Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER, a Member of the House, called and examined. Chairman. 1479. Mr. Alexander, I think you are a Member of the House of Commons and Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress?—Yes. 1480. And you speak for the whole of the Co-operative movement of Great Britain and Ireland, which has over 5,300,000 members, and is engaged in all classes of business, and you would like to make some observations with regard to the Bill. I think in your précis you suggest certain amendments. Is that correct?-Yes. I do not think I need to add to the précis which I have submitted. I leave it to the Committee to ask questions. * * Vide Appendix No. 15. 1481. I see on page 2 you say that "In the view of the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress it is essential that these activities should be safeguarded." Those are the activities of the Society to which you refer in paragraph 3 of your précis ?—Yes. 1482. And you say these "should be safeguarded by including in any enactment a clear provision which will cover the right of a Corporate body to carry on the business of an Architect, provided that body employs registered architects "?-Yes. 1483. When I brought in the Bill I said that would be done and with that statement in your mind you had no real objection to offer to the principle of the Bill?-If that were done. 1484. If that were done. Then you suggest a new clause to be added to the Bill somewhat on the lines of a clause in the Poisons and Pharmacy Act of 1908?-Yes. 1485. That clause you set out in your précis? Yes. 1486. You seem to have some doubt as to whether or not this Bill will mean that the architects' profession will be a close corporation, and that you object to ?—Yes. 1487. If it were made a close corporation you think there might be some danger that the avenue to the profession of an architect would be narrowed so as to make it more difficult for children of working class parents to qualify and earn their living in that profession?-Yes. 1488. I think when I brought in the Bill I stated that it was not the purport of the promoters to make the architectural profession a close corporation. Provided you are satisfied on that point your objection would be met?-Especially if you provide the safeguards that I desire. 1491. Mr. Alexander, it is your opinion, is it (and you have taken legal advice upon the point), that without these new clauses that you put in, it would be impossible for a corporate body to carry on the profession?-It is difficult to reply exactly to that, but of course what we have to bear in mind is our experience in connection with other professions; the experience in connection with registered chemists, under the enactment from which we extract this wording, is satisfactory. In the case of another Bill, which was passed in the House, but did not include it, it has been the reverse. It has meant the winding up of the 62446 [Continued. whole of our business. Obviously, therefore, if the real intention of the promoters of the Bill is not to make a rigid close corporation but only to endeavour by registration to raise the status of architects, what we submit is that if we undertake in the future to employ nothing but registered architects, and to have a clause in the Bill which is based upon the statutory precedent, then we shall feel much more secure. Mr. Gardner.] I think it would be as well if Mr. Alexander would just tell the Committee the details of the cases under the Dentists Act to which he referred. Witness.] I said "another " Act, but the Act was the Dentists Act. Sir Murdoch Macdonald. 1492. What do you mean in this sense by a close corporation?-Again I am not a lawyer to give definitions, nor even an eminent engineer like you, Sir Murdoch, but I should say that we look at it from this point of view, that a profession or occupation which is given a statutory authority to control itself in such a way as to prevent open access to it, is a close corporation, and whilst perhaps the Bill, as at present framed, does not meet that amateur definition of mine, there is always the danger to us that it might reach that in the next stage, unless we have proper safeguards now. 1493. Is not a close corporation really a body whose members alone can statutorily claim fees?-Probably that would be a very good legal definition. What my Committee fear, of course, is that the second stage of progress from this would be difficult, unless we had reasonable statutory safeguards now. I feel convinced in my own mind that the architect would not wish in 20 years time to remain satisfied with the present draft, and exactly how that draft is handled now, will be important to us. 1494. The present draft registers them, and under Clause 12, at the same time, gives them a title to recover in a Court of Law; so is not that really a close corporation?-From that point of view, body is adequate; that is the point, I think. 1496. Whether it is easy to admit members?-Yes. I cannot see that there is any fundamental objection to that position provided the access to the corporation is reasonably open, but if you are going to make a very closed entry then I should object to it. 1497. What you mean by a "closed entry is, difficult for students to pass? -Yes. 1498. Not in the selection of the particular men themselves, but in the selection of their qualifications?—Yes. 1499. You have seen that under the schedule there is a representative body who are to decide what the education is to be. Do you think that body then would probably put the state of education so high that it would be difficult for those you represent to have their members admitted?