I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:

"The expression 'registered architect' means a person registered under this Act in respect of the business of designing structures and the supervision, in his capacity of designer, of the erection of structures."

There seems to have been an oversight on the part both of the promoters of the Bill and of those who have helped to make it a better instrument than it was when it left this House after its Second Reading. In Clause 2 of the Bill, there are definitions of the expressions "the Council," "registered person," and "prescribed," and we have also in the Clause a definition of the register. But, singularly enough, the most important definition of all, and one which is absolutely necessary if this Registration Bill is to be complete, is the definition of an architect. My colleagues and myself have given considerable thought to the definition of this term, and, as a result, we propose that which is contained in this Amendment.

A definition is necessary because the architect, in the nature of things, has not only a province of his own, but has frequently to encroach upon the provinces of other kindred interests. I need only refer to the builders, the surveyors, the engineers and so on. And, if we are going to give statutory recognition to a profession, as we hope we shall by this Bill, we ought to make quite clear what the profession is, and exactly what its duties are supposed to be. I have a little book here, published by the Royal Institute of British Architects, which is very handsomely done. It is perfectly simple, and is written for simple people like myself, and I congratulate its author, because, as an architect ought to do, he gives a delightful quotation from Shakespeare as a prelude:

"… When we mean to build,

We first survey the plot, then draw the model;

And when we see the figure of the house,

Then must we rate the cost of the erection."

I thought at first that the word "rate" was a misprint for "raise," but I am assured that it is not a misprint.

"Which if we find outweighs ability,

What do we then, but draw anew the model

In fewer offices."

That is taken from King Henry IV, Part II, Act I, Scene III. It is the prelude to an excellent little book, from which I desire to read one or two quotations, because it deals with the question of the definition of an architect and his work. On page 7 of this booklet, it is stated of the architect:

"He is an artist, but is also a man of science and of business, who is concerned with facts and figures, with building law contracts, prices and building materials, and a hundred and one practical problems which require practical solution."

The point that I want to make is one which I have already made, namely, that the architect cannot carry on his work in vacuo; he does it on the territories of other professions; so that it is as well for us to know exactly what the definition of an architect is. On page 10 of the booklet there is, I regret to say, a phrase which I myself would have found it difficult to use. Someone has said that you never find a phrase like "an honest lawyer"; but on page 10 I find these words:

"The honest architect will be able to help the client to decide which factor shall give way."

I have assumed, in the whole of my negotiations and my work on this Bill, that there could not be such a thing as a dishonest architect. On page 13, we find a definition of what an architect is:

"The presence of an architect is to superintend the process of construction, and to secure the proper observance of the building contract is essentially in the interests of the building public."

That is very much the same as we have included in this Amendment, and I do not think it could be very much improved upon, except that we have economised more in adjectives.

There is one other aspect of this matter on which I should like to give another quotation from this booklet. Hon. Members may not be aware that, when bills of quantities in connection with the building of houses or other structures are drawn up, it is necessary, and, indeed, it is stated here that it is customary, for the architect to advise the client on the choice of a quantity surveyor; and it is also stated that the surveyor's fees are customarily added as a percentage to the bill of each separate trade and paid as part of the payment to the builder. That, in a sense, seems to amount to the architect appointing his own policeman, which is an excellent way of ensuring that things shall work out according to plan.

There is another reason why it is urgently necessary to know exactly what an architect is, and what are the statutory rights that we to-day, I hope, are going to give him. I have here the report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade in 1930 in connection with the registration of accountants. There is a paragraph in it which is very interesting in view of my claim that we should have a definition of "architect." I think it will be agreed that the accountants also have an excellent case for being registered. It will prevent abuse, and it will prevent the charlatan from exploiting more or less ignorant people. Paragraph 32 states:

"One of the practical difficulties in the way of establishing a register accompanied by restriction of practice is to define accountancy. A number of definitions have been placed before the committee, none Of which satisfactorily covers the whole field. Leading members of the profession assert that they are unable to draw up a definition which would include all the various functions of an accountant, without embracing work which is equally within the scope of other professions. Accountancy ranges over the whole field of business affairs, and the functions of an accountant extend from what is little more than book-keeping to advising on financial reconstruction schemes and the flotation, reconstruction or liquidation of large industrial and other undertakings. Solicitors and bankers, as well as accountants, undertake the preparation of trust accounts and Income Tax returns."

