24 May, 1927.]

Sir Frederick Rice.

317. They are questions which he intended to put, and I thought he did put them in cross-examination of the The stateprécis?--I have question 46.

ment that was put in at the last meeting was intended to be a reply to the questions that were put to me in question 46, so far as I was able to understand them.

318. Do you wish to amplify or to add anything to that reply?-The note on steel frame buildings which appears on the memorandum, I think, must be read together with the note on reinforced concrete; the two matters are so interwoven. For instance, in the same question you see the Steel Frame Act and the ferro-concrete structures are referred to together, and the two statements as put in must be taken together to give the full sense of the answers, and I do not think I need to amplify them beyond what I have already said.

319. Now we have been dealing with questions regarding the London Building Acts. Has the Institute at all times been willing to co-operate not only with the London County Council but with any other County Council, City Council or Borough Corporation, in advising as to the framing of their bye-laws?-Always. We have sometimes regretted that our advice has not been more frequently sought on the matter, and that there has sometimes been a tendency, a not unnatural tendency, for Municipal authorities to proceed in these matters without what we consider to be a sufficient amount of consultation with Architects, but our policy is to unite with the builders in any particular district.

320. I am speaking of the Boroughs and the Corporations. Major Barnes referred to builders. I am not asking about builders. I am asking about City Councils, City Corporations and Borough Authorities in framing their Building Acts and their By-laws. My question is, have they always been willing at all times to co-operate and give their advice to those Councils ?-Always willing.

321. I have no further questions upon that, but I want to ask one or two questions of my own now. Could you describe the functions of an architect, Major Barnes? I think I have attempted to do it in the précis that I have submitted, and I think probably I had better stick to that. You will find it in paragraph 77 of my first précis.

[Continued.

322. That is your description of the functions of an architect ?-It is the best one that I could put together.

323. I was just wondering whether you could not describe the functions of an architect in such a way as to recognise the functions in his co-operative interests?-I do not quite follow that, Sir Frederick.

324. There are many interests in the functions of an architect. The reason I am asking this question, Mr. Chairman, is this, that I have got an idea—I may be wrong that some Members of the Committee consider that an architect's functions are limited to design, planning and supervision, but his functions are recognised as including what I call the commercial aspect. He has to deal with contracts. He has to be, as my father used to say, half a lawyer, and I see no description in the functions of an architect of that particular aspect?-I thought, Sir Frederick, that I had covered that point by the use of the term "economic": "the marshalling of all the factors in a building programmestructural, economic." I thought that word was sufficient to cover it.

325. I am afraid that "economic "did not convey to me co-operative interest. If the effect of that word is to include it, I am quite satisfied.-Thank you.

Sir Frederick Rice.

326. I am going to explain the reason of my question now, Sir, so that you will understand it better. The builders are very much concerned with the control of their co-operative interests being handed to the Royal Institute of British Architects through their Registration Committee. They have in mind the practice of the Committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects who, as you explained, Major Barnes, and rightly too, comprise 75 per cent. of the architects, and who on one occasion desired to have a form of contract independent of any consideration of the builders; in other words, they wanted a form of contract without reference to the other parties. If the profession of architects (I do not quite agree it is an unfortunate remark, but it is probably a true remark) becomes a closed body under the control of the Royal Institute of British Architects through its Committee, they want to be quite sure that there will be no attempt in the future

24 May, 1927.]

to force upon the building trade a form of contract that will not consider all the interests concerned.-Well, Sir, on that I think I can give Sir Frederick every assurance that no such attempt will be made; that so far from any absolute attitude of that kind developing in the Institute, the whole history of the Institute is a history of growing cooperation with and consideration for the contractor in the form of contract.

326A. Except in that instance I have given you?-If Sir Frederick will allow me to say so, I am quite sure he will agree that the present form of contract which bears the imprimatur of the Royal Institute of British Architects (I am referring to the 1909 Contract) is far in advance of the sort of contract that was in existence 30 or 40 years ago; that the architect's position is by no means absolute in that Contract as it used to be, and Sir Frederick knows, I think, Sir, that at the moment there are conferences going on between, not the Institute alone, but between the architectural profession in so far as it can be represented by the Institute, and representatives from other Institutions and also from Government Departments. Conferences have been going on for some time endeavouring to arrive at a form of contract that should be mutually acceptable and should give--what I entirely agree with Sir Frederick should be the case consideration to all the interests in the industry. I think Sir Frederick may rely upon it that nothing that is attempted to be done under this Bill will alter that.

327. I am afraid you have perhaps overlooked the point I have made. Subsequently to 1909 the Practising Committee did publish a form of contract without any reference to the building industry at all and tried to force that upon the building industry. Is it contemplated that a repetition of that again will be attempted? I know it is not in operation, but there was an attempt at it. On that point I think Sir Frederick, if I may be permitted to say so, is going into matters that are rather domestic in a way, but as they have been raised I must deal with them There was a contract agreed in 1909 between the Royal Institute of British Architects and the National Federation of Master Builders which was in operation up till, I think it was 1919, and then it was denounced

[Continued.