-I am bound to say that whilst I look at this with, of course, suspicion from my point of view, the architects seem to have taken more steps than some bodies who seek incorporation, to get that body of a representative character, and I do attach importance to the fact that the body to be set up in the first schedule, should be sufficiently representative of all the classes of the community, who may want to seek access to the profession. I make suggestions in my précis which could be added to, and I do want to make it clear, Sir Murdoch, that I stand by what I said in the House on the Second Reading, that I do not want to do anything which I would tend to lower the standard of the profession, or to prevent the profession from attaining a reasonable standard. All I want to do is to secure that we are not damnified as a very large section of the industrial and commercial community, and that we shall maintain a reasonable access for working-class students. 1500. Do you think then that the present state of the profession, where normally a man is a member of some kind of the Royal Institute of British Architects, is not sufficient?-I cannot say that personally I have enough experience to say that; I would rather not enter into that. 1501. You are aware that at any rate the entry into the Royal Institute of British Architects requires a certain amount of qualification?-Certainly yes. [Continued. 1502. And to take the Civil Engineers, of which I happen to be a member, they also have qualifications. Are not the public well served as it is, by these two bodies without the necessity for this Bill, as far as you are concerned?-Yes, I think they are well served. I suppose the attitude of the Architects is, that sometimes whilst they are giving good service some of the public may not get all the service, but I have no evidence of that, that is hardly a question for me. I think that is a question for the promoters of the Bill. Mr. Lindley. 1503. I would like to ask Mr. Alexander if he has any opinion to express in relation to Clause 7. (To the Witness.) Do not you think that the provisions of that Clause are rather dangerously wide? -May I make my position perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman? I said on the Second Reading of this Bill that I was anxious to negotiate in a conciliatory spirit with the promoters of the Bill, and whilst of course I am here to give evidence, and must reply to questions, I want if possible to keep in accord with the statement I then made. If I were to go into details on Clause 7 then I might state a number of objections. I do not want to do so; I leave that to Mr. Lindley. Obviously I do not want to refuse to answer a question. 1504. I am particularly anxious to get your opinion upon this Clause, because it seems to me to touch the interest you are representing here. For instance, under the present charter of the Royal Institute of British Architects, no architect may be a builder, and he may be expelled from the Institute if he endeavours to practise as a builder. You would have in this co-operative movement, men who would be acting in a dual capacity?—Yes. I understood, however that we were covered in that. I mean obviously in a movement like ours, we have two distinct operations. We have a definite architectural department which is in charge of architects, and which renders only architectural service; we have a number of local societies who have building departments who often do work of their own, either under the direction of the head of the building department or of the Clerk of Works. Now, I understand that the Bill does not prevent the carrying on of that second operation by local societies, who use their building department direct for their own building purposes. If it did, I should offer very strong objection. 1505. The point I want to put to you is this, that if any one of your servants, who is now qualified to become a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, were to carry on the business either for you or for your Association or for himself as a builder, he would be subject to expulsion by the Institute. Sir Murdoch Macdonald.] May I just interject here, Sir, I see there is a professional difference. A man may say as an engineer, carry out the work and do the actual building and superintend it himself, and he would still not transgress the clause. He would only transgress it if it took it as a contract to make a profit out of it. If he carried that out as a servant of the master, he would be in a different position from that in which he would in to make a profit. [Continued. be the first to say so, but I do not think there has been anything said that is out of order at the present moment. Will you go on, Mr. Lindley? Witness.] I think my answer to Mr. Lindley on the clause is, that the clause is much improved from our point of view. I was going to say just now, that I had been somewhat nervous about what the interpretation would be of professional conduct-" derogatory to professional character." There has been such a wide interpretation placed upon that sometimes by bodies such as the General Medical Council and other bodies, that I certainly am nervous of that; but that appears to me to be an improvement. Mr. Lindley. 