That is the practical difficulty that they found with regard to it. Here we have the architect, who traverses the territories of the builders, the engineers, and the surveyors, and it is as well for us to know exactly what is the area within which we are going to give him these statutory rights. Every other expression in the Bill is defined, but the most important of all is not defined.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This point, in regard to the definition of the word "architect," was fully discussed in Committee, and the difficulties were very clearly realised as to how best to define it. The original wording in the Bill was "bona fide architect." It was realised that that might be open to misinterpretation, and it was then agreed to leave out the words "bona fide" and simply have the word "architect." We all felt, and the House will probably feel, that the simplicity of the word "architect" is possibly the easiest means of getting out of the difficulty. Other professions which have sought registration have found exactly the same difficulty. The dental profession cast round for a form of words to qualify the word "dentist" and finally they evolved one which, to my mind, does not convey very much—the words "whose principal mode of livelihood"—is, I suppose, drawing teeth. We do not believe that a similar insertion would make in any way clearer what the word "architect" means. This Amendment means that the architectural profession is encroaching on other professions of equal dignity and standing, such as structural engineering and civil engineering. All these great bodies are concerned with the business of designing structures and the supervision of those structures. We do not want to interfere with their duties, and I am sure they will feel in exactly the same way towards the architectural profession. It would be very unfair, unwise, and unjust to take upon ourselves these responsibilities and offend other great professions which are on the borderline of the architectural profession, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

rose—

The hon. Member seconded the Amendment.

The hon. Member for Wallsall (Mr. McShane) asked me earlier in the Debate to give some indication of the Amendments which I propose to take. I understand that this Bill was very fully discussed in Committee upstairs, and it seems to me that it would not be in accordance with the proper procedure of this House, particularly upon Bills of this kind, for a Debate which was very full in Committee to be repeated on the Report stage. That does not seem to be the reason for which the Report stage exists, and therefore I shall have

May I at the outset express my regret that owing to the Recess it was impossible for some of us to put in the Amendments earlier; that accounts for the fact that they were only handed in last night. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention to Clause 5. As Clause 5 stands in the Bill, taken in conjunction with Clause 6, there is such an obvious contradiction that it would be a reflection upon the intelligence of this House if the Clause were to be allowed to pass in its present form. Clause 5 states, in essence, that the Admission Committee shall allow certain names to be placed upon the Register.

We cannot discuss Clause 5 now, and I understand that the Clause was discussed at great length in Committee.

I am not in any sense trying to get past your Ruling. I am merely pointing out that it was almost the unanimous opinion of the Committee that the Bill had been left in such an unsatisfactory state that certain alterations would have to be made with regard to certain Clauses in order to make them tally. Clause 5 does not tally with Clause 6, and I am anxious that it should do so. It, will be noticed that Clause 6 says:

"The decisions of the Admission Committee shall be subject to confirmation by the council."

Clause 5 states that, if the Admission Committee decide that a man shall be registered, the Council shall be compelled to accept him. These two Clauses are at such variance that it would not be desirable that the Bill should leave the House of Commons in its present state.

The hon. Member has an Amendment down to Clause 6 which I understand the promoters of the Bill are willing to accept. With regard to Clause 7 and the Amendment to which I have referred standing in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough, upon which, I think, it is reasonable to have a discussion, if the hon. Member would move to leave out the Clause, it would be the best way out of the difficulty. The hon. Member had better move to leave out all the words after the word "If." We could then have a discussion on the Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

On a point of Order. Are we going now from Clause 2, on which the last Division was taken, to Clause 5?

We are discussing at the moment the Amendments that I am going to allow. We are not discussing any single Amendment. I was only suggesting to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton) that, as the Amendment which stands in his name does not read, it will be more suitable for him to move to leave out all the words after the word "If."

