I move—

seconded.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister—there is a rumour or a report about that the Liquor Bill will not be proceeded with further this session. Would he kindly enlighten the House on the subject?

I would not like to say so definitely, but I think I can fairly say that in consequence of the illness or indisposition of my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, that Bill will, unfortunately, have to stand over.

May I ask the Minister of Finance a question? There is a provision in the Liquor Bill—

I am afraid that the matter of the Liquor Bill cannot be discussed now. The hon. member may put a question on the paper for Friday.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

It will be noticed that I specially mention homes in my motion as distinct from houses. Houses may mean a certain number of walls and a roof, whereas my intention is to get homes for the people as distinct from housing. Many visitors to this country remark on the fact that, whereas there are millions of acres of land lying idle, where there is settlement buildings are so congested as to absolutely take away all privacy and bring about insanitary conditions. This is owing to the high price asked for land. Rentals are also very high, and people, instead of having homes of their own, have to share houses, occupy flats, or in many cases, occupy a room or a couple of rooms with their families. These people, instead of looking for homes for themselves, take this position as a matter of course, and are quite satisfied to go on sharing houses with other people, and the position is becoming worse because whilst this is going on we know that where earnings have not been reduced they are stationary and rents are soaring all the time. In the rent census in May last we find that during the last ten years rents in the Union advanced no less than 30 per cent., and from 1924 to 1925, 4.3 per cent. The rent of a four-roomed house—and more than half the people in the towns live in four-roomed houses —is as follows, according to the census figures: Pretoria, £8 5s.; Bloemfontein, £8 1s. 9d.; Durban, £7 12s.; Johannesburg, £7 1s.; and Cape Town, £5 17s., the average throughout the Union being £7 7s. 4d., or almost 150 per cent. higher than for similar houses in Australia and New Zealand. Anybody who is acquainted with these statistics knows that vents are always under-estimated, because the best houses in any locality are owner-occupied, and the figures given are, therefore, the average for the worst houses in that locality. For instance, in Cape Town many houses are reckoned which are very old and should, in the interests of health, be demolished. Throughout the Union the prices of ground suitable for residences are very high, partly due to the dearness of money and speculation, and this is reflected in the rentals. You find what a serious handicap people are labouring under when you compare the rents here with those of any other country. In Australia and New Zealand the average rental for a four-roomed house is £3 2s. 4d., compared with £6 2s. 1d. in South Africa. These are the figures supplied in the census report of 1923, but the department last year estimated that the average rate of such a house in the Union had then risen to £7 7s. 4d.— 150 per cent. more than for a similar dwelling in Australia or New Zealand. The matter of overcrowding has been so exhaustively dealt with by the Ven. Archdeacon Lavis in this morning’s paper, and can be read by anyone interested, that I will not go further into it except to say that it will startle and surprise people to learn that overcrowding is worse in South Africa than in the big cities of the United Kingdom. Although I have every sympathy with the natives, submerged whites, coloured people, and for whom the reverend gentleman particularly writes, it does not appear that anything can be done for them under the motion before the House. Their troubles lie too deep to be remedied by a housing scheme for they are endeavouring to maintain a scale of civilization which cannot be kept up on the starvation wages they are paid. My present desire is for the Government to give people every opportunity to purchase their own homes, and it would be absurd to ask that people who live in the slums of Cape Town should be asked to buy their own homes seeing that they have enough to do to buy bread. To deal with the aspect of the question created by lack of housing for people who cannot afford to pay for the housing is the duty of the Government and society responsible for their impoverished condition, and should be undertaken at once if on no nobler grounds than as an insurance against the outbreak of epidemics. The only benefit these poor people may derive from the motion would be the indirect benefit of more houses being provided with a tendency to lower rents. The present Government is not responsible for the presence of slums and overcrowding, but it should, nevertheless, evolve a scheme to help the unfortunate people who are now compelled to reside in them. My desire to-day is to urge the Government to assist citizens to secure homes of their own, men, who, under present conditions, have no hope of doing so. Every business man annually prepares a balance sheet, and if, after he has made a generous allowance for expenses, the statement does not show a substantial addition to his assets, he complains that business is bad, and that the country is going to the dogs. But there are thousands of other men who do not trouble about a balance sheet—who have no material assets and very little hope of getting them—who are only too glad If they can keep out of debt, and who shudder at the prospect of old age when they cannot save anything during the years of their highest earning capacity. Surely such men, If they be industrious and as thrifty as the requirements of families will allow them to be, should not for all time be precluded from realizing an ambition to have homes of their own. But, unless Government comes to their assistance, I see no chance of such people acquiring homes, even of the cheapest description. The provision of homes for the workers is the logical sequence of the Government’s policy of encouraging local industries. We are looking forward to the fact that thousands of skilled workmen will, in the near future, take up their residence at Pretoria as a result of the establishment of the iron and steel industry there. Are we going to hand these workers over to the tender mercies of the rack-renting landlord, so that one-third of the wages will be taken from them for the payment of rent? In all our industries it is continually being preached that working costs must be kept down in order that the industries shall have a chance in competition with the world, and If they workers, despite the increased cost of living and high taxation, do their share by not clamouring for more wages, they are entitled to all the quid pro quo the Government can give them. It is not the question of the amount of the man’s wages, but what those wages will buy, and I do not blame a workman who, seeing no prospect of improving his position, becomes discontented, and agitates for higher wages than perhaps the industry in which he is engaged can afford to pay. The Census Department, in a report issued in 1923, stated in regard to housing conditions—

The Economic and Wage Commission also referred to this subject, and it is worthy of note that, whereas the commission was sharply divided on most points, it was unanimous that rents were excessive. Messrs. Stephen Mills, Henry Clay and John Martin, in their portion of the report stated—

The contention of the commission was that the wages of the men engaged in building should be reduced. I contend that if they Government would facilitate the building of houses in every way and also by granting cheap money they will bring about cheap housing without interfering with the wages of the workers. Those who were buying their own homes would get full advantage of any increase of wages their efforts secured for them. Messrs. Andrews, Lucas & Rood, the other members of the Economic and Wage Commission, reported—

My own view is expressed in this opinion, except that instead of the Government compelling unwilling local authorities to undertake the work, it would be far better for the Government to do the work itself. Now the man who is becoming the owner of his own home has a feeling of contentment as his financial position improves and he knows that in time to come he will be free from the payment of rent, which is the bugbear of all workers. Such a man will become a better citizen and a better worker. He knows his improved condition will be conducive to his own health and the health of his family, and his outlook on life would be completely changed, for he would leave the atmosphere of discontent and live in an atmosphere in which happiness would be radiated all round. For the public to receive cheap money from the Government is no new thing in South Africa. The Land Bank had been so satisfactory, that its results should justify the Government in extending the scheme of loaning cheap money to the public. The bank continued to pay the full cost of all money they had had, their capital is still intact, and they have built up a reserve of £463,000. Under another Government, half a million a year is loaned to settlers at 4 per cent., and they are not called upon to pay anything for two years. This is all in the interests of settlement, and I think it is necessary, and I only quote it to suggest that other portions of the public are also entitled to some consideration. The Government came into office with a mandate from the rank and file to stand by the rank and file rather than by financial interests, and I want the Minister to tell us that the Government is going to justify its claim to be a people’s Government, and will not only give us declarations of goodwill, but state that they are going to take action and stand between the borrowers and the investors, if, as I know to be the case, the borrowers cannot afford to pay the rate of interest demanded by the lenders. I do not ask the Government for anything for nothing. I do not ask for a dole. I merely ask the Government to loan the public money at 5 per cent., plus ½ per cent. for administration. Neither do I suggest the indiscriminate voting of the money. Personal character and ability to pay should be essentials, for it would be unfair to jeopardize the chances of honest men getting loans because other individuals, for some reason or other, did not meet their obligations. But the Government, having satisfied itself as to the bona fides of applicants, should be prepared to accept a small deposit. I have been in communication with all the principal local bodies in the country, and every one forecasts more applications for money for house building, and I estimate that fully £1,000,000 a year could be usefully utilized for housing purposes. If the money was advanced on a 20 years’ repayment basis at 5 per cent., plus ½ per cent. for administration, the people would get their loans, and the total repayment would be considerably less than they are at present paying for rent. Take a home costing £1,000. That is more than the average working man’s home need cost If they land be well bought, and I recommend preference being given to smaller loans; but a £1,000 loan could be repaid in 20 years at 5½ per cent. at the rate of £6 12s. 6d. per month, which is less than is paid for such a property merely as rent to-day. It might be asked where is the money coming from. I am not bothering about that. If they Government have the will to find it, it will be forthcoming. The fact that the Government are constantly spending money should not weigh with the House so much as what they are getting for it. In this particular case the Government would have the property for security, and, in addition, a priceless asset in the health and happiness of the people. I suggest that a 5 per cent. deposit would be ample. I know my hon. friend, whom I heard interject about security, would say that 5 per cent. would be too small.

