Page images
PDF
EPUB

26 May, 1927.] Mr. W. FORBES CAMPBELL and Major G. B. J. ATHOE. [Continued.

[blocks in formation]

348. Mr. Forbes Campbell, you are, I think, the President of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors ? -I have the honour to be, Sir.

349. And, Major Athoe, you are the General Secretary of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors?' -Major Athoe.) That is so.

350. You have come here to give evidence upon this Bill. First of all you submitted a précis and then you submitted your amendments. I think that now you have submitted a further Summary of Evidence?-(Mr. Forbes Campbell.) That is so.

351. Together with amendments?—Yes. 352. Will you now begin your evidence, Mr. Forbes Campbell.

Mr. William Hirst.] May I just ask a question upon this point, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman.] Yes.

Mr. William Hirst.] May we know what is the reason for this amended Summary?

Chairman.

353. I think that will transpire as the witnesses go on. (To Mr. Forbes Campbell.) The Summary that is amended is practically the same Summary as you sent in, with one or two additions, is it not? That is so.

Chairman.] I think perhaps a short statement will elucidate matters.

62446

Mr. William Hirst.

354. May I just ask on that point, Mr. Chairman, can we have it from Mr. Forbes Campbell or Major Athoe that it is entirely additional, or, rather, are the portions amended additional, or is it only additional to the original Summary which was submitted?-(Mr. Forbes Campbell.) It is merely a revision of the previous Précis of Evidence.

Chairman.

355. Will you now make your statement, Mr. Forbes Campbell, please?Well, Mr. Chairman, before I submit to your Committee my Association's objections and my Association's amendments to the Architects' (Registration) Bill, I desire your permission to say something in regard to the evidence given before your Committee on Wednesday, 18th May, by Major Harry Barnes, the official witness for the promoters of the Bill, the Royal Institute of British Architects. I propose I should say something particularly in regard to the evidence he gave affecting my Association, and relating more particularly to its status. In common with my principal executive officers, 1 feel that the statements made by Major Barnes, unless they are controverted, may very seriously prejudice my Association, and, at any rate, I feel that his answers to your questions, Mr. Chairman, may seriously prejudice my Association's case in the eyes of your Committee.

C 2

26 May, 1927.] Mr. W. FORBES CAMPBELL and Major G. B. J. ATHOE. [Continued.

356. Can you give us the reference to that evidence?-I am just dealing with that as I go along. I have got all the paragraphs to give you afterwards. Under these circumstances I consider I have a right to dispose of the mis-statements made by Major Barnes. Major Barnes has been good enough to say a few kind words in regard to myself and the officials of the Association; he has said we are all persons that it has been a pleasure to meet. Speaking personally, I would have much preferred his appreciation to have been that of my Association's efforts, and for his relative evidence to have been entirely confined to actual facts.

357. I do not think you need comment quite so personally, if you do not mind. -Very well, Mr. Chairman. I will,

however, place the most charitable interpretation on his remarks, and suggest that Major Barnes was speaking without a full knowledge of the true facts. I would state also that I appear here to-day as the official witness for the second largest architectural Association in this country.

Major Barnes, in Question 180, admits that my Association is as devoted to the cause of registration as the Institute and its allied societies, and 1 entirely agree with that expression of opinion. In fact, I trust that when my evidence is completed to-day, you, Sir, and your Committee will agree that my Association is even more devoted to the cause of registration than the body represented by Major Barnes.

th's

In answer to your questions, Mr. Chairman, contained in Question 181, in which you inquire whether there had been any real attempt on the Institute's part to co-operate with my Association or to allow us to co-operate with them regarding the promotion of Measure, Major Barnes replied: "Yes, there had been very real negotiations carried on." To that reply I shall have something more to say later on in my evi. dence; I will only say here that those negotiations were somewhat belated. The onus, as I hope to show to the satisfaction of the Committee, rests with the Institute and not with the body I represent.