I am prepared to take the course which you suggest, but I want to suggest to you and to the House that a good many of the Amendments which you have said you do not think you will ask the House to consider are purely drafting Amendments which have been made necessary, not only in the judgment of the critics but of its promoters, because of certain contradictions which have come into the Bill owing to its very complicated nature and the difficulties which met the Standing Committee when they were dealing with it. Therefore, with all respect, I suggest that, although the list of Amendments may look rather comprehensive and it may be assumed that they will take a great deal of Parliamentary time, my hon. and gallant Friend who is in charge of the Bill will probably to able to accept all of them.

I think the hon. Member will find that when we come to the Amendments I shall allow the Amendments of which he has spoken, certainly those which the promoters will accept.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "The council," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"For the purposes of this Act there shall be established an Architects' Registration Council of the united Kingdom (in this Act referred to as 'the council') which)."

On looking through the Bill when it came from the Committee we found that the council which is mentioned in Clause 3 (1) had not been properly constituted, and it was necessary in order to put the position right that an Amendment should be moved. This is really a drafting Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The next Amendment that I call stands in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane)—in page 2, line 11, after the word "name," to insert the word "and."

On a. point of Order. It cannot be that you are passing over the Amendment—in page 2, line 10, after the word "of," to insert the word "registered." The Bill would be entirely inaccurate if that were so. The Amendment which I desire to move, in Sub-section (3), is purely drafting. As amended, the Sub-section would read:

(3) It shall be the duty of the council within six months from the passing of this Act to set up and thereafter maintain a register to be called "the Register of Registered Architects."…

As this is not a compulsory Measure, it would be entirely untrue and inaccurate to say that it is a register of architects. It is a register of registered architects.

In order to save time, I may say that I am willing to accept the Amendment.

The hon. Member may move the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after the word "name," to insert the word "and."

This Amendment must be taken in conjunction with the further Amendment which stands in my name—in page 2, line 12, to leave out the words "and qualifications." The amended Subsection will then read:

"… and to cause to be entered therein the name and address of every person entitled to be registered under this Act."

The register is not supposed to be a medium of advertising for a particular architect. It is to be a test as to whether one is a registered architect or not. AU that we need in the register is the name and address. Having been born in Scotland and realising that the insertion of the qualifications would add cost to the compilation of the register, I move the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out the word "twelve," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-seven."

I hope that this Amendment will be accepted and that we shall receive congratulations for trying to make this a decent Bill. Sub-section (4) to which this Amendment relates is not very materially important, but the 27 months that I am proposing must be read in connection with the period stipulated in Clause 5 (1, c), namely:

"Every person who makes application within two years of the passing of this Act."

To save time, I will accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:

"such certificate shall remain the property of the council and be surrendered by the holder to the council upon publication of the name in or upon removal of the name from the Register."

Again, I am certain that I shall have the House with me in this Amendment.

I will accept the Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "at the pleasure of" and to insert instead thereof the word "by."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after the word "qualifications," to insert the words

"and subject to the provisions of Section six of this Act."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I accept it.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after the word "diploma," to insert the words

"from any university in Great Britain or Northern Ireland or any degree or diploma."

In the original Bill any person who has qualified for a degree or diploma at any university in Great Britain or Northern Ireland was entitled to have his name put on the register, but the Bill as it has emerged from the Committee does not contain this provision and one is therefore bound to assume that there is some doubt as to whether such a person is entitled to registration or not. I cannot find any discussion in the Committee stage which would justify this deletion, which in my opinion is a fundamental and important change. At many of our universities there are excellent schools of architecture. At Cambridge University there is a school which has been running for many years, which is attended by students from all parts of the world. There is no doubt that the standards required by the University of Cambridge, and also by other universities, for its degrees and diplomas are perfectly adequate, and the instruction is given by properly qualified persons. The study of architecture is not enclosed in a small circle. It has relation to many other branches of science, engineering, building construction, surveying, and other physical sciences, and there are no better facilities for the study of these sciences than exist at the universities.