One-third of the capital is usually the lowest.

The crux of the whole matter is the Government’s attitude. Is the Government going to do the work itself, or put it in the hands of people whose interests are to make a failure of it? If one investigates, it is surprising what a difference cheap money makes in these schemes. With redemption in 20 years, a £1,000 property at 5½ per cent. means that the interest alone comes to £660, while at the rate of 8 per cent., the prevailing rate in the district from which I come, the interest springs up from £650 to £1,020. Contrast the two, and it will be equivalent to the extent of 30s. per month for 20 years. In other words, a gift of £360 without straining the generosity of the Government, because it costs it nothing. When you come to take into consideration that by granting a Government loan, the value, from the selling standpoint, goes up so considerably it will be seen that for the Government there will be no loss on a small deposit or no deposit at all, even if a few do become defaulters. This is the experience elsewhere, and it has also been found that when a man is comfortably housed with his family under a Government loan, he will take every possible step to prevent being compelled to seek less comfortable quarters at a higher rental elsewhere. Quite a number of people will probably object to my views on the ground that housing is a domestic problem for the local authorities, and not for the Government at all. This was the Government’s view when the Central Housing Committee was established in 1920. At that time it was felt that £7,000,000 would be required for the provision of houses. In the meantime, £2,124,819 has been spent, and now we are told that there is no more money available. The job is not half done, and funds have petered out. The Central Housing Committee, in their last report, stated that they would require another £1,000,000 in order to finish off the schemes which they have in hand. Bents are increasing, and all centres of the country are crying out for houses and money to build them. I have a letter from the town clerk at Port Elizabeth, where there is big industrial development, saying that they want at least £500,000 in order to provide housing for the men engaged in the industries and for men in Government services, railways, police, etc. There is one thing I would like to remark here for the benefit of the Minister, and that is that in all the letters that I have got from the public bodies they state that they have had no difficulty in collecting moneys which are outstanding on account of housing. The Central Housing Committee has done very good work under the circumstances, hut it has been hampered because it did not know exactly how much money it was going to have, nor when it was going to get the money. In my opinion, some of the grants they gave were on too high a scale, and do not suggest that the people who required the money most got it. In Cape Town a lot of advances were given up to £1,500, in Pretoria £1,750, and in Bloemfontein £2,000. This resulted in giving money to people who could afford to build their own houses, and also limited the number of borrowers who participated in the scheme. Another weakness of the scheme under the Central Housing Board was that the local bodies were made responsible, and to protect themselves they insisted upon a 20 per cent. deposit, and there were also considerable initial expenses. The main objection I see to entrusting this matter to local authorities is that town councillors throughout the world, If they are not, generally speaking, property owners, are representing property owners, and you have got a conflict of self-interest and public duty, and when that conflict takes place very often the public have to suffer. We find in Wynberg, where I understand there are some of the worst slums to be found in the whole civilized world, not a single penny of housing loan was granted. Then as regards Pretoria, as far back as 1921 the Central Housing Committee itself reported that the council was proposing conditions much less favourable than was permissible, and thereby rendering the scheme to a great extent inoperative. Those who read the paper this morning will have noticed a very strong medical opinion with regard to the disgraceful housing conditions in parts of Cape Town. That report, if I remember rightly, was issued in 1924. Hon. members will be surprised to learn that soon after such a report was issued, the provincial authorities were endeavouring to prevent the extension of the housing scheme in Cape Town. I have a letter from the Provincial Secretary, in which he says—

1. (1) Depreciating the value of property in Cape Town and casting an undue burden upon property owners who wish to sell;
2. (2) Affecting rentals adversely; there being, as you know, a Rent Board to prevent extravagant demands in this respect;
3. (3) Preventing people seeking investment by building houses for letting which thereby has the opposite effect to what the law intended.

Despite this the Cape Town Council, thanks to an energetic Housing Committee, have done quite a lot of work, but judging by results there is much more to be done. If we are going to have a continuation of this system, and a repetition of interference, and If they Government, in its wisdom, says that it is not their business but the business of the local authorities, then you are going to have this self-interest coming in, and instead of the people getting houses of their own they will be left to the tender mercy of the landlords. I would like to touch on what is being done in other countries. In Great Britain anybody who wishes to build a house receives from the Government a free grant of £100. I do not ask for free grants. In Australia practically every state has a housing scheme which has been in force for some time. At the last election Mr. Bruce, who is by no means a Socialist or an advocate for State enterprises, was so satisfied with the beneficial effect of the housing schemes on the people of Australia that he guaranteed that If they Government came back to office they would float a loan of £20,000,000 for housing purposes over and above what the states were spending. Generally, in Australia and New Zealand the maximum of loans for housing range from about £600 to £800. These grants are given on long terms, though the people are encouraged to repay quickly in order to save interest. In all cases these are home schemes; no speculation is allowed. If a man wants to sell he has to give a good reason why, and he has to get the permission of the authorities before transfer can be effected. Anyone of good character, no matter what his trade or calling, can get a loan if he shows reasonable prospect of repayment, if he has no property already and his income is below a fixed amount, the class of man would approximate to those who in South Africa are exempt from income tax. These people get possession on payment of a very small deposit. People earning higher incomes are included in another scheme and though they get loans at the same rate of interest they have to pay a bigger deposit. It is assumed that they can afford to do this, and an effort is made to spread the benefits over as many people as possible. One outstanding feature of these different schemes is the remarkable way in which the people are paving the instalments and interest as they fall due. New Zealand has got £7,500,000. out in housing loans, and the report for last year stated as an unusual occurrence that a bad debt had been incurred during the year. That presented a loss of £82 on a realization on a property. In Queensland the results were equally good. In New Zealand with a population of 1,250,000 they have a very big institution that deals with loans for farming, housing and local bodies, which has lent out £44,000,000, of which £33,000,000 is outstanding. The money, up to last year was lent at 4½ per cent. interest, the accumulated profits were l¼ millions, they had paid in income tax £54,000. and there was a net profit last year of £138,000. With a change of Government and the increased rate at which money could be borrowed, they have now raised the rate to 5¾ per cent. Not only does the Government grant cheap money, but it also assists the borrowers in other ways. For instance, in the building where this institution is housed they have rooms set apart where they have their own solicitors, their own architects, and their own building inspectors. All the initial arrangements are made under one roof, at a very small fee, about £5 for a house. There was one scheme which was taken in hand at Wellington in which the railways took a very considerable share. The Government bought a piece of land outside Wellington, the railway built a small branch line and put the railway workshops at the disposal of the scheme for the manufacture of the woodwork. There were 400 building lots provided, the land was sewered and electric light and water connections, etc., were made, and the scheme was thrown open to the public. The sites were very much over-applied for and when the houses were built they averaged on the whole £895, and for that the Government was prepared to receive a deposit of £25 and in some cases as low as £10, including incidental expenses. In that particular case the Government had the assistance of a committee of citizens who were anxious to make the scheme successful, and to choose the lucky applicants actually visited them in their own homes to see that they were all they represented to be. In this Wellington scheme, for a maximum deposit of £25 and in this particular instance 5 percent. for interest, the occupants were purchasing their houses at a cost less than others were paying for rent of quarters not nearly so desirable. In Queensland the Labour Government is spending a million yearly in housing, and there again, they give preference to applicants for not more than £600, and do all the initial work practically for nothing. For instance, plans and legal expenses—everything required—is provided for £3. A special plan can be obtained for an extra £2. In Queensland they have a very nice feature which I would like to see incorporated here; not only do they provide a small amount for maintenance, but also an insurance scheme whereby If they applicant unfortunately dies before the house is paid for the house becomes the property of the widow. For a £500 house, including interest and redemption, maintenance and life insurance, over a period of 25 years the applicant has only to pay £3 19s. 2d. a month. But the best scheme of all that I saw was in South Australia, and is known as the Thousand Homes Scheme. This is the scheme I would particularly ask the Government to favourably consider in localities where there are a large number of applicants for houses. It is situated four miles from the centre of Adelaide. The Government acquired a large piece of ground, they cut it up and put in all the necessary conveniences, sewerage, light and water, and they laid it out on garden city lines with beautiful wide streets, avenues of trees, playgrounds for children, and a recreation ground and park. Owing to the action of the Government in purchasing land previously used for agriculture at an agricultural price, it was able to sell plots of land about 50 ft. by 150 ft. for £50 a plot. A private township owner who had it would have charged at least four or five times as much. The scheme is of all-brick houses with five or six rooms—family houses—and a contract was let for the whole 1,000 houses with one firm. Mass production in this case had the desired result, and not only that, but wherever mechanical means could be utilized they were utilized. Everything possible was done to minimize the cost, with the result that five or six-roomed brick houses were built at £635 15s. each. Adding the cost of land, £50 —there were no extra expenses of any description—it shows that a six-roomed brick house was acquired for £685 practically in the middle of an Australian city. In building these houses 2,600 men were employed at the same time, working 44 hours a week. Bricklayers and plasterers got 25s. a day, or 2s. over the basic rate, carpenters got 23s. 6d. a day, also 2s. over the basic rate, and white labourers got 18s. a day. The Government then invited applications for the houses, which were largely over-applied for, and the selection was made on the basis of the number in family. When I was over there recently I visited these places and in every one of these thousand homes there were children running about. The first selection was that of a man with a family of eleven. He could pick his own house.

