24 May, 1927.]

that it will be necessary to take you through the first 13 points, unless you particularly want to. Your main contention I think is contained in paragraph 15, is it not?-In paragraphs 15, 16 and 18.

250. I think that perhaps if you will kindly say what you have to say on those clauses it will be convenient?-Well, Sir, as regards paragraph 15, that deals with Clause 11. Whilst we appreciate the word "Registered" so far as we are concerned, we think that it does not matter to us; we are more particularly concerned with the addition on Clause 20 which has been agreed with the County Councils Association, and the other local authorities, and which if agreed to by the Committee, so far as public officials are concerned, except the use of the title, and whether that title is "Architect " "Registered Architect" which is in the Bill, we are protected by that and that is the protection we want, that while we are occupying official positions with public authorities, we think that we should not be as public officials, during that period, amenable to the clauses in the Bill.

or

251. Then if the Bill is amended as it is suggested, that meets your point?— Yes, that meets our point, and the Royal Institute of British Architects have promised us that, and they have put it in for us, subject to the concurrence of the Committee and the local authorities.

Mr. Gardner.

252. I should like to ask, Mr. Scorgie, you do not come under the Bill at all, unless you become a registered architect? -No, but if we use the term "Registered Architect" when carrying out our architectural duties in connection with our public offices, then we are amenable to the fines and penalties.

253. And you ought to be I think; but the point is, the saving clause as far as you are concerned, is the latter part of Clause 20?-Yes.

254. That covers you?-We are satisfied if you leave the proviso in Clause 20; we do not ask for anything more than the proviso; but we understood that the proviso was put in by the Royal Institute of British Architects, but it would not remain part of the Bill unless this Committee passed it, as given by the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Chairman.

[Continued.

255. I do not quite follow that?-We understood that the Royal Institute of British Architects had amended this Bill, but it was subject to this Committee agreeing to the amendment.

Chairman.] That is so.

Mr. Gardner.

256. All amendments are?-Yes.

Chairman.

256a. But that does not prevent your suggesting any other amendment or you saying that you are in agreement with that amendment? We do not want to suggest anything. If the Committee will only pass Clause 20, as amended, we are satisfied.

257. That is the whole of your evidence?-Except that I would like to call attention to one point, on Clause 5 (1) (c). As it reads now, it is: "Every person who at the passing of this Act is in bona fide practice as an Architect." We respectfully suggest that that does not quite meet our case, because in our profession we have many men who were originally educated as an architect, but have got municipal appointments as engineers, and at the same time are doing architectural work. We suggest that if those individuals after they have finished or retired from public life, desire to go back to their first love, they should have an opportunity of doing so, that that should include those persons who have been, in bona fide practice, not who are at the passing of the Act.

-That is for another point. The amendment of Clause 20 applies to those of us who are acting as public officials. My friend Mr. Willis has told us that he has more than five years before he retires. It is not so with me. I am retiring now. I have finished my 49 years as a public servant, and I am retiring.

261. The fact of the proviso being left in, in Clause 20, does not mean that you will withdraw your opposition to the Bill; you require some further amendment?-No. We suggest respectfully to the Committee that to give those members who have been architects, but who are now practising engineering, and cannot be said to be bona fide architects at the passing of the Act, if when they have finished their municipal engineering they desire to revert back to their first love, they should not be precluded, because they cannot do it within the five years.

262. Have you handed in a suggested amendment to meet that point?-It is in paragraph 16.

Chairman.

263. The amendment that you propose in section 5, subsection 1, (c) is simply a suggested one ?-That is so.

264. The other amendment that you propose in Clause 20 is a positive one?— That is an agreed amendment.

Sir Frederick Rice.] In order to make the matter clear to me, could we have the amendment to Clause 20 read to us?

Chairman.] Yes. In clause 20 the amendment is this-it follows after the word Council in line 13: "or to any person when performing any of the duties or functions connected with any offices held by him under any public or local authority or to a department of any undertaking the head of which is a registered person."

Sir Frederick Rice.] I understand that amendment is agreeable to the witness and to the engineers.

Chairman.] Yes. Is there anyone else who would like to ask any questions? Sir Frederick Rice.] On Clause 20 or Clause 5?

Chairman.] On anything?

Sir Frederick Rice.] I think my honourable friend asked the last question as to what amendment was to be put in Clause 5.

it.

Chairman.] He has already suggested

[Continued.

Captain Wallace.] He has not suggested the wording.

Sir Frederick Rice.] Not the actual wording.

Chairman.

265. Have you drafted that amendment? (Mr. Willis.) We will, Sir. We have not drafted it because we put it to the Committee as a suggestion.*

Colonel Moore.