I have little doubt that with the Bill as it stands the Architects Registration Council would not hesitate for a moment to accept and recognise the right of students who have obtained a university degree or diploma and would accept them as qualified for registration. In that case, why should not it be made perfectly clear in the Bill so that no uncertainty or doubt may exist. There are a large number of students at Cambridge and unless the Amendment is accepted doubts and fears will arise in their minds as to whether the time they have spent and the expense that has been involved in the pursuit of their studies may not be in danger of being wasted and that they may be required to attend other courses of instruction and satisfy other examinations before they may be registered. The effect of such doubts and fears may be disastrous on schools of architecture in our universities. The School at Cambridge has been built up from small beginning, at considerable expense, and if the number of students who attend is seriously diminished there will be a con- siderable waste of money and also much practical experience. I understand that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to accept the Amendment. I hope the House as a whole will accept it. There may be a suspicion that the Bill is designed to narrow the means of obtaining registration and the acceptance of the Amendment would tend to allay any suspicion of that kind.

I oppose this Amendment, not because I take any exception to what has been said by the hon. Member as to the value of the education given at the universities, but I do not see why this privileged position should be given to these particular schools as against other schools in the country. I am rather surprised that the universities are asking for this privileged position. I think it should be left as it is in the Bill at present; that is to say, "a degree or diploma recognised by the Council as qualifying for registration," which will enable those who have passed through the universities to prove to the Council that they are qualified for registration. I object to this privileged position, of which we have had so much in industry and trade, and not always to the advantage of industry and trade.

I was at first inclined to agree entirely to the proposal contained in the Amendment, and I am certainly not finding fault with its intention, but I must make it quite clear what we are doing if we accept it. We are legislating for 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ahead, and we are laying down quite definitely that whatever the standard of qualification may be in the universities it shall be recognised by the Council. In the main the standard of qualification at the universities will tend to increase, but it is certainly not wise for the House of Commons to insist that whatever the standard of qualification may be it must be recognised as qualifying a man for registration. I think it is infinitely better to leave it as it is. I think that the Council, which meets from year to year, and which is in touch with all the latest thought in architecture, and the standards of qualification, will be able to settle whether or not the standard of a university or school has been degraded so far, that it should not be further recognised. If this Amendment were passed, it would tie the hands of the council for 50 years ahead and I hope that on second thoughts the hon. Member will not press it.

I also hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. G. Wilson) will not press this Amendment. I am sure that no council would ever dream of disregarding a diploma or degree from any of the universities, and it seems to me that the Bill, as it stands, covers everything that is necessary. In the interests of saving time, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.

If I understood correctly the words of the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), he used the expression that the standard of the University of Cambridge or any university standard, would tend to increase.

I said that we all recognised that in the main they would tend to increase, but that there might be cases in which they would become degraded.

I agree with the hon. Member's view that the tendency would be for the standard to increase, and, if we can do anything to improve this Bill by including institutions where the standard will increase, then so much the better for architecture. Architecture is the mistress of all the arts, and, if we can secure that the training or initiation of those entering the profession, shall be carried out in universities where the standard is increasing, then so much the better for the practice of the art in this country. We should be very unwise not to give every encouragement to young men who wish to study architecture, and who look to the universities as places where they can obtain the qualification necessary for their inclusion in this register. For that reason, I think that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. G. Wilson) is well founded in his views and I hope that the House will support him.

I desire to support the Amendment, and I am bound to say that I heard with some degree of alarm the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) in the closing words of his speech when he suggested that a professional council should be entitled to set the standard for universities in this country in any matter concerned with education.

Not a professional council.

I refer to this Registration Council. Take the profession to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and I belong, and the Register of Teachers. The one qualification is that they shall have obtained a degree or diploma of one of the universities. That is the standard set for them. The diploma is left entirely to the university concerned. I know that there are universities and universities, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and I had before us a series of applications from teachers for a post, and if there was a diploma in one case from University A, and another in another case from University B, we might be inclined to consider one rather more valuable than the other. But neither of us would desire that the Teachers' Registration Council itself should say what the standard demanded by the university ought to be. I support the Amendment for another reason. I desire to see the universities more and more concerned with the education of young persons intended for every walk of life, and I believe that legislation during the past 30 years has made that more and more possible. Especially do I desire to see the two great residential universities of this country concerned more and more with the practical affairs of life rather than simply with literature, mathematics and the classics, those three particularly useless things—

No.

