18 May, 1927.]

[Continued.

I have, however, gathered together some matters, in so far as I could see from the questions that were asked me, and I propose to put those in to the Committee, with your permission. Then I thought if later on, after seeing them, the Committee wanted to ask me any questions upon them, they would perhaps take some opportunity of doing it, if I just handed them in to-day.

140. What do you propose to hand in? -The first question was as to the examination of District Surveyors and Building Surveyors. I propose to hand in a statement with regard to that. (Vide Appendix No. 2.) The second question was as to the action taken by the Royal Institute of British Architects in relation to steel frame buildings I propose to hand in a statement about that. (Vide Appendix No. 2.) The third one was with regard to the action taken by the Royal Institute of British Architects on reinforced concrete construction, and I propose to hand in a statement on that. (Vide Appendix No. 2.)

Chairman.] Mr. Tasker, these are points which you raised in your questions, are they not?

Mr. Tasker.] Yes. I think Major Barnes must be a thought reader.

Chairman.] Now will you go on with your examination, please, Mr. Lindley.

Mr. Lindley.

141. Major Barnes, on the last occasion we were discussing the question as to the number of competent architects who, not applying to be registered, may continue in practice and although perhaps in mistake be regarded as registered architects by other people, may suffer injury by people making this an excuse and refusing to pay on that ground?—Yes, I remember the question. In reply to it, the intention of Clause 12, of course, is to deal with a person who deliberately holds out that he is a registered architect, and I should have thought that if by inadvertence some person had concluded that he was, without his having in fact held himself out as one, he would not have been subject to penalties under Clause 12. There is no intention to punish inadvertence. The idea is to punish deliberate misrepresentation.

142. Yes, I quite see that the idea is to punish deliberate misrepresentation, but the question I put to you is that innocent persons may, if this clause is applied, suffer in consequence of it?

62446

I could not conceive it. I think that their defence would be sufficiently good to protect them from any consequences of that kind.

143. Is it fair to suggest that this is really an endeavour to create another closed society or corporation with powers such as the medical societies now have? -I think it might be quite natural to suggest it and perhaps without a very clear apprehension of what this Bill proposes to do, it might be regarded even as being fair, but I think that the more the provisions of the Bill are apprehended, the less reason will be found for coming to a conclusion of that kind. We are endeavouring (being guided by precedents and realising the feeling against closing a profession) by this Bill to make the profession of architecture more open than it is at present I do not want to answer questions at too great length, but I think I could show that if I went on.

a

144. You are quite satisfied that creating another professional body would not give opportunities for the abuse of powers such as have recently been exercised in the medical profession?-I think not under this Bill, because those powers which have been exercised in the medical profession-I do not want in my evidence to adopt any qualifying term with regard to powers could not have been exercised if the medical profession had had Discipline Committee such as we propose under the Bill. I mean, if the body which controls the medical profession were a body comprising two such members as we propose, that is, an outside lawyer and an outside representative of local authorities, we do not think it would be possible to take any action that could be regarded as abusing their powers or as oppressive.

145. You will agree, I think, that under Clause 7 your powers will be fairly wide?-Only in respect of persons who are on the Register. We shall have no control over persons who are practising but who are not on the Register; but with regard to persons who are on the Register, the powers given by Clause 7 will of course be within the construction of the term "conduct disgraceful in a professional respect." Of course, any person coming on the Register will come under those powers, but I do not think that they are powers which would deter anybody from coming on to the Register or oppress them while they were on.

B3

18 May, 1927.]

146. The Council would be the body that would determine what is and what is not disgraceful or unprofessional conduct? No, that would not be the case. The Discipline Committee are the body who have to enquire into the matter, and they are the body who have to come to the conclusion, and their conclusion must be adopted by the Council. Therefore the body that will determine what is and what is not disgraceful conduct will be this Discipline Committee.