In regard to Question 182, the Bill was published, as you are no doubt aware, on the 11th February. The negotiations between the Institute and my Association commenced later, in fact, on

the

29th of that month, and ended on the 6th April, SO that it will be appreciated that the Institute had fully made up its mind on the main terms of the Measure before entering into negotia tions with us.

In Question 183 it is stated that as far as the administration of the Bill was concerned, he understood that we were satisfied with our inclusion on the Admission Committee and on the Board of Architectural Education. We are not satisfied and we were not satisfied, as he must know from the correspondence that has passed between us, for we have all along insisted on an independent Statutory Board or Council. In regard to our request for inclusion on this Board or Council I shall have something to say later on in my evidence relative to that matter, because I do not want to take up the Committee's time at this juncture. All I would like to say now is that in Major Barnes' statement he indicates that there is only one architectural body in this country which has got tradition behind it or which has got an appreciable number of the archictectural profession behind it. I entirely disagree.

In Question 184 there is a statement made by Major Barnes to which I take very grave exception, and here again it would appear that Major Barnes made his statement without due enquiry. In this paragraph Major Barnes stated that my Association was an off-split from another body. It might be assumed from a further statement from Major Barnes in the same paragraph, in which he stated "We have had some difficulty in satisfying the rival ambitions of these two bodies," that we were connected with or an off-shoot from the Faculty of Architects. If such an impression should be left on the minds of your Committee, it might be as well for me to state that the Faculty of Architects was a society founded some time after my Society was founded. We are not, and have never been connected in any shape or form with the body known as the Faculty of Architects. In the same paragraph Major Barnes says that his Institute was quite willing to give us every possible opportunity of safeguarding the rights of our members. That is the very reason that brings me here to-day, to endeavour to obtain guarantees that the rights of my Association and its members will be safeguarded.

66

358. What do you mean by guarantees"?-To obtain guarantees.

26 May, 1927.] Mr. W. FORBES CAMPBELL and Major G. B. J. ATHOE. [Continued.

[ocr errors]

359. We are not here to give guarantees. I said "to endeavour to obtain guarantees." (Major Athoe.) In an endeavour to obtain. (Mr. Forbes Campbell.) In Question 185 you, Sir, inquired of Major Barnes what status my Association occupies in the architectural world, and Major Barnes replied that In a certain sort of way (whatever that may mean) "the Association occupy a kind of intermediate position between the Royal Institute and the Surveyors' Institution. He followed on by saying that we were a kind of composite body which took in both architects and surveyors, and that again in itself was another reason why the Association should not be regarded as a member of a general architectural body since they were not purely an architectural body. To these statements I would reply that my Association is made up of architects pure and simple, surveyors pure and simple, and quantity surveyors pure and simple. The percentage of membership is as follows:-architects 70 per cent.; surveyors, that is, persons who practise as surveyors only and not as architects, 25 per cent.; and quantity surveyors about 5 per cent. Those are approximate figures, Mr. Chairman. Of course, some of our architect members practise as surveyors also, but the same remark applies to members of the Royal Institute of British Architects as well. They are generally termed "architects and surveyors "; that is excluding the question of quantity surveyors. matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, that is a point-the question of quantity surveyors. This dual functioning really is a very serious bone of contention in our profesion to-day, and I think I am safe in assuming that this Association of mine is the one and only Association that has really tried to solve it.

As a

[blocks in formation]

February last, there was ample time for the Institute to have ascertained the opinions and desires of the architectural bodies in Northern Ireland?

Chairman.

360. If you are going into the question of Northern Ireland now, perhaps l might save you trouble if I state that i understand we are to receive an official intimation that Northern Ireland is willing and desire to be incorporated in the Bill.-Very good, Sir. I was only endeavouring to bring it up to indicate a certain attitude that was adopted by the Royal Institute towards other interested bodies.

Mr. William Hirst.] He is quite in order in doing that.