I might at least be allowed to finish my statement. I was saying that these particularly useless things, in the way of earning a living—outside of journalism and book-making—have far too long monopolised the attention of the universities. Anything which this House can do to make it plain that it desires the active co-operation of these great places of general learning in the setting of higher professional standards, is desirable, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. G. Wilson) will secure the adhesion of the House to his Amendment.

I have listened to this Debate without any preconceived opinions at all, and it appears to me, looking at the Bill and at the Amendment, that the Bill is right as it stands. The provision in the Bill is that a person is to be registered as an architect if he has any degree or diploma recognised by the council. It is now proposed by the Amendment that a person should be recognised and accepted for registration if he has a diploma or degree, not recognised by the council, but given by a university. I do not see why there should be a kind of side avenue to registration. The promoters of the Bill have established very elaborate machinery for deciding who should and should not register, and now the House is being asked to "give the go-by" to the whole of that machinery, and to say that any university, not merely Oxford or Cambridge, but any of the minor universities, may set up an architectural school and that its diploma, whatever its standard may be, is to be accepted as qualifying for the architectural profession. If the standard does, in fact, rise, or is maintained at a higher level, then of course the council will recognise that diploma or degree, but we cannot foresee with certainty what the future will be, and all our universities, however admirable their work, are not up to the standard of Oxford and Cambridge. Therefore it appears to me to be right to leave the matter as the Committee upstairs proposed it should be left, to the council to decide. With regard to other professions, the medical or legal professions, for example, to the best of my knowledge, while university degrees are taken into account, I do not think that the ultimate decision is ever left to a university as to whether a person who has passed through that university's course should be admitted to practice as a lawyer or as a doctor. But it is left to the Inns of Court, or whatever the authority may be, to decide finally how far the studies of the students at the university should qualify for the profession. It appears to me that that precedent should apply here.

The Amendment seems to introduce a certain snobbishness. An hon. Member who spoke from this side talked about University A and University B, but he forgot to mention University C 3. We want to see all educational institutions giving more attention to the really practical things of life. While it is essential to have classics and mathematics for recreation in the evenings or early mornings, we need to pay much more attention to education of all kinds for the eight hours day. No paragraph in any Bill could be wider than the one which the Mover of the Amendment seeks to amend. What he is asking is that there shall be certain rights established apart from the provisions of the Bill. That is the snobbery. If we are going to have anything that will make the road equally easy for all grades, we must watch this kind of Amendment. All the brains are not in the house where the father or mother can afford to send a man to a university. There are brains in houses where it takes the parents all their time to give their children ordinary schooling. I have been sufficiently long in public life before coming to this House to know what sometimes goes on in committees which have to make appointments for various professions. I know exactly what is meant by the prejudice of men sitting on these committees—men who themselves are university men, and vote with their prejudice rather than from appreciation of the cause of others who have not been to universities. I hope that every working-class Member of the House will see that the Amendment is defeated.

I would draw the attention of objectors to the Amendment to the fact that under Clause 5 it applies, in the first instance, only to those appointed by the admission committee, and that that committee will act only for a relatively short space of time, probably two years. I believe the promoters of the Bill originally desired a period of five years. If the objectors will look also at Clause 7 they will find that a board of architectural education is to be formed and that that board will arrange qualifications, including the passing of any examinations. That will mean that, in addition to these diplomas, the people who desire registration would be subject to some examination. On this point I would quote the precedent of another institution, the Institution of Civil Engineers, which admits diplomas from certain universities, honours degrees taken at Oxford or Cambridge, for instance, among others. But in addition candidates have to sit for examination. In a kindred profession such as architecture it is certain that a further examination would require to be passed by those who wish to become registered architects. I think, therefore, that the objection to the Amendment is not a valid objection, but if it has any validity at all it is only during the period of two years for those who already happen to have these particular qualifications.

These Clauses refer only to those who are practising or are about to practice until this new Council comes into existence. It is common, in all the attempts that are made to pick out professions, and give some guarantee to the country at large that the registered members will be people with qualifications, to have some mode of admission. There are people practising to-day as architects who are eminently qualified by their experience to become registered as architects when this Bill is passed, and some of them will not have university qualifications. I understand that there are several examining bodies now with members admitted on certain terms. If you are going to put in a limiting provision of this kind, the Council will find that a number of persons practising to-day and possessing perhaps a diploma issued by some other body—it may be an incorporated body—will be excluded because they have not a university diploma. I think the proposal limits and ties the Council too much.