He deserved it.

He deserved it and he got it. There are a lot of people in this country who deserve houses and cannot get them. The South Australian Government was prepared to give the people these houses for a deposit of £25 and monthly payments over a long period. The monthly rate worked out at 18s. 6d. a week. I would not suggest that we have a longer term than 20 years. I inspected these houses and found them very comfortable indeed. 5,500 persons were housed and it cost the Government only £128 per head, which will be paid back. The largest school in the State was being completed and a beautiful recreation park was being laid out. Everyone I spoke to was delighted at the prospect of having a home of their own and at a less cost than they had had to pay before in rent for very unsuitable places. Altogether one could see that their outlook on life had been entirely altered by the action of the Government in providing these homes, and the inmates were revelling in the delights of gardening or otherwise improving the properties. I am quite satisfied that in South Africa we could achieve absolutely similar results If they Government would accept the responsibility and be determined that the scheme should succeed. Failing this, what is going to happen? We know that private enterprise consists in doing business at as big a profit as possible. You cannot wonder, therefore, that we have exorbitant rents. The fact that we still have exorbitant rents and that housing is so scarce itself proves that private enterprise has failed. We are told that the Rent Boards will see that no one overpays, but you must remember that the decisions of the Rent Boards are based on dear money. The Boards come to the conclusion that the landlord should get about 12 per cent. gross on his investment. If you work that out you will find that a £1,000 property is worth £10 a month. As I have shown, a £1,000 house might be built with Government assistance and the occupier instead of paying £10 as rent would only have to pay £6 12s. 6d. plus taxes, and the property would be becoming his own. Further, the Rent Board takes no cognisance of houses built since April, 1920, and anyone who has built since then can rack-rent as much as he likes and the Rent Board has no jurisdiction over him. It is up to the Government If they wish to assist the rent-pavers of the community that they should at least bring the operations of the Rent Boards up to five years later than 1920. Without Government assistance people have to build their own places and compete in the purchase of land at inflated values, and the £1,000 house is going to be beyond the means of most people. A safe loan on a £1,000 property as understood by the investor would have a margin of about £400. Plans and legal expenses would total up another £100, which means that if anyone wants a home of his own he has to have assets or money of the value of £500 and, furthermore, he has to pay 8 per cent. on the balance of the loan. There is also another consideration. Private individuals who loan money do not like long loans, and so the payments one has to make are very stiff indeed, and if a man has a little unemployment or sickness he gets into arrear, and the burden is more than he can bear, and after struggling for years to get his own home he very often finds the home going away from him. So without Government assistance I see very little chance of a man getting a home of his own. It has been pointed out that the provision of houses is not keeping pace with the population and, If they Government would display the same solicitude for the welfare of the people in South Africa as the Governments I have quoted display for the people in their countries, they could safely embark on a scheme of this description and give every deserving man an opportunity of getting a home of his own, which would brighten the lives and ensure the health and happiness of thousands of people, not merely for to-day, but for many years to come. I commend the motion to the House.

I second the motion. I suppose it is natural that the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. McMenamin), coming from countries which have the slogan—

should desire to impart to this House the result of his inquiries in those places, and the House is indebted to him for the careful way in which he has stated the facts with which he has come into contact. To me they come as a revelation. Living in South Africa, where private enterprize has entirely broken down in the matter of the provision of houses, it comes as a revelation to me to hear what is being done in other countries to supply this want of more houses. The motion is also to a great extent supported by an excellent article in this morning’s newspaper. Again this comes as a revelation to most of us, and enables us to take stock of where we stand. This is not the first time this matter has been before the House; time and time again it has been discussed, but we are apt after a while to lose sight of it, and that article has brought hack to our minds how far we have succeeded, and how far we have failed. We see we have not managed, even with large expenditure, aided by private enterprize and aided by municipal enterprize, to even keep up with the needs of the people as related to the increase in population. This is becoming a national problem, and will become more and more so. It is obvious to us all that overcrowding will lead to slums. Slums must lead to pestilence and crime. If we want to avoid those things and we want to make people happy, and not have breeding-grounds for revolutions and things of that sort, even rich people would see that these things should not be allowed to exist. I am sure that nobody could read that article appearing in one of our morning papers without being given furiously to think. What will be the position in 10 years’ time, unless heed is given to this matter at once, and an immediate start is made with one or other of the schemes suggested by the mover? The increase of population has more than absorbed the number of houses provided under the Housing Act. From the very nature of these schemes, they have led to an increase or an enlargement of some slum areas. People have been encouraged to leave localities adjacent to slum areas and seek relief by borrowing money from municipalities to acquire new properties, but other people have come into these slum areas. The time will come when the State will have to step in and acquire these properties in the interests of public health. It may seem a huge expenditure, but it will be greater later on. I would suggest, in conjunction with a scheme such as that suggested by the mover, that we should also provide some scheme for the improvement of slum areas. I do not see why small property owners who have not got the money to replace slum buildings with those of a better type should not also be assisted to do so by getting money at a fair rate of interest. Another drawback are the leasehold townships. As the leases fall in they become neglected. When people take no interest in their homes, gardens vanish, and not a tree is allowed to remain. The result is an eye-sore which depreciates the property of other people. Years ago it was recognized that the private leasehold system could not exist side by side with the freehold system, and unless the Government takes steps to provide for the easy conversion of leasehold stands into freehold, we shall have a very big problem to tackle in South Africa. I hope the motion will be supported by this House.

I have very considerable sympathy with the motion, but I cannot go quite so far as the mover, that the Government should found a national housing scheme. My view is that the local authority is the right authority to act. First of all, the local authority has a large financial interest in the erection of property, and it is to its interest to increase its housing property to the greatest possible extent, because it derives its income from the inhabitants. The bigger the income, the better it is able to advance its operations. I do not think that the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) was quite right in suggesting that the municipalities have rather put the brake on housing development—rather the opposite—and I also think he is wrong in saying that practically all the local authorities are either directly or indirectly under the thumb of the landlord. As a matter of fact, one would gather from the larger towns, such as Cape Town, Pretoria and Johannesburg, that it is rather the opposite—and an unprejudiced person would say it is rather the opposite. The landlord is rather in the minority as far as influence is concerned. Take such a town as Cape Town, which has been handling the housing problem, and I think we must agree it has done a great deal of good with its housing schemes. If they are only allowed to proceed on the lines that they are proceeding on, I think that eventually they will, to a certain extent, solve the housing problem there. I suggest that it is much more likely that the local authority will know the best method of handling the housing question in its area than a Government department in what the hon. member calls—

I quite agree that, owing to the enactment of the 1920 Act, private enterprize with regard to the erection of the cheaper class of houses has practically stopped. That is likely to happen with any enterprize immediately the Government comes into competition with it.

It stopped before that.

