Page images
PDF
EPUB

12 May, 1927.] Major HARRY BARNES, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.

Structural Engineers who have carried the whole weight and burden of the modern science which is dealt with at some length in Major Barnes's précis, I should have thought that was in order.

Chairman.] As I understand it the Bill is not designed to exclude any particular professions or sections of professions, but we are going to hear the evidence of everybody who likes to come forward and give their views. When the Civil Engineers or whatever other society comes forward, then it will be your opportunity to put to them these particular questions; but I do not think you can put them to Major Barnes, who himself has said that the Bill is not designed to exclude anyone.

Mr. William Hirst.] But if the Major is of that opinion surely he has the right to challenge it?

Chairman.] Certainly, when they come forward.

Mr. William Hirst.] No. Major Barnes is here representing the Royal Institute of British Architects. Now I submit with all deference that if the Major has a suspicion that these people, to put it bluntly, are an unholy Crowd and are seeking by some subterfuge in the form of this Bill to secure protection which he thinks they are not entitled to, to the exclusion of other professional classes, he is entitled to submit a question of that kind.

Mr. Lindley.] Not merely to secure protection but to extend the privileges, whilst they have not been able to meet their obligations under existing privileges.

Mr. Gardner.] There is no evidence of that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lindley.] We are hearing the evidence now.

Mr. William Hirst.] We may not be in agreement with the Major.

Mr. Gardner.] To a point of order, no evidence has been submitted and an effort has been made by Major Tasker to get Major Barnes to admit things.

Mr. Tasker.] May I very respectfully submit that while I have no desire to attack the Royal Institute of British Architects, I think that if I had left such questions to Witnesses from the Civil and Structural Engineers the Committee might very properly complain that I did not at least afford Major Barnes an opportunity of expressing the views of the Institute.

Chairman.] We Major Barnes.

[Continued.

are going to recall

Mr. Tasker.] Then, Sir, may I submit that it is all to the advantage of Major Barnes to have an opportunity of ascertaining whether the suggestions I am putting forward are in fact true, or whether I am trying to find the contents of a mare's nest.

Sir Murdoch Macdonald.

Whether they are true or not, they are not really germane to the subject which we have before us here, and I submit, Sir, that you might rule to that effect with perfect propriety, because not only this Institute, but the Institution of Civil Engineers itself, which I understood my friend to say a moment ago had made itself responsible for certain calculations on details of design of some kind, not even the Institution of Civil Engineers as a body would be responsible for these calculations. These things would be done by selected people brought together, and not by the Institution themselves, in any case, because, after all, in the Institution of Civil Engineers there are other engineers, a great number of whom would not deal with the structural part of buildings. The same thing may to a minor extent apply to Architects. It is a body that incorporates people who do a variety of different things, and who therefore would not be all specialists in all subjects appertaining to Architecture. So that it would be wrong of them as an Institute to do other than put their imprimatur upon what another segregated body of competent people would decide were the right things, such as, for instance, the British Standard Specification Committee, selected Committee of people agreed on by various Institutions; so that I think you might, Sir, with propriety, rule that this particular line of investigation that my friend is pursuing is not germane to the matter before the Committee.

a

Mr. William Hirst.] I take very strong objection to that ruling. I think at least at this very early stage of the proceedings you might exercise some latitude regarding the evidence of Major Barnes, and I do not think that Major Barnes will object personally. If he feels he has not an answer to give, he knows what to do regarding that matter, and I do think that to exercise such rigidity as is proposed by my friend at this early stage is not going to be productive of helpful

12 May, 1927.]

Major HARRY BARNES, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.

results. I think Mr. Tasker ought to be allowed at the present stage to pursue his own querying in his own way. I do hope, in spite of what has been said, that you are going to give us some latitude regarding this question, at this stage of the proceedings anyhow.

Chairman.] I am quite willing to give every kind of latitude, but I do not want the proceedings to go on indefinitely.

I

Mr. William Hirst.] No, we agree. do not mind you using the guillotine later, but let it be said that we have had a fair sporting chance.

Chairman.] I hope I am a sportsman. I am sorry you should think otherwise.