Surely this is to be a responsible body? If you are going to prescribe, before the Council comes into existence, exactly the terms upon which it is to admit persons to the profession, you are going to limit it and make it rather an unimaginative official body, whose simple duty will be to register people who come along with the qualifications that this House has laid down rather than those laid down by itself. That would be a mistake. The Council will have in view all the ideas and wishes that we have expressed in this House with regard to architects having the artistic sense. We all know perfectly well that architects practising in the past without any limit to their right to practise have afflicted some awful atrocities on the community. The new Council will be quite aware of that fact and will be only too anxious to raise the artistic level of members of the profession. We might easily leave the matter to the Council. Give it a margin in which it can work, and with that margin the Council will be a live body rather than a mere registering body.

Finally, I want to say that everyone is aware that among university graduates there is a tendency for graduates to get into commercial life because they are graduates. There has been an appeal made to large business proprietors to take into some of their leading positions the graduates of universities, to give them a nominal salary, and gradually to work them up into positions of importance in commerce. If you are going to place limitations of this kind, and that tendency should grow and by and by there should be a close profession of commercial superintendents or something of that kind of commercial degree, and if you are going to limit it entirely to those coming from the universities, you are going to put too big a strain upon the universities to begin with and you are going to limit far too much the opportunities of entering the different professions. I hope the Amendment will be lost, because I think it is an unnecessary limitation on the province of the Council that is to be set up.

If I understand the purpose of the Amendment, I think some of the comments upon it, favourable or otherwise, have rather taken the wrong end of the stick'. The last speaker represented the Amendment as an attempt to give exclusive privileges to persons who had got a more expensive form of training at Oxford, tending to the exclusion of poverty-stricken working-class candidates, but if I am informed rightly as to what really underlies this Amendment, it is this, that at Cambridge University they have established an architectural diploma which has to be qualified for in three years, whereas the newer universities, such as Liverpool, of which the large majority of the students are sent from the elementary schools, require five years for their architectural diploma, so that I am doubtful as to the wisdom of the Amendment, but for reasons opposite to those given by some of its opponents.

I doubt whether it is wise to set up the possibility, though it is probably rather remote, of competition between universities to cheapen the diplomas, but if you are to have a Council at all, that body ought to be able to set up a standard of qualification, and it is exceedingly unlikely that any university should fail to conform to a standard that is required and judged as necessary by such a body as this Council. But if it should be that you have an architectural department in a particular university dominated perhaps by a strong personality, who wants to increase the size of his department at the expense of its efficiency, then you may conceivably have a diploma of an inadequate character given by a university at the end of an inadequate period of training, which, just because it is a university diploma, can go over the heads of better diplomas established by the Council. For that reason, which is the opposite reason to that which has been put forward by some of its opponents, I suggest that the Bill is probably better without the Amendment.

May I ask the House to come to a decision now on this point and not to waste further time on a matter which is of very little importance? I would say, on behalf of the promoters, that they have an absolutely open mind in regard to it, and I feel that the present wording of the Bill clearly covers the point. I hope the matter may be decided without further discussion.

Having expressed the view that I have and illustrated the point that I wished to make, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, after the word "in," to insert the words "Part I of."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after the word "confirmation," to insert the words "or revision."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I accept this proposal.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out from the word "If" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"the Council requires the services of an examination board to test by examination the possession of qualifications prescribed by the Council for admission to the Register then the Council shall provide for the holding by the examination board (constituted in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act) of such examinations at least once in each year and at such times and places as the examination board may with the sanction of the Council determine. The Council shall recognise as examinations under this section examinations the passing of which is, or may be, recognised for exemption from the final examinations of the incorporated architectural electoral bodies enumerated in section one of the First Schedule to this Act, and may recognise as examinations under this section examinations for the time being organised and held at any school of architecture.

Provided always that recognition of examinations, degrees and diplomas under this section and sub-section (b) of section five of this Act may be withdrawn, but shall not be withdrawn without the approval of the Privy Council."