The hon. member forgets that there was a war on at that time, and that was the reason that put a stop to private building. I quite appreciate and agree that in 1920 the Government of the day put an Act on the statute book which was probably the best and soundest Housing Act put on the statute book of any of the dominions of the British empire, because it handled the question purely from the point of view of financing the local authorities, who, in their turn, were enabled to finance societies, and also individuals. In that respect they got the utmost of initiative into the housing problem. I feel that what we have to do is to strengthen up the operations under the 1920 Act. I think all hon. members will agree that the losses on operations under that Act have been practically negligible. I am perfectly certain that the percentage of losses must be negligible from the point of view of the enormous benefits produced by that Act. It covers both municipal housing schemes and a society which wants to put up houses. What is more important, it allows a municipality to advance to individuals up to 80 per cent., I think it is, of the cost of building for individual ownership. There is no doubt whatever that individual ownership is the ideal for the people, and there is nothing so economically sound and satisfactory as that a man shall own the house in which he lives. If we can only get to that ideal state, the slums would disappear automatically, because a man is going to keep his own house in order, and it is going to be looked after properly. I must say that the experience, as far as the Europeans are concerned, seems to be that it is possible to attain that ideal. Even the European with a very small salary or wage will save enough after a few years to put up some margin. If you can put up a house for £850, they will find a margin of from £200 to £250, which is the security that the Central Housing Board requires. The great difficulty is when you come to the coloured population. In a considerable number of instances they earn considerable wages, but they do not have the habit of thrift.

You do not expect them to indulge in thrift?

The position with regard to the non-European population is that practically you have to advance 100 per cent. to them if you want them to own their own homes, and if you could do that or go to the extent that the hon. member for Boksburg suggests—that there should be a margin of only 5 per cent.—I believe we could gradually get the better class of the coloured population to own their own homes. There is no doubt that amongst that population there is a big desire to own their own homes. On the Cape Flats there are large numbers of coloured people who are struggling to own their own homes. So I believe that if we could advance a larger proportion of the total cost of a house, we should gradually get the non-European population also to embrace the ideal that when a man marries he should start with a house of his own. One reason for the suspension of activity under the municipal housing schemes and the Central Housing Board is the unfortunate provision made by the Minister of Finance two years ago practically suspending the operation of Clause 3, sub-section (2), of the Housing Act, under which it is arranged that the money to finance the Central Housing Board is to be provided by the Government from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is where the first mistake occurred. The money has to be provided by the provincial council under the Local Loans Ordinance, and the result is that it is much more difficult for the Central Housing Board to be supplied with funds. Again, the Treasury loan money at 6 per cent. under the Local Loans Act, whereas they formerly advanced it to the Central Housing Board at 5 per cent. The extreme limit which the Government should charge for housing loans is 5¼ per cent., which will more than cover the interest and the cost of raising the loans. The suspension of housing loans will be a serious matter for all the big towns. I have a letter from the town clerk of Cape Town, in which he says—

It will be a thousand pities if any municipal housing schemes are suspended or delayed owing to the Government not providing the necessary funds to continue them. I do not suggest that Government should lose money over the transaction, but it certainly should not make a profit. The only form of Government interference should be the provision of the funds; any other form of Government interference will add to the cost and difficulties, and we shall have unsuitable houses erected on unsuitable sites. The local authorities are the most competent people to decide questions of site and types of buildings. There is rather an indication in the hon. member’s speech that he would advocate the building of a lower type of houses. It is, however, better to build a higher standard of house, and then you will find that the better class population will occupy the better house, and thus relieve the congestion in, and demand for, less desirable houses. The result will be that the better class of the population will live in better houses, and the lower class will live in the old type of house, but not under such crowded conditions. The slum position would be enormously improved if the congestion of occupants could be relieved. Some of the houses described as slum property would be all right if only 50 per cent. of the occupants were removed. In many instances it is not the house that is at fault, but the number of people who try to squeeze into it. Another reason for Government handling the position very sympathetically is this. A man who builds a house not only benefits himself, but the community as well, as he automatically provides a vacancy in another house for another man. Therefore, every inducement should be offered people to build homes for themselves. One of the reasons for dear houses in South Africa is the rate of wages—I have no complaint about that rate—and the fact that a large proportion of the building material, such as timber and ironmongery, has to be imported. There was one point the hon. member did not dilate upon, and that was town planning. Under present circumstances, you are putting the cart before the horse—town planning should precede house building. In the Cape Province particularly, every town will be ruined unless the authorities pass immediately an ordinance controlling the erection of houses except under a proper scheme of town planning. Time and money will be wasted in building houses if they are erected under such conditions that they automatically become slums. A proper town planning ordinance will enable the authorities to control the subdivision of land and the making up of roads, and would prevent the risk of new houses being turned into slum property. The Minister should take the matter up and urge the provincial authorities to pass town planning ordinances. The Minister of Finance should make provision for placing at least £1,000,000 on this year’s estimates for the Central Housing Board, so that that body can continue to function efficiently.

I am sorry that I cannot entirely support the motion of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin), although that does not mean that I do not attach much importance to the housing question. Especially do I appreciate the meaning of the question in relation to the health conditions of our people, but as the motion contemplates a State scheme, viz., that the State itself must step into the breach, we consider that an entirely new element is being imported. We already have a system which is adequate for all the needs of the people, if sufficient funds are made available, but we need funds to continue the existing system. I, therefore, move, as an amendment—

What is the policy?