Sir Frederick Rice.] May I remind you that Major Barnes has offered to answer these questions when he can get the information, and I think, in fairness to Major Barnes and the Institute, they would like the questions cleared up. think it is only fair that Major Barnes should have that opportunity at some later date.

I

Chairman.] Mr. Tasker, in view of what is said, perhaps you will go on with your questions, but would you kindly limit them as far as possible to matters which are germane to the Bill?

Mr. Tasker.] May I couple No. 26 on page 6* with No. 12 on page 2, which, you will see, are more or less connected together? No. 12 says: "The Institute is also associated through its Science Standing Committee with other professional bodies in the standardisation of building materials and on the consideration of problems arising from the use of new materials." Now, Sir. if you will take those two together, I think you will find that my inquiries were quite proper. I have no desire to take advantage of Major Barnes, and I am merely putting up these things in Committee rather than spreading them abroad, because they are questions which the Institute ought to answer. I would suggest, if I may, that Major Barnes should make inquiry whether the Roval Institute of British Architects, through their Science Committee, have taken any active part, beyond appearing by counsel, in connection with Ferro-Concrete Regulations now under discussion, and which have been under discussion for the past two

years.

Witness.] I understand the question put to me is this, as to whether the *The reference is to Appendix 1.

[Continued.

Royal Institute in certain respects has not adequately used the powers which it already possesses. Those respects have been specified by Mr. Tasker. Speaking on behalf of the Institute, we do not shirk any inquiry of this kind, and if the opportunity is given us we will lay before the Committee the fullest possible statement on these two matters.

48. Thank you very much, Major Barnes. Then the next thing is that I think in principle this registration is agreed amongst all architects-I mean there may be one or two exceptions?— Yes, and the House has endorsed it too.

49. One of the objects of this Bill is to eliminate the men who have no training whatever; I mean Estate Agents, admirable men, auctioners, undertakers; and we have had billheads from people, architects, builders, undertakers, and so on; but we want really scientific and properly trained men. That is the object of the Bill?-As far as elimination is concerned it is not the Bill that will do it. It is the undertaker who will do it, because these men that you are speaking of will still be allowed to carry on in the future as they have been in the past. The present generation, one may roughly say, are not affected by the Bill; it is the coming generation. So if you use the word "elimination" in the sense that this Bill is going to interfere with any man's livelihood at the present moment, that is not the case.

50. We understood that, Major Barnes, but we do not want a man to be an auctioneer on Monday, an estate agent on Tuesday, a valuer on Wednesday, a land agent on Thursday, a quantity surveyor on Friday, and an architect on Saturday? --Of course our view is that an architect with a sufficient amount of work can find sufficient employment in his own profession.

51. Now you point out in your précis the high character of conduct. Do you take any disciplinary measures with members, either Fellows, Associates, or Licentiates who prepare their own quantities-Not as far as preparation of quantities is concerned; but we do take this view, that where an architect prepares quantities and a separate fee is charged for that, that his clients should be made acquainted with the fact, and that it is not the proper course for an architect to take out quantities without acquainting his client with the fact that

[ocr errors]

12 May, 1927.] Major HARRY BARNES, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.

he is doing so and is charging a fee for the same.

to

52. But would it make it any the more proper for one professional man practice a profession which was somewhat remote from the other?-Of course this Bill does not in any kind of way restrict a person from carrying on any other profession than that of an architect.

53. Exactly. What you are saying is, as I understand it, that a man shall be entitled to be called an architect and practise any other profession he chooses, but no other man practising another profession shall practise the profession of an architect?-No; with great respect this Bill does not say anything of the sort. Under this Bill no man practising any profession will be prevented from practising the profession of an architect. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent a man who is carrying on the business of a quantity surveyor, from carrying on the business of an architect, and conversely, there is nothing in this Bill to prevent a man who is carrying on the business of an architect from carrying on the business of a quantity surveyor.

54. Or land agent? Or land agent. 55. Or auctioneer or estate agent?— There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it.

Chairman.] The suggestion has been made that we should recall Major Barnes on Tuesday at 3.30 to answer any points that Mr. Tasker has asked him which he is unable to reply to now. Now Mr. Tasker says that he has to be at a London County Council on Tuesday and cannot be here.

Mr Lindley.] Could we say Wednesday? Chairman.] Wednesday comes rather near to Thursday, and of course we want to have these answers given so that the other witnesses can formulate their own evidence.