Chairman.] Certainly; only I thought it better to make that statement.

Witness.] I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee with regard to that. I was only going to indicate the matter of the belated attempts of the Promoters of the Bill.

Chairman.

361. I really do not think it affects the Bill or your standing very much, does it? Very good, Sir. The second

point has reference to examinations, and I would say that I am rather disturbed by the trend of the questions and answers relating thereto. These questions and answers, to my mind, would convey the idea that only the Institute's examinations were to be accepted in the future as a preliminary to registration.

I now come to the amendments to the Bill suggested by my Association. Before dealing with them I desire to make a few remarks in regard to matters arising out of their consideration. Originally I was asked to appear before you on Thursday last. The summons to attend was received only three or four days before that date, and you will appreciate there has been very little time for our Executive Officers to prepare many of the papers we hoped to prepare in order to save the time of the Committee. However, we have been able to produce certain amendments which are, I think, now in the possession of the Committee. We have since been engaged by still further amendments introduced by the Promoters of the Bill and made but a few days ago. The Bill is in consequence C 3

26 May, 1927.] Mr. W. FORBES CAMPBELL and Major G. B. J. ATHOE. [Continued.

materially changed from the Bill before us at the time of the Second Reading. Already, as you may be aware previous to the Second Reading we submitted a schedule of amendments to the Promoters, and the two schedules of amendments originally submitted to your Committee were based to a large extent on the amendments submitted to the Promoters before the Second Reading; that is to say, we put forward these amendments before the Second Reading. However, we have been rather pushed, but we have endeavoured to bring our schedule of amendments up to date, and it consists of a copy of the Bill revised brought up to date, with the Promoters' amendments printed clause by clause on the left side of the page, and where the clause is affected by an amendment made by us, the clause as amended is printed on the right side of the page immediately facing the clause to which our suggested amendment applies. It is rough, Mr. Chairman, but it has been rather hurriedly pushed through.

and

362. It is excellent. Do you propose now to go through your amendments one by one?-Yes, with just a brief explanation.

363. A preliminary explanation?Yes, that is so. The first amendment has reference to the Constitution of the Council or (See supreme authority. Clause 2.) Under the Bill as it has reached the Select Committee this is to be vested solely in the Royal Institute. It is submitted that such a proposal is contrary to the tendency of modern legislation which as a rule constitutes independent Statutory Boards, for example, the Dental Board. Moreover, the present Bill does not contain any provision for the constitution and procedure of such a Board. We have therefore drawn up a Third Schedule to the Bill containing suggestions in regard to the composition of the Council (or Board)*. On perusal of this proposed Schedule it will be observed that representation has been given to all professional societies whose members may be affected by the Measure. large representation has been given to the Royal Institute (including its Allied Societies), and as the second architectural body we submit we should have the second largest representation, and

* See Appendix No. 4.

A

certainly a larger representation than other societies whose interests are not so directly concerned. In this respect the Association, although its membership is numerically less than that of the Royal Institute, is rapidly growing; its membership is already a substantial one, and as such we urge is entitled to adequate representation on any permanent Council that may be provided for.

Another argument in favour of the proposal for an independent Board or Council is that by a slight alteration to Clause 10 a person refused admission to the register by the Admission Committee could be empowered to appeal against this decision to the Council. Such a plan would provide an intermediate court which might render an appeal to the High Court unnecessary except in exceptional cases. As at present proposed, the financial cost of an appeal might prove an unjust deterrent to an aggrieved appellant.

In suggesting that the Royal Institute should be the supreme authority or council, the Institute's witness cited the registration of the Incorporated Law Society in 1843. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, We are speaking of to-day. The world has considerably changed since then, and I might respectfully suggest that we should think of the present day and of the future and not go back to 1843.

Captain Wallace.] May I put a question here, Mr. Chairman ? Chairman.] Certainly.

Captain Wallace.