266. Has this suggestion been made to the Secretary of the R.I.B.A. yet, or is it merely thrown out for the first time now?-I think a copy was sent to the Institute.

267. Has any discussion taken place with the R.I.B.A. ?-No. It was raised by our members, and we did take the trouble to get replies from a number of our members, well over 1,000; and there are over 1,000 acting. The position is that many of those men were in the same case as myself. I was articled to an architect first; then I took up five years' training as an engineer, and have been practising as a municipal engineer; but at the same time the Council appointed me the Architect to the Authority and the Education Committee, and as such I may revert to architecture at the end of my period.

Chairman.

268. I think the suggestion that has been made by two Members of the Committee, that you should hand in your suggested amendments, would be a convenient course, because it is open to us to recall Major Barnes, and to ask him whether the R.I.B.A. agree or do not agree with the amendment.-Yes; I quite follow; we will hand that in to you.

Mr. William Hirst.

269. May I ask on Clause 17, which Mr. Scorgie very properly suggested was not a proposed amendment, what number of your people have been in practice as architects either before or after being trained as an engineer?--(Mr. Scorgie.) I am afraid we cannot tell you. I can only tell you how many are practising architects in connection with

*Note. The witness subsequently forwarded the following draft amendment:-Clause 5, page 2, line 41, at the end insert "or who has been in bona fide practice as an architect at any time prior to the passing of this Act."

their public appointments at the present time, or are members of our Institution; it is over 1,000. (Mr. Willis.) We have heard from 1,011. Of course, there are some who have probably not replied, because it was only done by a circular.

270. May I ask further, are you in the position of having duplication of membership between your Institution and the R.I.B.A. ?-A few of our members are members of the R.I.B.A. I could not give you an exact percentage; but I should say probably 50 members. 271. 50 members out of your 3,000 odd? -Out of the 3,500.

Chairman.

272. Perhaps you would like to consider that number?-Yes, it is difficult to give it to you.

273. If you will consider the point which Mr. Hirst has made, and hand in your answer to the Clerk, that will meet the case.-We will endeavour to obtain that information.

274. In the form of a letter from your Society? It is difficult to give it exactly, but we will give you the best information we can."

*

275. As you please.-(Mr. Scorgie.) It will mean going through the Register of the R.I.B.A., and finding out how many names on that Register are Register.

Captain Wallace.

on our

-

[Continued.

professional qualifications, such as being registered either with the Institution or with the late Society of Architects, or is it by virtue simply of carrying out municipal work- housing, pumping stations, and things like that?-(Mr. Willis.) Well, Sir, briefly, a number of men are articled as architects, articled to an architect. In my own case I was articled to the principal architect in Windsor. My practice in my early days was solely architecture. I was architect to a late Master of the Rolls; but then I went into the architectural side of municipal engineering and took up with the civil engineering side of municipal engineering, and I have carried on the two ever since; but the Royal Institute try to keep their Institure solely to men practising as architects; they do not, of course, because there are members in our own Institute who are members of both bodies. is really how most of them train.

Sir Frederick Rice.

That

276. We are talking about the amendment.-I beg your pardon. I answering Mr. Hirst.

I

[Continued.

Recalled and further examined.

Witness.] The thanks of the Institute are due to you, Sir, for giving us so full an opportunity of stating our case.

Sir Frederick Rice.

285. Major Barnes, do you agree that the Royal Institute of British Architects, in asking for the control of the Register of Architects, are accepting a very great responsibility?—Yes, I think I may say that that is so, and I would regard it as being not only a responsibility, but an honour.

286. And do you agree that the Royal Institute of British Architects have the final voice, with the greater numbers they have on the Admission Committee, as to who should be registered and who should not be registered?—I do not think that that is quite the way in which we should put it. We think that the Royal Institute of British Architects, in so far as it contains the vast preponderance of architects in the country, must have a determining voice in any registration scheme, whether it keeps the Register or not, by the fact that it is the largest and most important body, and we do not think that the mere fact that the Register is entrusted to its control gives

287. My question is: Do you agree that by reason of the composition of the Admission Committee, with the majority of the members of the Institute, they have the controlling voice as to who should be registered and who should not be registered?-I do not think that the Institute have a controlling voice as an Institute, unless the Institute on any matter form a policy upon which they can control their members. With regard to the Admission Committee, no such question of policy could arise. The question would always be as to whether some particular individual is or is not to be admitted. That is a matter which would never be submitted to the Institute as an Institute, and, therefore, it is a matter upon which the Institute as an Institute could never express any opinion or exercise any control. It would be a matter that would be subjected to the individual judgment of the persons whom the Institute appoint upon the Admission Committee. Therefore, in that sense, I think that the Institute as an Institute have no control.

288. But the majority of the Admission Committee being members of the