I have had the privilege of making a number of brief speeches this morning, but I am afraid that I shall have to keep the House a little longer in order to ask them to consider a very vital Clause in this Bill. We had a great controversy in Committee on the question of the instrument which is to be set up for the purposes of architectural education, and among other improvements that were made in this Bill was that, as stated by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), a very comprehensive Regis- tration Council was formed. It was given full and complete powers with regard to the registration of architects, and to the extent to which the Committee upstairs accepted that alteration of the original structure of the Bill, it naturally affected other provisions in the Bill which set up other statutory committees. Now, for the first time, it is proposed to give full powers to the Registration Council by way of admission, examination, and registration, and then, in Clause 7, to begin to whittle away those powers by recognising and giving statutory authority to what is, in effect, a private instrument and a specific school of architecture, the Board of Architectural Education. It would be altogether contrary to the main purpose of the Bill if you first of all give full powers to the registration authority and then confuse the issue and conflict the issue by setting up another board entirely which will advise the Council.

The words of the Bill are exceedingly interesting. If you look at Clause 7, you will see that this all-powerful Registration Council must be dependent on the advice of the Board of Architectural Education. That is an existing body which is brought holus bolus into the Bill, and it is, unfortunately, not a body which is acceptable to the whole of the architectural profession. I notice that an appeal was made by the promoters of the Bill, or by one of its supporters, to support the Measure on the ground that the Bill was acceptable on this point amongst others because of the imprimatur of the London County Council, but a letter came from the chairman of the Building Acts Committee of the London County Council, in which he stated that the committee were so dissatisfied with the ability of men who were examined by the Royal Institute of British Architects, that is, by this Board, and held their diplomas, that the council decided to hold examinations themselves, which they did in the years 1928, 1929 and 1931. If the examinations of this particular private instrument do not satisfy the London County Council, what good reason can be suggested why we should give them a preferential place, and, indeed, a place where they practically control, for all time to come, the kind of examination which shall be set, the recognition which shall be given and the quality of the examinations?

Therefore, I do ask the House to repair what we were unable to repair in the Committee upstairs, although only by a small majority, what is obviously a great blot on the Bill by deleting Clause 7 altogether. I do not want to open all the controversial ground we had in Standing Committee A, but why should this particular instrument of one particular architectural organisation only be put in the Bill? Why not put in the Bill also the examinations board of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, the building examinations board of the Faculty of Architects, and the examining board of any of the universities? Why this preferential posision for this particular Board of Architectural Education? The answer is, that it happens to be the handmaiden of the promoters of the Bill. That is the short answer to that question, and for that reason only, the promoters have been exceedingly diligent, and so far successful, in getting this Clause into the Bill, and we are asking very confidently—and especially am I appealing now to this side of the House—that this blot on the Bill should be removed. If it be removed, it will also remove a great deal of the opposition which hitherto we have found, in the public interest, to be essential. I made a statement that this particular board is the private instrument, the handmaiden of the promoters of the Bill. I read, for example, in the calendar of the Royal Institute of British Architects:

"The training of architects and the practice of architecture in Great Britain are controlled by the Royal Institute of British Architects."

They are controlled through this organisation provided in Clause 7. For 20 years the organisation, the Royal Institute of British Architects, have used their charter authority to establish a Board of Architectural Education, and to promote this architectural education for the purpose of ear-marking thousands of school students, so that they can be gently shepherded into the ranks of the Royal Institute of British Architects. This is really, in a sense, a recruiting school for one particular close corporation, and it is exceedingly inadvisable, in fact, I go further and say, that it would be a public scandal if an organisation representing, after all, only a minority of the architects of this country; could use a private institution of this kind to give a preferential position in an Act of Parliament, and say, "Through this gate only, this examination only, shall you be able to enter the architectural profession," and that the advice of this particular private outside body shall be the controlling advice to the registering authority. It is undemocratic. It is unfair, and, I venture to say—I speak with knowledge from representations made to me by private architects—it would be absolutely unjust to such architects as have not that supreme confidence in this Board of Architectural Education that the parents of this body have.