1507. I agree Sir, that some improvement has taken place, but what I desired from Mr. Alexander was that expression of opinion as to whether the improvements that have been made or suggested improvements that are made in this clause, would protect the interests of the Association which he represents. Do these amendments go far enough in your opinion? The advice of my solicitor is that if we secured the amendments which we have submitted now, in my précis today, together with the amendment of Clause 7, and the amendments which 1 am bound to admit, the promoters offered to me before the Second Reading, which appears I think to Clause 20, our position would be very much safeguarded. Chairman. 1508. You have given your evidence exceedingly well, if I may be allowed to say so, and we are grateful to you for coming. Thank you, Sir. The Witness withdrew. Major HARRY BARNES, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., re-called. 1509. Major Barnes, you have read the evidence, I think, given before the Committee?-I have, Sir. 1510. Now we are going to ask you some questions relating to certain points that have arisen in the course of the evidence?-Yes. 1511. We have had as you know, many witnesses. Some of them, including Sir 62446 Edmund Turton, insist on the retention of a proposed amendment to Clause 20, which as you know, exempts persons employed under local authorities?—Yes. 1512. Do you think the retention of that amendment is necessary?—Yes. I have had an opportunity of looking at my answer on that matter when I was before the Committee last, and I gather that I was under a misapprehension as F 3 5 July, 1927.] Major HARRY BARNES, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I. no to the real effect of that amendment. Looking at that amendment as I have now seen it, there appears to be nothing in it that we object to, because the effect of the amendment is to exempt the local authorities from all the provisions of the Bill, with the exception to that relating to titles, and after reading Sir Edmund Turton's evidence and the précis prepared by the County Council's Association, and also the evidence given by Mr. Scorgie, I see that the matter is perfectly clear, that they have desire to use the term "registered architect" unless they are on the register. When I was last before the Committee, it was in my mind that the amendment that they desired would give them that power, and therefore I thought it was one that should not be accepted; but looking over it, I see it does not do that, and therefore, Sir, speaking on behalf of the Royal Institute of British Architects we are perfectly agreeable to the amendment proposed by the County Councils Association being accepted. 1513. Now, with regard to clause 5, sub-section (1) (c): The Institution of Municipal and County Engineers and the Institution of Builders, suggest that provision should be made whereby a man of mature years with the proper qualifications, may have the opportunity of getting on to the register. An Amendment was suggested by Mr. Willis that clause 5, page 2, line 41 at the end, to insert "" or has been in bona fide practice as an architect at any time prior to the passing of this Act." Have you anything to say to that? We have considered that amendment. We appreciate the point of it and we are willing to accept that. Mr. Tasker. 1514. The only question I wanted to ask was, how a bona fide architect was going to be defined, or an architect who has been in bona fide practice?-That is another question-not the question that was addressed to me. Shall I deal with that question at this stage? Chairman. 1515. Yes, please?-I have read what has been said on that point, and I have not discovered that anybody has suggested a means of defining the term "bona fide." We have very carefully considered the matter and it appears to [Continued. us that it is a term which it would be impossible to define in the Bill. The term is one in common use; it is used in a great many connections and is considered in relation to every connection in which it is used, and we think, Sir, that the only course that can be followed, is to leave it to be construed as it would be in the first place by the Admission Committee, which is a completely representative body including all those bodies who remain on the Second Schedule, and if their decision was questioned then of course it would come to be a question before the Courts. Nobody else has been able to suggest the definition of "bona fide "; we are not able to do so and we respectfully suggest that the matter is better left undefined. tion Mr. Tasker. 1516. Would it be helpful, Sir, if we could have some indication whether a bona fide practice would be regarded as proved if the words " proper qualificaindicated that the applicant had done a certain volume of work? It seems to me a little difficult to reconcile the words "with the proper qualifications" with bona fide practice?—It seems to us that the point which has just been raised by Major Tasker, is not one that can be really dealt with at large and in general. The interpretation of this term "bona fide" will arise on the facts in every particular instance: questions of fact have always been left to the common sense of mankind, and never have been attempted to be defined in any statute; and it seems to us that the interpretation of these words "bona fide "" must always be a question of fact in the particular case in which it is raised, and being so, must be left to the Jury who would in the first instance be the Admission Committee and afterwards the appeal court to which it might be taken. Sir Murdoch Macdonald. 1517. The point in regard to this second question, Mr. Chairman, is not so much in regard to the words "bona fide" but "at any time prior." In the amended Bill as it stands, it reads: "Every person who at the passing of this Act "that is at the particular moment-" is in bona fide practice as an architect "whereas the suggested |