There is a system to-day built up under the Housing Act of 1920 under which the State voted certain moneys to be available to local bodies, and to enable them to provide for the housing requirements in various places. The State must continue to make funds available. I do not say what the conditions should be, and that the system under the 1920 Act cannot be improved upon, but I think that it is sufficient, provided adequate funds are made available. I do not wish to go into details, but I want to mention a few aspects of the matter, because I know there are members in the House who do not share our views with regard to the desirability of providing money for housing. Towards the end of last week we saw how many of the young people of Cape Town were declared permanently unfit for military service. The proportion of unfit was about 47 per cent. I do not say that the large percentage is exclusively due to bad housing conditions, but all civilized peoples in the world know that housing conditions contribute greatly to the physical degeneracy of the people, especially where a large number of people are crowded together in industrial centres. Bad housing and unhealthy surroundings in the early years of the child may have a very injurious effect. The question of mental deficiency is also affected by the housing question and we find, both here and in Europe, that mental deficiency is partly attributed to bad housing. I want particularly to point out the danger that bad housing represents at a time of epidemics. The influenza epidemic of 1918-’19, and the terrible loss of human life caused by the disease at that time, was one of the reasons for the passing of the Housing Act in 1920. 100,000 Europeans lost their lives in those two years, and about 1½ million coloured people and natives died. Consumption is also spread more easily in consequence of unhealthy housing conditions. One of the inhabitants of Cape Town, who takes a special interest in housing, writes that in 1917, shortly before the influenza epidemic, he visited a number of people who had consumption, and that it could be proved that they infected each other because they had to live together in one room. There is a reduction to-day in cases of consumption noticeable in the Union, and we can with the utmost freedom take it that the lower percentage of new cases, and the reduction in the mortality figures must be attributed in a certain measure to improved housing conditions. What, however, particularly strikes one is the large child mortality in the large towns where the industrial centres are. It cannot be doubted that the housing conditions, the living in unhealthy, unventilated rooms, greatly contributes to that. I had reason to give further attention recently to the question of immorality as a result of over population. The census figures for 1921 give, I think, the indisputable proof that immorality has much increased owing to the overcrowding of people of both sexes in the large towns. I only want to quote one table of the 1921 census, viz., Table 312, with reference to the number of private houses with two or more European families. I take a few of the largest towns. In Johannesburg the number of houses with two families was 2,500; with three families 318; with four families 68; with five families 19; with six or more, 12. In Cape Town, with two families 1,304; with three families 153; with four families 29; with five families 4; with six or more 1. In addition, there was a house in Johannesburg with nine families in it. In Durban the number of private houses with two families was 1,087; with three families 115; with four families 31; with five families 3; and with six or more families 5. There was a large number of houses where there were three persons or more living in one room. In Cape Town that occurred in 69 per cent. of the one-roomed houses, where the average number of persons was 4.5 per room. In Durban in 73 per cent. of the same houses, there were 4.7 persons in one room, and in Pretoria in 75 per cent. of the cases there were 5.3 persons in one room. Then the percentage of two or more Europeans who, in Cape Town, lived in one room, was 29 per cent.; in Pretoria, 31 per cent.; in Pretoria (City), 26 per cent.; in Johannesburg, 26 per cent., and on the Witwatersrand, 28 per cent. Figures are also given with reference to countries outside of South Africa, and I wish to quote the figures of a few towns in England. In London the number of persons per room was 2, in Liverpool, 1.9; in Edinburgh, in 1911, it was 2.7; and in 1922, 2.5, showing that an improvement had taken place. In South Africa, the land of great spaces, the figures in the urban areas were much more unfavourable. They were 3.2 for the Cape Peninsula; 3 for Durban; 4.3 for the City of Cape Town. That was the position before the Housing Act came into operation. The position has, of course, not improved of its own accord, but has become worse as a result of the large number of people who have come from the country into the towns. That was the position from 1911 to 1921, but the stream continued after 1921. Industries commenced to develop and people streamed in to the centres because they were offered a chance of finding a living more easily. The position would, of course, have been much worse without the housing scheme, but it is of importance to see what the scheme effected. In 1919 a housing commission was appointed, and they came to the conclusion that at that time the need of houses for Europeans was 9,550, while the shortage of houses for natives and coloured people was estimated at more than 11,000. To provide for the shortage there was, according to the commission, a sum of £7,000,000 required at that time. There will undoubtedly be hon. members who think that the housing scheme was only intended for the large towns, but I want to point out that no less than 82 municipalities throughout the provinces have, during the last six years, made use of the scheme. The commission found that not only in the large towns, but also in a very large number of municipalities, as a result of the emigration from the countryside, that there was a great lack of houses. The results obtained prove in a certain degree the efficacy of the housing scheme. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) said that the measure was not sufficient. I aver, on the contrary, that the figures show that a great deal has been attained, and that we can freely recommend the Government to make more funds available for the same scheme. The number of new houses for Europeans in Cape Town alone is 660; Natal, 343; Free State, 327; Transvaal, 580, altogether about 2,000 while for coloured people about 2,900 new houses have been erected under the scheme. We, therefore, reach a grand total of between 5,000 and 6,000 houses. That is up to December, 1925. Thereafter, in 1926, about 1,000 new houses were built. The amount which was spent was almost £2,500,000. What, however, strikes us is that, notwithstanding that there is still a large need for further extension of the scheme, not only for the coloured people, but also for the whites. A well-informed person recently made a report upon his investigations in the neighbourhood of Adderley Street, Cape Town. He says that the conditions two minutes away from Adderley Street are indescribable. That individual also has practical experience of conditions on the countryside. He found that numbers of people were crowded together in stables and cellars, as many as 10 persons in one room. Those rooms are again sub-let by the owners, and it has happened that sub-lessors have refused to say how many people live in the rooms. The lessors of rooms proceed on the principle that as many people can live there as there is sleeping space. The rooms are let without beds. He describes the deplorable condition, and says that a rent of 5s. to 35s. a week is asked. He mentions in one case that in a building with at least 20 to 25 rooms in which there are at least four persons in each room, he could find only one w.c. He quotes another case of a three-storey building with 33 rooms where the rooms are let at from 10s. 6d. to 12s. 6d. per week per room. They are let to natives and the conditions are indescribable. I do not think that we fully appreciate existing conditions. It is not only coloured people and natives because, in the working-class parts, there are many Europeans living. The existing conditions lead to constant mixing of the various races. It is unfortunate that this is not only the case in Cape Town, but also in many other villages. As the hon. member for Boksburg has rightly said, many of the municipalities do not understand their moral obligations. It is, moreover, not only a matter of living together. There is only £200,000 of the amount voted left, and after that is spent the local bodies or the provincial authorities will only have the revenue obtained from repayments According to the data published, I think that the repayment is not adequate to provide for the existing need. Therefore, we appeal to the Government to continue the policy laid down in 1920 and to make available, in some way or another, the necessary funds. The argument cannot be raised that the State will be injured in consequence, because the 1920 Act adequately secures the State against losses. In Section 3 the Provincial Administration is in the first place, held liable for the capital and interest, and in Section 4, the town councils with all their assets are held liable for the capital and interest. There is, therefore double security to the State, and it cannot be maintained that the carrying out of the scheme causes an unfair demand on the taxpayer. No heavier burden can be put on any taxpayers than on the provincial taxpayer. In view of the position prevailing to-day, and on account of the great importance of the housing position on the health and moral condition of the people, I have the utmost confidence in moving my amendment.

I wish to second and support the amendment and to oppose anything in the way of bringing the Government into actually carrying this proposal out directly, as desired by the motion of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin). I do not think the hon. member for Boksburg and his colleagues are quite cognisant of what the Government, have done in this direction already. I believe that the scheme which was devised in 1920 and put into operation by the Act of 1920 has worked fairly well.

It has not been enough.

I do not know about that. Let me tell my hon. friend what has been done and then, perhaps, he will alter his mind. In the first place the Government are committed at the present moment to an expenditure of £2,581,000. Then there are certain repayments coming in amounting to £183,000, so that at the end of the current financial year they are committed to an expenditure of £2,764.000. Let me say all that money has not yet been advanced by the treasury. At the end of December, 1926, £2,224,000 had been actually advanced, but that is no reason why the Government should not advance, as money is required and no doubt they will do so. It is expected that during the next financial year a further sum of £250,000 will be advanced, and then I think they come to the end of their commitments. Of this amount £2,077,000 has been advanced for European houses, and nothing is allowed to be built over £1,200 in value. Then £407,000 is advanced for the benefit of the non-European section, for cheaper houses, naturally. I think the present scheme works remarkably well and is of far more benefit, because it is worked through the local authorities. No fewer than 88 local authorities have had advances already. In the Cape Province there are 36, and there has been lent to them over £1,000,000.

Is that enough?

No, it is not enough, but I am going to urge the Government that they continue with the policy that has been laid down. Go on as they have been going on; it is by far the best plan. In the Transvaal there were 21 applications from local authorities. Curiously, Boksburg is only £6,936. There is Benoni, £60,000, and Brakpan, £75,000.

Not enough either.

£75,000 is a lot of money. I have no doubt if further money is required they will get it gradually.

We can do with five or six times as much.

I daresay, but they have to make provision, draw plans, and that sort of thing. I have a statement which shows that the Government in the past has been quite willing to advance the money, and provision is made. In 1920-’21 the amount voted was £500,000, and the amount actually spent was £45,000.

It was not the fault of the municipalities.

Whose fault was it? There was the money voted by this House. Of course, they naturally required to take certain precautions. In 1921-’22, £800,000 was voted and £556,000 paid out. In 1922-’23, £723,000 was voted and £265,000 paid out. This goes through 88 local Government bodies. There is Cape Town, £235,000; East London, £112,000; Durban, £444,000, the biggest of any of these applications. I only mention that to show you how well the money is distributed through the country, and the best possible use is made of it. It is far better to work through the local authorities who let us know their requirements.

How do other Governments do?

We are providing for South Africa, and I am guided by the circumstances that exist in South Africa. It does strike me that with the money spread among every section of the population you cannot do better than act through the local authority. It would be downright folly to my mind for the Government to abandon a scheme of this kind. The difficulty that exists at the present moment is the cost of labour. Some of my hon. friends have been saying that private enterprise has failed. We know that all our friends on the cross-benches are philanthropists, more or less, but do not they, when they have a little money and put it on deposit in the bank, expect some return for it? I must say I do. I do not make any bones about it, and so does every sensible man, and when a man puts his money in houses, he expects some return for his money. The cost of building has risen so much that you cannot get an adequate return on your money, and that is why private enterprise is doing so little at the present moment. The wages of unskilled labour have not gone up; it is the artizan who has benefited. The artizans in this country are the highest paid in the world, outside the United States.

No, not in real wages.

I daresay, but in £ s. d. it has been proved that to-day the wages of shilled artizans in South Africa are the highest in the world outside the United States. The consequence is the cost of building is higher; in fact, so much so, that I see from this report that application has been made that with regard to the houses for the very poorest they should not come within the purview of the Wage Board as far as it concerns building. For the poorest part of the population they are invited to make application that they should not come under the wage agreement.

And what is the proportion the merchants are prepared to take off the materials for this class of building?