(I think that is the proper diplomatic term to use) by the National Federation of Master Builders, who wanted a new contract. Then I think what happened was this, that the two parties each went on their own way for a little while. The Master Builders produced what they called a National Code of Building Conduct; that was their scheme. We on our side produced another contract form which we called our 1920 Contract Form; and for a little while you had these two entirely distinct and separe productions moving along together. We came to a very happy compromise on that point; we agreed on either side to drop both and to carry on with the old 1909 Contract until we could hammer out together a new one. This hammering out process has been somewhat prolonged for one reason or another; I do not think that they reflect upon either side; but I think Sir Frederick knows that there is a very hopeful chance of proceeding, and proceeding with some despatch. I hope that within the next 12 months the industry will be in the happy position of having a Contract which has been agreed upon between both the profession of architecture, on the one side, and the building employers, on the other.

328. What would satisfy me would be an individual assurance. I know Major Barnes cannot give an undertaking for the future, but I should like to have an individual assurance that he knows of no reason really for any further attempt to foist on the building trade a contract that has no reference to the builders.I am afraid, Sir, with great respect, I must ask Sir Frederick not to ask me to accept the expression of attempting to foist on the building trade a contract. We architects, of course, have got our views; the builders have got their views; we have been trying to impress them upon each other. But I think Sir Frederick may be quite sure that men of goodwill upon both sides are endeavouring to come to an agreement.

Chairman.] I think, Sir Frederick, you might perhaps bring this question to a close now.

Sir Frederick Rice.] I will, Sir. T wanted the matter cleared up.

Chairman.] I think you have cleared it up very well.

Sir Frederick Rice.] If I may be just allowed to say so, the difference between the code of building laws and the

24 May, 1927.]

architects' form of contract of 1920 was the question of arbitration; that is very dear to the heart of every builder; as long as he has an arbitration clause, which was eliminated in the 1920 architects' contract, I think he would be quite satisfied to entrust the future of the contracts with the Royal Institute of British Architects, and if, Sir you could get an assurance-not to-day-I think it would do a good deal to prevent any misapprehension-I will not say suspicion, though perhaps there may be a little suspicion, because of the reference to the elimination of the arbitration clause. Personally I am quite satisfied with all Major Barnes has said. I have worked under this contract. In 1909 I was on the Committee and we had many meetings, and it seemed to the architects then, and to the builders then, that it was a very satisfactory contract; but since then, since the 1920 Contract wasif you do not like the word "foisted "— thrust upon the builders, they do not want it.

Chairman.] I do not quite follow. Are you addressing me or are you addressing the witness?

Sir Frederick Rice.] No. I am explaining to the Committee the reason for my question so that they can see the importance and the significance of it.

Mr. Gardner.] On a point of order: Sir Frederick Rice is trying to drive a bargain here and to get Major Barnes to give a pledge. I suggest it is highly improper to do such a thing. It is a domestic matter in any case. No powers conferred upon the architects under this Bill will give any right to do the thing.

Dr. Watts.] The point is, has the question of a contract between an architect and a builder anything to do with the registration and training of architects? Chairman.] Personally I should say

[Continued.

how they are going to administer that registration and their future conduct that we have to consider whether they are the rightful people.

Chairman.] We all know that is what you wish to discuss; but I really do not think that you will get any further information by pursuing the questions that you are now asking.

Sir Frederick Rice.] I have finished my questions. I explained the reasons for my questions to the Committee.

Chairman.] Quite so. I am sure the Committee are all deeply grateful to you.

Witness.] May I just say upon this point, in order to get it upon the Notes, that nothing that I have said can, as Sir Murdoch pointed out, pre-judge the important questions of course which must arise in a discussion in so great an industry as the building industry upon its contractual relationships.

Mr. William Hirst.

329. May I just raise a point on Appendix Paper No. 2 under the heading of Registration Fees for Architects." As I understand the figures in 8, 9 and 10, they are speculative in a way? There has been no final decision taken regarding your entrance fee?—No; that, of course, can only be taken by the Board after it is set up.

330. That is putting us in rather an awkward position. I was making some comparisons between the details which Major Barnes has been good enough to put in, the medical, the dentists and the solicitors, and I think the proposal of the architects is a very modest one by comparison. I wondered if this was said to be a minimum position, and whether, when the Board came to be set up, it was likely that there would be some advance upon the fee proposed or suggested.

Chairman.

331. Can you answer that, Major Barnes?-I think that this fee is not likely to be exceeded; I should expect rather that it might be somewhat less. You see, you have got this great safeguarding thing, that the great majority of the members of the profession are also members of institutions to which

24 May, 1927.]

they are paying year by year subscriptions, and there will be no desire on the part of the members of those institutions to load themselves up with high registra

tion fees.