147. Then is it true that under the Charter of the Royal Institute of British Architects to-day, no architect may be a builder or carry on any similar business whilst practising as an architect ?Probably my best reply to that would be to read you the words that are to be found in the Code of Professional Conduct. Those words may be found on pages 101 and 102 of the Kalendar, and there is no direct prohibition of an architect acting as a builder, but there are certain clauses which, taken together when read, would make it impossible for an architect to be in such a position that he was under the present system of competitive contract, both the architect and the builder. If I might just say a word as to what has governed the Institute in framing this Code, it is this. An architect under our modernday system is a person who stands between the building owner and the builder; it is his duty to protect the building owner, to see that the building owner pays for what he gets and no more. The architect is not allowed under the Code of Conduct of the Institute to have any financial interest of any kind in any building for which he is acting as the architect, other than that of receiving a fee for it from his client. Therefore the idea of the Code is that he shall not be interested in building materials, for example, which are used upon the building for which he is architect; he shall not be interested in the supply of labour; and he shall not be interested in a firm of builders which may be quoting for the job for which he is the architect. Therefore while there is no direct prohibition in these clauses of an architect being a builder, the effect of the clauses, taken all together and construed in the spirit in which they are framed is to preclude an architect who is a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects from being at the same time a builder.

[Continued.

148. On page 101, Section 4: "An architect must not attempt to supplant another architect, nor must be compete with another architect": Would it be regarded as supplanting another architect or as in any way being unprofessional if an architect to a public body were to accept work from a private person and induce some other architect to place his upon the plans and drawings? Would that be regarded as unprofessional conduct or as supplanting him in any degree? Let me get the question quite correctly. You are assuming a man who is employed by a public authority?

name

149. As a city architect, say?-As an architect. He takes private work. He cloaks the private work that he is taking by putting the name of another architect to it?

150. Or by inducing some other architect to pretend that he is responsible for the work?-Of course the decision of the Institute on a matter of that kind, which would of course only come before them if the architect were one of their own members, would be governed entirely by the facts of the case. The fact that there was a cloak being used would on the face of it seem to indicate that there was some conduct which was not creditable to an architect. I mean, on that mere statement of a hypothetical case I should imagine that the facts as you barely state them would suggest that some conduct was taking place there which the Institute would regard as being unprofessional and upon which they would take action. course it is very difficult to deal with a merely hypothetical case other than by giving a very general sort of answer.

Of

151. Nothing more specific can be given than that at the moment-am I to take that from you?-At the moment. The course that is followed in cases of that kind, if they are reported to the Institute, is that they go to the Practice Committee of the Institute, who proceeds then to hold a proper Inquiry, giving all the parties a fair chance of stating their

case.

152. You have read the Minutes of the last meeting, have you not?—Yes.

153. Would you turn to page 19, line 160? The question was asked there: "Is not the Council of the Institute practically to regulate the new body of architects?" You answered "No," and you went on to amplify that answer. Arising out of that, is it not true that

18 May, 1927.]

actually the present body of architects would regulate the registration of new architects in as much as they would dominate the situation by weight of numbers?-I have got page 19.

Sir Murdoch Macdonald.

154. It is my question, Major Barnes? -Yes, Question 116. May I just be given a moment to read the question and answer?

Mr. Lindley.

155. If you please?-(After reading): I do not know that I can add anything to that answer. I see that at some length I pointed out-in some other part of my evidence, I think-the way in which the Council of the Institute as Council of the Institute was advised and to a certain extent controlled by the Admission Committee and by the Discipline Committee. Of course on the general question as to whether in a Registration Bill the control of registration will be mainly in the hands of the profession registered, that of course it seems to me must be the case. I mean, architects must predominate in the control of registration in the same way as in the case of any other body; I mean that is the general practice.

156. And to the extent that they do predominate they would control registration? I think that that must follow.

157. Will you now turn to Clause 20 of the Bill? Would you tell us how this clause would apply in view of the alteration that you have expressed your willingness to accept in respect of the application of the Act.-My view is that I think that the first part of the clause down to the word "Council". in line 12 is really not requisite. It was put in at the time when we were dealing with the word "architect." We were loth to touch it because we realised that every alteration we made in the Bill aroused some apprehension or other.