We do not make more pro fit than we did before the war. I suppose my hon. friend will support the Government in the dumping duty on cement, which will increase the cost of living. If my hon. friend will look at the figures, the efficiency of labour in this country is not 50 per cent. of the efficiency of that in the United States. That is stated in the report of the Economic Commission. They show what the output of a skilled man in the United States is compared with South Africa. I do hope that the Minister of the Interior will not accept the motion, which is impracticable. My hon. friend, the Minister, will see from his thorough knowledge that is not the way—to distribute this money out of the Government chest. He will see that the best way of spending that money is to spend it as it is being spent now—through the local authority, and not by Government officials through the Public Works Department,

I do not think there is any difference of opinion amongst any section in any part of the House about the necessity of proceeding with housing schemes in the country, and there is no difference of opinion I have come across to provide eventually for every desirable tenant to become the owner of the property in which he lives. The only difference of opinion is the means to be adopted to attain that end. If they matter was proceeded with de novo I should prefer the motion, but the hon. member cannot proceed with his proposal without wiping out the system of 1920.

Why not supplement it?

I am going to suggest the way in which it can be supplemented, hut I do not think it will come within the motion. We have a national housing scheme to-day. It is not private or sectional, and the whole of the money for the scheme is provided by the State. It is true they insist on its being spent through local authorities, but that is only machinery. I do not say it is the perfect national housing scheme where the work is done by the Public Works Department. But what I am afraid of is that, while we are crossing the stream and swapping horses, we may not only not get our national housing scheme, but not get the Government fulfilling its obligations under the scheme of 1920. As a practical matter it is better to urge on the Government with all the force we can to put in more money under the Act of 1920 than they are doing at the present time. The scheme is functioning, but the money will soon be exhausted. One must congratulate the hon. member (Mr. McMenamin) on the very earnest study he has made of the subject and the very illuminating facts he has brought before this Assembly. I am not going to deal with the figures he quoted, but carry on something he said about Cape Town—that there the limit had been fixed at £1,500.

Not the limit, but votes.

The impression was left that that was the sort of average grant the Cape Town Municipality gave to well-to-do people. The Cape Town Municipality has been doing splendid work. In 1921 very few building loans of £1,500 were made, and the limit was gradually brought down to £1.000, and then to £850 since 1st January, 1925, in any individual case. Under the latter limit 175 houses have been erected. I disagree with the hon. member (Mr. McMenamin) when he says that provision cannot be made for poor people under this scheme. The Cape Town Municipality has done this successfully, and as a result poor people have been taken away from the slum areas and provided with small houses in healthy and better surroundings. I quite agree that the real way to help these people is to see that every civilized man should be given a civilized wage, but all the same a great deal is being done for them in Cape Town in the way of providing decent housing accommodation. As the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said, Government should not make a profit on housing loans. The present difficulty is that local authorities do not know what is going to happen as funds for house building are practically coming to an end. Should Government discontinue grants under the Housing Act a very serious setback would follow. The Housing Act has never had a proper chance. It was calculated in 1919 that £7,000,000 would be required to meet the more urgent and pressing needs for housing which existed at that date. Since then, however, the position has been aggravated. Eighty-eight municipalities in the Union have taken advantage of housing loans. I am told on good authority that for a long time poor people did not know that they could apply for building loans, and the Cape Town Municipality had to undertake a propaganda to inform poor people that such facilities were available. This ignorance of the public of the existence of financial help in the building of homes was one reason why the scheme moved slowly at the start. What the people of Cape Town feel is that unless the Government puts at least £1,000,000 on this year’s Loan Estimates to carry out its obligations the whole scheme will lapse. Then a very serious state of affairs would arise. There is no doubt that private enterprise has failed to provide houses for poor people. The Department of Public Health in its latest report states that private enterprise and the speculative builder have practically ceased to function in regard to the class of house of which there is most need, and there seems little likelihood of activity being resumed in this direction. So we must look to the Government to carry out its obligations under the Housing Act. The Public Health Report also took up the question of town planning, and the Council of Public Health regretted the delay that had taken place in effectively dealing with this problem. In that connection I understand the Provincial Council, sitting in Cape Town to-day, will have during next session a town planning ordinance under consideration and in that ordinance there will be a slum areas clause. One of the immediate results of the town planning ordinance will be that there will be a large number of people for whom we shall have to find houses. It will make more urgent the need to persist with this scheme. The Free State Administration replied that they knew of no conditions calling for urgent action and they have adopted the waiting attitude. The Transvaal reply was much the same. I take it there is just as much need for an up-to-date town planning ordinance in those provinces as in the Cape and Natal, where draft ordinances have been prepared. There can be no doubt that until you get proper housing accommodation you are going to have the public health of the country in a very serious and dangerous state with the result that a lot of money will be wasted. A great deal of the money spent by the Public Health Department could be saved. There would be less epidemics and more contentment in the towns. An hon. member said something about revolution. Well-housed people never go in for revolution. To possess a stake in the country is the best way to lead to contentment. An hon. member kept interrupting about security. The security is the house and land and it grows better and better every year as every year the debt gets less and less. It is therefore, a very good increasing security and the Government have not only got that tangible security but they have the satisfaction of knowing that in helping to build these houses they are providing for greater public security and improved health in the Union. There is practically no loss on these loans. The money is paid back again and keeps on circulating throughout the whole country, and I urge the Minister to tell the House that the Government is alive to its obligations under the Housing Act and is prepared to put on the Estimates £1,000,000 to cope with the pressing needs of the present. A good deal more is required. Is is suggested that the Municipality of Cape Town might have to abandon the Athlone scheme If they Government discontinued its grant to the local authority. It is the best expenditure in every sense of the word. It is money that comes back, circulates through the country and not only provides work but provides the best security to the country. For practical purposes it is better to concentrate on the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) and to bring pressure to bear on the Government to continue this scheme which has, so far, worked well.

I hope the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) will not be accepted because I think it does not go far enough. I know many people who have no local authority to look after them at all. I represent a district half of which is not in the borough of Durban and the Administrator of Natal is supposed to be the local authority, but what he cares for the housing of the people of Natal has yet to be discovered. Some local authorities take advantage of the Housing Act and some do not. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will admit that the predominating tendency in this country is to elect property owners to the town councils and for that reason it is always difficult to get housing measures through town councils because of these property owners. In Natal we had money offered to us but the Durban Town Council dallied so much that at last the Housing Board came down and gave notice that the money must be accepted within a certain time or not at all. Through the activity of a few Labour Councillors they decided to accept it. Even so, we have not touched the fringe of the problem of housing at Durban. The people are living in insanitary conditions and under bad housing conditions. We are told we have had far more than our share of the money yet we have people living under horrible conditions.

Where is that?

Durban. I know one case where there are six Europeans, three Indians and five Chinese living in the house. In another case 41 Europeans are living in a five-roomed house. We had a slum area in my division consisting of 27 houses with 103 rooms and there were 764 people living in that area. The Council solved the problem by pulling the slum down and leaving the people to get houses anywhere they could. I know one widow of a Mons’ hero who is living in a stable with three children and those are the conditions the hon. member for Hopetown tells us to carry on with. There is a conservative land-owning majority on the town council and there are many of the municipalities in the same position. We had a house in Durban consisting of a motor packing-case with a man and his wife and a young baby living in it. He was a returned soldier. In my own division at Clairwood, where there is no local authority, the employees of the Railway Department are living under worse conditions than it is almost possible to conceive. The Minister of Railways dare not place the report on that state of affairs before the House. These are conditions which have been caused by 15 years of S.A.P. Government. The Durban Corporation has spent £400,000 on housing, and has not touched the fringe of the problem. I want to give an instance of what I observed myself. A little time ago the houseless people of Durban decided that they must have some accommodation of some kind. One afternoon they raided the agricultural hall buildings owned by the Durban Corporation, and took possession of this place, and intimated that they were prepared to pay rent and were going to stay there. They had no homes. The Durban Corporation had not the heart to turn them out, and it decided to fit up these sheds, cattle-sheds, for these people. They lived in those sheds for a long time. In addition to that the old military hospital on the beach was used for housing. The conditions that prevailed in those military huts were bad indeed. Children were growing up into little hooligans, and families were unable to obtain any privacy whatever. These people were placed in the first houses that were built under the housing scheme. I remember one family telling me that they had got a house allotted to them, but they did not want to occupy it because of the bad behaviour of the children living next door. However, both families took these houses, and I happened to see them later on, and I was told by the one family that those particular children whose conduct had been objected to while they were living under the hut conditions were to-day the best behaved children in the neighbourhood. They had a garden to play in and they had decent housing conditions. If there is one thing that the people want, it is houses which they have not a chance of getting to-day. I agree with the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that the people want to own their own homes. We want more of these houses, and we have spent only £2,500,000, whereas New Zealand has spent £7,000,000. Is there any hope that we are going to get the money that is required for housing in this country under the present circumstances? I hope the motion of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) will be carried. If it is not carried, there will be many people in this country who will not be satisfied. I hope they will be still more dissatisfied, and I will do my level best to make them still more dissatisfied.