Mr. William Hirst.

332. On the other hand, whilst that may appear all right, you are assuming, and rightly so, on the evidence up to date, that your Association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, is the dominant Association, and that naturally the members of your Institute will be more concerned about the protection of that Association than they will be about subsidiary bodies with which they might be connected?-You would not be able to have two fees, of course. I mean, whatever registration fee applies to a man who comes on to the register from the Royal Institute of British Architects will, of course, apply to a man who comes on from any other body. The point I was making was that, seeing not only the Royal Institute of British Architects but other bodies will be represented, they will all watch that the registration fee does not go up.

333. I am satisfied with the point expressed by Major Barnes that the fee will not be exceeded, but I want to come to another question, if I may. You remember, Major Barnes, we spoke at the last meeting regarding the question of costs and scholarships. I was going to ask if you are in a position to-day to give us any information upon that?-Yes, I can do that, Mr. Hirst. I have had some figures got out. The question was as to what it was going to cost to put a boy into the profession?

334. Yes? The range of cost is very considerable. It starts as low as 16 guineas, and it goes up as high as £344. You have got that range, and I will just explain how that range works.

355. If Major Barnes would not mind my interposing, is this supposed to be confidential?-No; it will go on the Notes and we will put a statement in.

336. Personally, if it will serve the convenience of the Committee, if Major Barnes is going to present us with evidence tabulated in the form in which he has it there, I prefer to reserve my further questions until we get that statement before us?-I will put in a statement, then.*

62446

* Vide Appendix No. 9.

Chairman.

[Continued.

337. We will accept that.-Thank you.

Captain Wallace.

338. With a view to saving time-and I hope that Major Barnes will not answer this question if he does not want to--we have had some previous evidence this afternoon from two gentlemen who suggested some alteration to Clause 5 (1) (c) of the Bill at the bottom of page 2?—Yes.

339. With a view to permitting a man who had been an architect and was temporarily in some other occupation, such as a Borough Engineer, and who might want to go back as an architect, to get on to the register?—Yes.

340. If Major Barnes is in a position to say so now without consulting his people, it would help the Committee and perhaps save time if he could tell us how the Royal Institute of British Architects would do that?-If the matter can be limited by proper words merely to secure that a man who is qualified as an architect, but is now in municipal service, and therefore is not troubling with the question as to whether he is a registered architect or not, because he has got his appointment and it does not make any difference to him-if words can be found to meet the case of a man like that at the end of his period wanting to practice again, and then thinking at that time, "I would rather be a registered architect than merely an architect," because, of course, it would be open to him now to be an architect

341. But, after all, if this Bill is of any value he would want to be a registered architect?-Then the question is to find ways and means of allowing such a person to get on to the register without opening a door so wide that it would allow anybody to come forward at any

time and say: "20 or 30 years ago I was an architect, and therefore you must put me on."

Chairman.] I thought they proposed an amendment, and on that we should recall Major Barnes?

Witness.] Yes, if they can find words to give effect to that.

Captain Wallace.

342. But I think it is just as well to know what they think about the principle?—I am very doubtful if they can do that; it is a very difficult task.

C

24 May, 1927.]

Mr. William Hirst.

343. Is it true that these people have approached you regarding these amendments, and that certain conferences have been held between yourselves and the municipal and county engineers? They approached us when we were pressing for the word "architect," and we came to an arrangement with them by which we were going to amend Clause 20 so as to take them out of the Bill, but now the term is "registered architect" it did not seem that they needed the protection of that amendment; but at the same time I said that if the County Councils' Association still pressed for it, and the Committee thought they were stili entitled to it, we did not raise any objection.

Chairman.

344. We are going to have the County Councils' Association before us; they have raised that point to me personally. I think the Clerk is going to fix a day for them. Their contention is exactly the same as that of the witnesses to-day?Yes. It seems to me rather an extraordinary thing for them to be asking to be allowed to use the term " Registered Architect without being on the register. That seems to me to reduce the whole thing to a farce. That, I gather,

[Continued.

is the real effect of their proposals, so far as we have got any idea of them at all. If they want to be exempt from the Bill, even when the Bill deals with registered architects, it would appear their desire was to be able to call themselves registered architects although they were not on the register, which seems to be an impossible position.

Sir Frederick Rice.

345. I thought I cleared that up by a question about their being prepared to pay the registration fee? Of course, it is open for them to qualify to go on the register under Clause 5 (c).

346. If they do they are prepared to pay the registration fee?-If the Committee desire to adopt the word "registered," then everybody in municipal service may go on calling themselves architects, but if they want to call them selves registered architects in addition without being on the register, that would seem to be unreasonable.

Chairman.

347. We thank you, Major Barnes, and I am afraid it may be that we shall have to recall you.-I am at the service of the Committee.