent by the State, outside interest and depreciation. The Opposition, that gang of soulless Tories, who have no sympathy whatever with the cause of labour, succeeded in securing the reduction of the Sinking Fund by one per cent., thus reducing the £205 to £157.

Under the scheme which extended over 41 years, the worker was to pay 4 per cent, interest, 1 per cent, depreciation, and 3½ percent, sinking fund, payments which would have given the State £264 for every £100 which it put into the scheme. Again did the enemy of the worker intervene, and by securing a reduction of 2 per cent, in sinking fund reduced the £264 to £117 10s.

But there is still one extremely "liberal" feature remaining in the scheme. The worker must pay 1 per cent, depreciation per annum over the whole period, until he has paid off the capital sum; this, of course, only affords reasonable protection to the State. But when the worker has returned to the State more than the original cost of the dwelling surely he should be handed back the money he has contributed against depreciation in what is then his own building. But Mr. Seddon keeps the depreciation: in other words, at the end page 21 of 41 years, the worker has paid £117 ios. for every £100 spent on his dwelling, plus 41 per cent., not counting compound interest, and this for a building 41 years old. In other words 58 per cent, more than it cost to erect 41 years previously. The 32 years' scheme exhibits the same defect, as a matter of fact the 1 per cent, depreciation, at compound interest, is about sufficient to pay off the amount apart from sinking fund.

And this is "Liberal" provision on the part of a Government which introduced a "Usury Prevention" Bill.