We have before us a motion asking the Government to initiate a scheme of national housing to enable all deserving persons to secure homes of their own—a very high-sounding resolution, and one which, theoretically, no one will quarrel with. Notwithstanding that, I hope the House will adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). I welcome, and I think we all welcome it as a sign of returning economic sanity on the part of Nationalist members opposite. It is a sign that the Nationalist members are at last beginning to oppose the tendency of Labour members to spend money regardless of the taxpayers’ interest. The Labour members are always very generous with other people’s money. I have said this is a high-sounding motion. I go further, and say that it is a platitudinous motion. We already have a Housing Act which has been in operation for years, and which is functioning very well. When Labour members talk of building houses for the poor, they should at least practise what they preach. They are inconsistent, and, if they are not insincere, they certainly are illogical. Let me read you an account of a deputation which waited on the Minister of the Interior only a few days ago. It was a deputation from the Housing Committee of the Cape Town Corporation, and among the members were several who have an expert knowledge of housing conditions, particularly amongst the poor. The chairman of the deputation Mr. James, who was the spokesman, said that the following was the effect of the Government’s industrial policy on the problem of housing the poorer classes. He said that this industrial policy had raised the building costs so high, that there was no possibility of people building houses for the poor. How does this come about? The Parliamentary Labour members are the very people who are making it impossible to build houses for the poor. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has quoted from the annual report of the Housing Board, in which it is stated that private enterprize has ceased to function in so far as building houses for the poor is concerned. They have ceased to function since the Labour party started their Labour legislation in defiance of the economic laws of this country. Even in regard to building houses for the better classes, it is a very great hardship. I suppose that 30 per cent. more has to be paid for building to-day than would be the case if they economic laws of the country had been allowed to run their normal course. We are dealing to-day with the housing of the poorer people. The Labour members have told us, no doubt quite sincerely, how they wish to help the poor man to get his own home. I repeat that it is the Labour wing of this Government that is putting it out of the power of the poor man to-day to build a house. We are dealing with present-day conditions. At any rate in 1920 and 1921,. the then Government did bring in an Act which is at present functioning. We welcome the motion of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). It shows a returning sanity on economic questions among hon. members across the way. It shows that they are at last beginning to realize whither Labour members are leading them. Let me go on with this deputation. For “ industrial policy ” read the policy of the Labour wing of the Pact.

What is his occupation?

He is a member of the housing committee of the town council. I do not know what Mr. James’ occupation is in private life. Do not let us put (the thing on a low level. He has sufficient influence and standing and respect in this city to have done a great work with regard to the housing of the poor. So far as I know, he has spent much of his time trying to ameliorate the condition of the poor, and he has sufficient respect from his fellow-citizens to have been appointed chairman of the housing committee.

If you know him so well, what is his occupation?

I do not know what his occupation is. I understand he is a chemist, but what does it matter? What is the innuendo?

The innuendo is that he may be financially interested.

Surely that is an unworthy suggestion. Surely there are people in this country who are disinterested outside the Labour party. Is all virtue and disinterestedness monopolized by the Labour party?

Yes.

Surely we have come to a sorry pass when a prominent citizen in this town is elected by his fellow-citizens to represent them before the Minister, and then this unworthy gibe is thrown at him by a Labour member. I do not know Mr. James personally, but Mr. James, Mrs. Horwood, Messrs. Smith, Barling, and Ross, and Mr. Finch, were representing the interests of the poor man in a perfectly disinterested civic spirit. Surely we are entitled to assume that. We have had quoted the official health report for the Union, in which it is definitely stated that private enterprize has ceased to function with regard to building houses for the poor, and I say that is due to Labour interference in economic laws in the building trade. I am very glad Nationalist members are at last beginning to realize whither it is leading them.

They said it was due to the rent boards a little while ago.

They did not. They said it was due to the industrial policy of the Government. The rent boards may perhaps have had something to do with it. I have never been an enthusiast about the rent boards. The deputation represented the joint civic opinion of the city of Cape Town, and I do not notice the Minister of the Interior objecting to or denying any of these statements. He goes on—

This is from the “ Cape Times ” of March 24th.

It is absolutely unauthorized.

But is it correct?

It is very much a question, but in any case it is very one-sided.

I am merely quoting it as I see it in the paper. The citizens of Cape Town will be able to judge as to whether it is correct or not. The question is whether they stated the correct position, and I submit they did. Let me warn hon. members on the other side (that this correct position is rapidly spreading to the country districts, thanks to the interference of the Minister of Labour. We had a long list of districts which have already been scheduled and in which this position will very soon hold.

What has this got to do with the question?

If they hon. member cannot see the connection between a deputation attending on the Minister to implore him to help to house the poor and the motion of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin), I can only say our opinion of his mentality will sink even lower than it was before. Has he been building flats at Bantry Bay?

Yes.

Well, perhaps he will give us his opinion.

I do not live on rents from the poor, like some of you do.

But you made a good shot at living on 18 per cent. profit from meat for the poor a year ago—profiteering.

Making the poor pay for your legal opinion—

The hon. member is a profiteer. He tried to profiteer out of the food of the poor.

I do not see that this has anything to do with the motion.

The hon. member wanted to know. This deputation went on—

I would like to ram that home: Here we have the Labour wing of the Pact Government bringing forward a platitudinous motion, and that very wing is making it impossible to build houses for the poor. Square that if you can. They have been able to square a good many political circles, and I would like to see them square this. If the hon. members on that side are going to allow the Minister of Labour to apply the Industrial Conciliation Act, I say God help South Africa and the country districts.

I cannot allow any discussion on the Conciliation Act.

I advocate abolishing the Minister of Labour, as a start.

You take all that as gospel?

I would like the hon. member to show me the flaw in this argument. It is an unauthorized gospel, I admit, but it is very sound. Let the hon. member not get up and give us a typically flowery oration, but point out the flaws in what the experts have stated. Let Labour hon. members tell us whether it is not so that, owing to the industrial policy the Labour wing have imposed on the other side, it has made it impossible for private enterprize to build houses for the poor. If I am wrong, the whole deputation was wrong, and did not know what they were talking about.

They are wrong.

The Labour party takes up the attitude in everything we differ from them we are wrong. They are omniscient.

How are we responsible?

By increasing the costs of building to such an extent that houses for the poor cannot be built.

Increasing their wages? Answer the question.

You go and write some more begging letters.

I must ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) to stop this continuous interrupting.

Let us go on with what this deputation stated.

You want to reduce wages.

I want to get back to the normal position. We are living in a fools’ paradise, thanks to hon. members of the Labour party. The deputation went on to say—

Why?

Because they cost too much.

Why?

Owing to the Labour party having increased wages to such an extent. The deputation went on to say—

Before they do that they should shed the Labour wing. The Minister of the Interior, who is very wroth, has not repudiated a single statement here. It states here—

The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), I am very glad to say, has supported the contention. He has brought in an amendment which I sincerely hope will be accepted for the reasons I have explained; and I am sure it will be a step in the right direction for our hon. friends on the other side If they support an amendment brought forward by one of their own members. I am sure that the hon. member for Hopetown must have consulted his leader before moving his amendment, so we are in advance assured of the support of the Minister of the Interior.

The hon. member who has just spoken has endeavoured to make this a party question, and he has done what he usually does—indulged in a peculiar kind of humour— and has also tried to make out that this deputation was a genuine bona-fide deputation of philanthropic citizens who were very keen on something being done for the poor. I venture to express the opinion that the deputation was beautifully stage-managed by the South African party. It is a most extraordinary thing that almost on the eve of this motion being reached, this influential deputation of alleged charitably disposed persons should want to wait on the Minister to ask about the building of houses. Even if it was a bona-fide deputation, which I doubt, their action in going to the Government for more money proves that it is possible to build houses under the present legislation, bad as they made it out to be. Why does not the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) say that, in the opinion of the South African party, the wages in the building trade are excessive?