158. In line 13 is that so?-That is so. My own feeling is that the first part of that clause is really not necessary now. The remaining part appears to be necessary, although it should be altered to "Provided that nothing in this Act shall operate to prevent a professional member of any body" and so on, being registered if he is duly qualified for registration.

62446

[Continued.

159. So that in your judgment the first portion of that clause is now unnecessary?—I think it is tautological in a way; it really is surplusage, I should

say.

no

160. Do you admit, Major Barnes, that there are many competent architects practising to-day who have had academic education, whose experience has been gained largely as workmen, and who by attending the technical schools and colleges have made themselves competent and have discharged their duties with satisfaction to everybody concerned? You admit that there are such persons practising?—Yes. I should hesitate to say that there were any considerable number of them, but I think it is quite conceivable. I do not know that in my own experience I have come across any such persons, but I should think it is quite conceivable that a person might pass from the position of being a craftsman to that of an architect, and has done so, but I think I might be quite safe in saying that there cannot be any considerable number of such persons.

161. I was going to ask you, arising out of that, what number of people of that kind you estimate there are?-It would be the widest possible shot if I were to give an estimate.

162. You have made no effort to obtain information upon that point? I do not think information of that kind could really be obtained by any professional body; it would mean taking really a sort of census of the population; but I should say that if it were possible to muster a hundred men who had really got into the position of being competent architects from the position of being craftsmen, that would be the outside number.

163. The only point arising out of that is that if these competent persons are now practising and you are seeking to make a closed profession, would they not be more or less stigmatised if they were outside of that profession if they failed to apply for registration?-Of course such persons would be entitled to be registered; I mean if they did not come on to the Register it would be because they did not think it was worth their while to come on.

164. There is no bar to their making any application?-No.

165. If they considered it was not worth their while to apply, and this Bill B 4

18 May, 1927.]

becomes an Act of Parliament, then they would be stigmatised more or less as being incompetent.-No. I suppose the implication of their not wishing to apply to be registered would be that they did not think there was any stigma.

166. So far as they are concerned, yes. So far as the profession is concerned, they would be regarded as being more or less incompetent.-What we are frankly after is to encourage the public to distinguish in the long run between the trained and the untrained man. We do not think that such a distinction as that will arise immediately on the passage of this Bill, and I do not imagine that within the range of practice probably of any person who is at present practising, the feeling on the part of the public will be strong enough to amount to what you would call stigmatisation.

Colonel Moore.

167. I take it that what Major Barnes is aiming at now is to show the difference between competency and incompetency, but in the future, between untrained and trained in regard to the architects brought on to this Register.

-The persons who will come on to the Register under Clause 5 are not subjected to any technical or educational tests whatever. The persons who come on under Clause 6 are subjected to a test of their training.

Colonel Moore.] Exactly.

Mr. Lindley.

168. Do you agree that safeguards should be imposed to prevent your body, if it is authorised by Parliament to act in the way you desire, becoming one whose capacity for collecting fees from its compulsory members, is other than what is needed to restrict economical payment for the cost of the payment of salaries of officers.-Entirely; we think we have provided for that in the Bill. This is not a Bill for making money and if there is any suggestion that anybody can make money under this Bill, cut it out by all means.

169. I think you will remember I did ask you a question in respect of the fees that will be charged under clause 4. -That is so, and I have had a statement prepared. I thought the best way to put you and the Committee in possession of information that would enable

[Continued.

you to form an opinion upon that point, was to get information as to what was being done by bodies who were already registered. Of course it would be impossible for me and improper to attempt to bind anybody in the Bill to any fee, but I have prepared a statement here which I propose to hand in.

Chairman.

170. What is that statement ?-This is a statement on the question of registration fees. It shows the fees that are asked at the present time in the case of solicitors, the Medical Register and the Dentists Register and also examination fees charged by the Institute. These

are the sort of facts that would be before any body that was considering the question of fees under this Bill; the sort of facts that would be brought for example to the notice of the Privy Council if they were considering whether the proposed fees were reasonable or not, and I thought I could not better serve the Committee than by preparing this statement, which I propose to hand in. (The Statement was handed in (Vide Appendix) No. 2.)