Mr. Tasker.] Could I make this suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that I would, if the Committee would permit me, show Major Barnes the brief that I have got, in order that he might get the information. It is solely in the interests of the public that I am asking these questions. On Tuesday, for my sins, I am Chairman of the Building Acts Committee of the London County Council, as Major Barnes knows, and I must be there to be interro<ated.

Captain Wallace.] Might I make this. suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that if Major

[Continued.

Tasker has in fact got a brief from an important body, could not we have that brief circulated to us and to Major Barnes within the next day or two, so that we shall all know the questions, and then let us hear Major Barnes's answers. I think if Mr. Tasker agrees to do that we ought, in our turn, to agree to meet on some day that will suit him.

Chairman.] That is a very good suggestion.

Mr. Tasker.] I will certainly put these things down in a precis and send it to Major Barnes and to Members of the Committee, if so desired.

Chairman.] I think perhaps that will be better.

Sir Alfred Hopkinson.] To my mind the whole thing is absolutely irrelevant to this Bill. May not the questions be put on paper and sent to Major Barnes? If there is anything in it whatever why should not the questions be reduced to writing and then we shall see whether there is anything in them whatever, and if there is any point in them Major Barnes will come and give his answers if he thinks it worth while. To my mind the whole thing is irrelevant.

Chairman.] It appears that the Committee are somewhat divided upon this point. Do not you think, Mr. Tasker, you could follow out that suggestion and send your questions in to Major Barnes?

Mr. Tasker.] I should be very happy to do that. I am sorry it is regarded as being irrelevant. I think such an observation could only come from someone who has never practised architecture.

Mr. William Hirst.] It is a matter of opinion about the relevancy.

Captain Wallace.] I though the suggestion was going to be accepted that we should have the questions put in writing.

(It was agreed that Mr. Tasker's questions should be put in writing and sent to Major Barnes, and that he would give his answers when re-called on Wednesday.)

Captain Wallace.

56. I have only one or two questions to ask Major Barnes: First of all it may seem to go back a long way, but has your Institute considered the use of the word "Chartered" rather than "Registered." It occurs to me that "Chartered" in some ways would be preferable, you have Chartered Accountants. I do not know what the Committee think about it?-We have considered it, and we should like to

12 May, 1927.]

Major HARRY BARNES, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.

If

use the word. We are not sure that it is a word than can be imported into the Act. The Institute has a Charter, and the Members of the Institute can call themselves "Chartered Architects." under this Bill you were to introduce the word "Chartered " difficulties might arise, because one person rould derive the right to be called "Chartered " under the Bill; other persons would derive the right to be called "Chartered under the Charter, and confusion might arise on that point. We have consulted Counsel on that point and we are advised that it cannot be done.

[ocr errors]

Now sup

57. That disposes of that. pose somebody forgets or does not bother to apply to be registered, and simply sticks up the term Registered" Architect somebody who would be entitled to be registered and does not apply, is he going to get into trouble under this Bill? -We were suggesting there might be 5 years; that would mean the publication of 4 registers; and within 5 years the situation would be such that it is not conceivable that anybody would apply to come on at the end of that time who had not had a reasonable opportunity of doing so beforehand.

58. The only other thing I wanted to ask you was with regard to Clauses 19 and 20. It seeme to me that if you put in the amendments which you have suggested, Clauses 19 and 20 are both totally irrelevant ?-I am inclined to take that view.

59. They might just as well come out, because a Naval Architect would not call himself a "Registered" Architect, and Clause 20 is redundant?-That is so.

60. Would you have any objection to those two clauses coming out?—Not at all.

[blocks in formation]

[Continued.

the Bill in a great measure? I do not want to go quite so far as that, Sir. What we feel is this: what we were desiring to get represents what we believe in the course of time we shall get public opinion to concur in, but it has been made evident to us that we have not arrived at that stage yet and probably may not for some considerable length of time; but we feel that the advantages of the Bill in setting up this great educational system are such that even with the qualified term it will be a matter of very considerable advantage to the public and to the profession to get the amount of statutory recognition which the Bill gives us. 64. At the same time you would prefer to have it unqualified entirely.-Of course the loaf is always more attractive than half of it.