We want more efficiency.

I have been in this country for 23 years, and ever since I have been here we have had this spectacle—a serious shortage of houses and of poor people living in slum districts. Is it fair to blame the Government, which has been in office for less than three years, for a problem which has existed for many years? There is no money in building houses for poor people, and that is the reason why they are not erected. Unfortunately, the present Government, scheme is confined to people who are able to pay a portion of the cost of building and ground, and who can also make substantial repayments, but in the Cape Peninsula I believe that not more than 10 per cent. of the people I wish to see provided for are in a position to make an initial payment of £10 or even £5. The scheme propounded in the motion does not touch the root of the problem. The Central Housing Board says that although the Cape Town Council scheme is certainly a step forward, it can be regarded as only touching the fringe of the question. So far as it has gone, the City Council has done good work. The solving of this problem is not a political or a party question—it is a national problem, and should be solved in a national way. The parliamentary library contains a book on national housing by Major Harry Barnes, who is a vice-president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, who points out that England has national services running the posts and telegraphs and other departments, and asks why there should not also be a National Municipal House Building Service. The writer refers to what he describes as “ the stupid stunt ” that fastened on the bricklayer the responsibility of the house shortage, and states that the increased wages paid to builders does not add sixpence a week to the rent. We should have a public department for building houses for the people; we have a Minister of Public Health, and we should also have a Minister for House Building. Major Barnes concludes his foreword by saying—

I have another extract from a book, entitled “ The Six-Hour Day,” in the library of the House, containing a report of an address which was delivered by Lord Leverhulme, who is not a Labourite or Bolshevist, in which he points out that it was impossible to visit the populated areas without seeing that, as far as the housing of the people is concerned, we are in as bad a position to-day as ever, and he suggests schemes for the solution of the problem under which the people would own their own houses, and advocated municipalities embarking on the means to provide them. These extracts are from men who have given brains and thought to the subject, and I think that we should go much further into the problem of the housing of the people, and try to solve it. A great majority of the working people in this part of South Africa are living in one room. I know cases of houses of four room in which four families are living. They cannot afford to build their own houses under the Government scheme and can scarcely pay rent, therefore the scheme does not touch the problem of the slums. These people never earn sufficient money to start providing themselves with a home, and a national scheme is necessary under which the money would come back tenfold, and enable us to produce not a nation of C3 citizens, but a good, healthy population. I would like the Minister to go thoroughly into the question, and to carry on the valuable work which he is doing, but I also want him to recognize that something very much bigger is wanted, before we can say we are on the road to properly solving the housing problem of this country.

I think it is expected that I, as responsible Minister, should say a few words on this subject. I am very glad that the House has discussed this motion with the seriousness that such an important matter deserves. That has been the case, except for the few exceptions which we usually come across when important matters are debated. All sections in the House are agreed that the Government should see to it, as far as possible, that the population be well housed generally, because good housing lies at the root of the welfare of the people. Good housing brings with it a good standard of public moral life and the decent education of children. Therefore, I am glad to see that the House realizes that the Government should continually give its serious consideration to the matter. The motion does not read that the Government shall regard and treat the matter sympathetically. Here it is a question of a choice between two methods, viz., whether the method laid down in 1920 shall be continued, and further loan monies placed at the disposal of local bodies in order to secure proper housing in their districts, or whether the new scheme brought to light by the hon. mover, viz., that the State shall assume the whole responsibility of providing for the housing of the people shall be followed. The House is asked to choose between the two methods. With regard to the existing system, we have every reason to be satisfied with the manner in which it has worked, and with the results achieved. Since 1920 an amount of £2,321,000 has been applied and altogether with the loan monies repaid £2,716,000 have been appropriated. A certain amount has been paid back and is, therefore, again available. Under this scheme 5,458 buildings have been put up, 2,079 for Europeans and 3,379 for coloured people and natives If we look back over the six years the Act of 1920 has been in force we see that we can be well satisfied. According to the judgment of some people, the money that was voted at that time was used in some cases at the start for houses which should have been left to persons who were in a position to build such houses. The idea was that houses of excessive value were built, and this was admitted by the Central Housing Board. Thereupon the maximum amount of a loan was reduced to £1,000, and more is only granted in exceptional cases. The money voted by Parliament was, naturally, intended to be used in the first place to make provision for the housing of the poorer section of the population. With regard to the money voted during the last six years, and which will be voted this year on the loan estimates, I just wish to say that three years ago a scheme providing for £1,000,000 for loan purposes for the building of houses spread over three years was agreed to. Two out of the three years have passed and for this year, the third year, another £250,000 will be voted which is a portion of the one million scheme, but apparently the amount which will have to be voted on this estimate will be £337,000, because a portion of the money which has already been voted must be revoted. This scheme has been introduced in the first place as the result of experience dearly bought during the influenza epidemic of 1918. The health authorities showed quite clearly at that time that such a large sacrifice would not have been entailed if proper provision had previously been made for better housing of our population. The best way in which to protect the public health from epidemics is to provide better housing for the people, and to dispense, as far as possible, with slum areas. Allow me to say further that, as a result of the better housing during the past years, the public health has undoubtedly improved. Infectious diseases, such as consumption, e.g., have noticeably diminished as the result of better housing, and that is an indication in what direction we must seek an improvement in public health in the future. Another reason for establishing this housing scheme was that, in this country, as the result of the world war, the building of houses had practically ceased by reason of lack of material, while the population was increasing at the same time. A serious shortage of houses, therefore, arose and provision had to be made for that. Further, in 1920, prices were still very high, and it was beyond the reach of the poorer classes to build their own houses. Another reason why provision had to be made for housing was the influx of the rural population to the towns. That has its own particular causes in South Africa, but I just want to say that it is something that happens in all civilized countries of the world as the result of economic conditions and relations between agriculture and industrial development. The result thereof was tremendous congestion in the towns. The question now is, if we take into account the good results of the system in the past, whether it is still desirable to go on in the future with this scheme, if necessary. Allow me to say that the existing system is much appreciated by the municipalities. Not only did 88 municipalities make use of the opportunity to obtain loans from the State for housing schemes, but there were applications from 47 municipalities for further loans in spite of the fact that they had been notified that Parliament had not yet decided whether it would make further sums available after this year. The applications which have not been met involve £990,000. The existing position is not, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Col. D. Reitz) has stated the result of labour conditions, but the result of legislation passed by this House during the last few years. One of those Acts is the Rents Act. As soon as there is an Act or a fear that an Act may be passed to limit the rents of houses, the private initiative of people who are engaged in the building and letting of houses will lessen, and their needs will have to be provided for in another way. The Rents Act has been accepted here several times with the consent of all parties. Another Act which has to do with it is the Urban Areas Act. The municipalities obtain thereby the right to put the natives out of the urban areas, and to place them in a location. The money necessary to establish the natives there is taken from loans of this sort. It is necessary to make provision for the natives If they are compelled to live there. The natives themselves are not in a position to provide for their own housing. I do not think that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) goes in the right direction. He wants the Government to take the whole responsibility upon itself. That means that the Government will have to take over the ordinary functions at present entrusted to the municipalities. That is a principle which has not been followed hitherto, and which, I think, presents too many obstacles to be followed in the future. Another aspect is that inasmuch as the Government itself must provide for the housing schemes in different parts of the country, we shall have to create administrative machinery which will impose great extra pecuniary obligations on the State. To-day we have not got that machinery. I agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) viz., that the Government consider the continuation of the granting of assistance as at present. In connection therewith, I must refer to one or two cases. In 1920, when the Housing Act was passed, conditions were abnormal. I do not say that the position which had to be met has altogether disappeared, but I think that the Government must take into account the fact that conditions to-day are no longer so abnormal. Money has undoubtedly become cheaper and the town councils can borrow money for housing purposes practically as cheaply as the Government can. It is, therefore, not so necessary to obtain the money from the treasury as it was a few years ago. Over and above the Housing Act of 1920, provision was made last year by the Local Loans Act for the granting of assistance to the municipalities for the building of houses. When the loan estimates come before the House there will be an opportunity to obtain more information about the schemes we are considering. Hon. members must not, however, forget that the machinery for granting assistance to municipalities has been created.