Mr. Lindley.

171. And you still adhere to your intention to delete section 4 of Clause 5. Well, Sir, we are asking for its deletion and I have given the grounds for it. We do think that the circumstances have so changed now that there is no compulsion to go upon the register, and persons who apply to go upon the register, will presumably do so because they desire to do so, that there was no hardship in asking them to pay a fee. We are not in any sense pursuing any body and making them pay a fee; we are not saying to them : You must go on the Register and not only must you go on the register but you must pay a fee for going on. We are simply saying: there is a register; if you want to come on it come on and there will be merely a fee to cover the cost of putting

you on.

172. Under Clause 8 it is proposed that your Council may restore to the register any name or entry removed therefrom. Can you tell the Committee what interval of time will elapse between the withdrawal from and restoration of

18 May, 1927.]

the name to the register?-We have proposed an amendment there so that the Clause would read: "The Council may (subject in the case of persons removed from the register under the immediately preceding section to the approval of the Discipline Committee) restore to the register any name or entry removed therefrom." Our Discipline Committee would be in the position of saying not that this man must come off for all time, but we think this man must be suspended for six or 12 months, and then that the Council would have to act upon it.

173. Does such a procedure apply in respect to any such professional body, that once a member of the profession has been struck off the register he can be reinstated to practice again?—Yes, I think there is a precedent for it in the Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1881; that is Section 8 (1) finishing up with Section 8 (2), which says that if a person is removed he may appeal to the Privy Council and the Privy Council after consideration may either dismiss the appeal or order the Council not to remove the name of the appellant, or restore his name as the case may require, and under this Bill any person whose name was removed from the Register can at the discretion of the Discipline Committee can go to appeal upon it and get his name restored; but we have made provision so that he need not go that length, and he might find himself merely under a suspension order for a certain period. We realised that there are degrees in offences, and we want to give the Discipline Committee powers make the punishment fit the crime and not to go too far.

Mr. William Hirst.

to

174. Major Barnes, I would like to ask you first of all, can we take it that the Royal Institute of British Architects that you are representing, are the sole promoters of the Bill which is under review?—To answer that, I might merely say yes, but if I said yes, I think that might perhaps create a false impression, because the Royal Institute of British Architects is a body so wide in its territorial organisation that it contains not only men who are members of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but through allied Societies of architects situated all over the country,

[Continued.

in Scotland and Ireland, it contains men who are not members of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but only members of those allied societies.

Chairman.

175. And in Wales.-And in Wales; I beg your pardon. Therefore, when one says that the Royal Institute of British Architects are the sole promoters, one is conveying by that answer the fact that they are carrying with them not only their own members, but the preponderence of architects who are not members. I am sorry if I have spoken at length, but I just wanted to clear that.

176. I am much obliged. Could you give us some idea as to what number of people you may have in connection with your own institution, that is the Royal Institution of British Architects, who can be said to be certified under the Bill if it becomes law?-Under the terms of Clause 5 I think every member of the Institute would be a qualified Member. He would either be a member of the Royal Academy or he would be a person with a diploma in architecture-I am reading Clause 5 or he would be a person in bona fide practice as an architect or he would be a person who was a bona fide architectural assistant, or he would be a pupil or student in a school.

177. Have you any idea of the number of those people, Major Barnes?—Yes. I think it is on page 330 of the Kalendar. On page 330 there is a total of 6,129 members of the Institute. You ought to exclude from that, I think, the Honorary Associates and the Honorary Corresponding Members, who would probably not desire to go upon the register; they amount to something like 130. You may say in round numbers there are 6,000, excluding students, and there are another 600 in students.

178. Is there any other association in the country that could be said to be absorbing not only your members, but architects who could be said to be professionally qualified to come under the terms of this Act.-Yes, such societies do exist; and if I might make just a slight reference to them, the Royal Institute of British Architects now comprises also the Society of Architects by an amalgamation which took place in, I think it was 1924. Those two bodies