65. And you are of opinion that this will make the Register more or less voluntary.-Undoubtedly the measure to which the Register will become voluntary will of course be the measure of the desire of the people who come We upon it. believe that before long there will be a real desire to become members of it.

66. And it would interfere very seriously with your disciplinary powers if it were voluntary, as regards removal from the Register.-It will limit the disciplinary powers to the extent to which it limits the number of people who come on it.

67. Just two other points. In Clauses 11 and 12 I see you have struck out the words "After the expiration of one year.

"-Yes.

68. What is the reason for those words being there struck out? Does it mean that if this Bill goes out it comes into being at once, or do you wish to substitute some other period?—No. The reason why those words are struck out is this, that as the Bill stood you have people who are already calling themselves architects, and whose right to call themselves architects would be taken away if they did not come on the register, and therefore a period of 12 months was given to enable them to get on the register. Now this Bill will not confer the right upon a person to call himself Registered Architect " until he is on the register, therefore the words are no longer necessary. No person can call himself a 66 Registered Architect" until he is on the register and therefore the limiting words are not needed in this

a

case.

12 May, 1927.] Major HARRY BARNES, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.

69. You think they are not needed.No, they are not needed.

70. Then there is the other point about the disciplinary Committee, and its constitution: three members of the profession, and two others, one to be appointed, as you suggest, by the Minister of Health.-Yes.

71. Do not you think it would be better if he were appointed by the Privy Council rather than by the Minister of Health? What led us to the insertion of those words was that the Minister of Health is the Minister who is probably in touch more directly with architectural operations, through the activities of the local authorities, than any other Minister; that is the reason; I want to give you the reason why we selected the

terms.

72. I notice that in the schedule you specify representatives from the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London, and then a Joint representative practically for such Universities as Manchester, Liverpool and Durham, or the Scotch Universities.-Yes.

73. Is it not the fact that there are more architectural students in the more modern Universities than there are in the older Universities.-I am not able at the moment to give you the figures, but I think that probably is the case.

74. That was my impression.-That probably is the case.

75. Therefore one would wonder why you did not give more representatives to the Universities who are engaged in teaching architecture.-I think in this respect we have been rather slaves of precedent. No representations have been made to us that a change would be desirable.

Sir Alfred Hopkinson.

76. Just dealing with the point that Dr. Watts has dealt with, I see that in your statement you name the schools of Liverpool and Manchester, which are, outside of London, two of the oldest established schools. Would you have any objection to naming those two Universities in your first schedule.-None at all. 77. If, on consultation with the two schools and the two Universities, it was thought desirable to include them by name, as they are really the leading schools outside London, you would not mind that.Not at all.

[Continued.

78. Then going on to the more general question, we have had the advantage of being able to read your whole memorandum. May we take it that for more than 23 years past your Institute has been considering what is the best way to educate an Architect, and to provide such education as far as possible.-That is so.

79. May we take it further that you have not only considered that yourselves but that you have been in communication with all persons interested in architectural education up and down the country. That is so.

80. And in particular with the schools which have been established during that period, in Liverpool first, and then in Manchester.-That is so.

81. And in so doing you have not merely, I understand, considered your own views on the matter, but you have given the fullest consideration and recognition to those of other persons interested in architectural education.-That is so.

82. May the Committee also take it that you have been working during that time in the closest co-operation with everybody you know in the country who knows anything about architecture.That is so; we have worked in harmony with them.

83. And that you have worked with complete harmony and satisfaction with the different University Schools. That is

So.

84. Then may we take it that you have also considered the question of testing that knowledge by examination. That is

60.

85. And the result has been satisfactory to those other bodies, which at first might have viewed your operations with some slight jealousy.-That is so.

86. Completely satisfactory? Completely satisfactory.

87. Are you satisfied now that it is desirable, having evolved that, to have statutory recognition of your work?That is our strong opinion.

88. May the Committee also take it that you have not only considered what one may call the ordinary University Student, but that you have endeavoured to the best of your ability to set up a ladder of education for the poorer students to get advantage of scholarships and that you have very carefully considered that scheme? That is so.

89. From that you have arrived now at the conclusion that it would be desirable

« PreviousContinue »