364. As far as I can make out from the Bill, Mr. Forbes Campbell, the Council which you want to change is not the supreme authority. There is the Discipline Committee and the Admission Committee on the other hand. You are talking about the Council as if it were the Council that was going to do the registration?-Might I submit that I am quite aware that there is an Admission Committee for the admission of applicants and that there is a Discipline Committee, but the supreme authority, the registration authority is proposed to be the Royal Institute of British Architects. We are indicating that that should not be so; that it should be a Statutory Council constituted under the Bill.

Chairman.] Well, of course you make that statement.

26 May, 1927.] Mr. W. FORBES CAMPBELL and Major G. B. J. ATHOE. [Continued.

Mr. Gardner.

365. This is an interpretation clause which defines who the Council is, but it does not say that they should be the controlling body. The question as to whether the Registration Committee should be a statutory body in the terms that you mean is a different point altogether?-It occurs to me that the question of the Discipline Committee and the Admission Committee at all events is merely a very subsidiary function to that of any authority which may be governing the Architects' (Registration) Bill.

We were speaking of 1843 and I had previously indicated that I had cited the Dental Board. As an example of an independent Board, I would like to add that in the Union of South Africa an Architects' Registration Authority has been set up and is composed of representatives from each of the Architectural Societies in the Union. Furthermore, when the Bill for Registration of Architects in South Africa was drafted each Architectural Society was invited to co-operate in its drafting.

I gather from his evidence that Major Barnes is opposed to the proposal of an independent Council, but I would respectfully submit that he has not made out a good case for his contention that the Royal Institute should be the supreme authority or governing body. It should be borne in mind that the Institute recognises other professional bodies in Schedule 2, and included in these said bodies are several old and highly respected institutions whose status is equal to that of the Royal Institute of British Architects. There is, for instance, the Institution of Civil Engineers with a membership of, I believe, more than ten thousand members; the Surveyors' Institution with many thousands of members; the Society of Engineers, the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, and the Institution of Structural Engineers, all with very large memberships. All these bodies possess members who claim the right to use the title "Architect," and many of them no doubt are justified in using the title "Architect."

The Promoters of the Bill are apparently anxious to obtain their assistance on the Admission Committee, and why should not these bodies have representation on the Supreme Council? Then there is my Association. The Promoters of the Bill agree that we are entitled not

62446

[blocks in formation]

It may be asked, Have you any special objection to the Royal Institute of British Architects being the supreme body? To which I would reply frankly, "Yes, I have." I have in mind the attitude of splendid isolation displayed by the Institute in their correspondence with us relative to the Bill. Six months before the Bill was presented to Parliament, that is to say as far back as August last, we made an offer to the Institute to cooperate with and assist them in the preparation of this Bill. They did not accept our offer, and they gave us no opportunity to express our views before them. It was not until December, nearly four months after our first application, that a copy of the proposed Bill w:13 forwarded. This proposed Bill was, in my Executive's opinion, a fair example of an attempt on behalf of the Institute to exercise an exclusive control over the profession. This Draft Bill was published broadcast in the journals of the profession, although no opportunity had been given to several other societies to express an opinion its contents. Simultaneously, under the direction of the Royal Institute a notice appeared in the technical Press and circulars were sent out to unattached architects containing a statement which I have here. It reads: "The Registration Committee of the R.I.B.A. with the approval of the Council has opened a voluntary register of persons who, not " (the word not is underlined) " being Members of the R.I.B.A. or of any of its Allied Societies, desire to have their registration qualifications recorded in view of the intention of the R.I.B.A. to promote a Bill for the Registration of Architects."

on

[ocr errors]

I have said that this notice was broadcast, and can anyone doubt its object was to influence, if not actually to coerce, unattached architects to register? It might be termed "a form of Derby Scheme." However that may be, I know from correspondence received in my Association's offices, that several people thought the Bill was a Government

C 4

« PreviousContinue »