If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will find that it is absolutely unnecessary to have Clause 7 in the Bill at all. It is an extraneous and an unnecessary Clause. It conflicts with what we have already passed this morning. Clause 5 says:

"The council shall from time to time make regulations prescribing the qualifications necessary for registration of all persons other than those referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection"—

And then come the vital words:

"and for testing by examination or otherwise the possession of the council's prescribed qualifications."

Having already decided this morning to give the council power to test "by examination or otherwise the possession of the council's prescribed qualifications," we undo what was done in Clause 5.

Snobbery!

I, myself, being an Englishman, am not given to such strong language as that, but, obviously, the House of Commons cannot put itself in such a contradictory position as to pass in Clause 5 provisions for examination to be made by the council itself, and then, in Clause 7, begin to undo the good work already done. I could say much more on this particular issue, but I hope that I have said enough to carry with me the sense of the House. In this matter I am pleased to have the support of quite a number of Members who sit on the two Opposition benches, and I hope that the promoters will be wise enough to accept this. If they do not accept this deletion, I am resting on the good sense of the Members of the House to see that this blot on the Bill is removed. If it be removed, then this instrument, which we have produced with much labour upstairs, will, in my judgment, become a fairly efficient, although not a perfect Architects' Registration Bill, and will give general satisfaction to the whole of the architects and to the public, whose interests will be protected. But with this Clause in, the whole of the otherwise valuable Clauses of the Bill will be vitiated, and you will be handing over to the promoters of the Bill a power which they ought not to exercise, and be showing a preferential treatment for one particular examining body which ought not to be given to any association. It is not as though there were not other examination bodies just as competent. I have in my hand, for instance, an examination paper which I have been reading with great interest this morning. It is not the examination board, by the by, of this organisation. If the House will have patience, I will venture to read one of the questions in this paper:

"Describe the main characteristics of Egyptian architecture and explain the conditions which led to its development."

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) suggests that we might ask the promoter of this Bill to answer that question, and, if the answer is satisfactory, he will get 25 marks. I want to draw the promoter's attention to the fact that there are other examination boards in existence than the one which is now to be incorporated, if the promoters get their way under Clause 7, and that they are equally competent to set examination papers demanding as high a standard as, if not a higher standard than, that which is now named in Clause 7. If the standard of this board which is going to give advice to the council, is high enough to meet the necessary qualifications of an architect to satisfy the public, then undoubtedly the council will give to this particular examination board, as to all others, the right to carry out examinations and the recognition of their diploma.

It seems to me that the promoters of this Bill are uneasy. They are not quite confident in the competence of their board or in the standards of the examination referred to, and they are not sure that it will come up to the necessary requirements when the registration council is established. Therefore, they are going to make sure of it, by saying that for all time the examination and the standards of architecture are to be stereotyped. On those grounds, I move the deletion of the Clause.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that it will be accepted by the promoters. We have set down in Clause 5 that the council shall have certain powers, but it does seem as though a privileged position is once again being asked for by a particular body. I have tried to visualise what would happen if people in the various trades of the country ever asked the House of Commons for registration, and it were suggested that, because a particular sectional trade union in an industry happened to have a committee termed an education committee, it should be inserted in an Act of Parliament that such a committee should be recognised for the purpose of passing people into the trade or occupation. I was rather surprised that this was not acceptable when we were upstairs. Now that we have decided in Clause 5 that the council shall have powers, let us trust the Council with those powers. If an examination is required end the council sets up the examination machinery, it must not look upon one section of the architects as having all the rights and all the opportunities to engage upon this work. I do not blame a particular section for endeavouring to make use of it, because it will give them a standing in the profession and enable them to increase their membership, probably at the expense of other people, but I can imagine what the promoters would say if I came along from the trade union of which I happen to be a member, and asked the House to give me an opportunity of increasing the membership of the union at the expense of others.

If what the last speaker said were correct that one organisation is to have a privileged position as an examining body, I would be the first to fall in with the opposition to this Clause. I do not see why one educational board should have a monopoly of carrying out examinations in the future and testing the qualifications for architecture. I think that would be going too far. It is remarkable that the Mover of the Amendment never referred to this when dealing with the Schedule. So far from the Royal Institute of British Architects being in that position, the Bill proposes that Parliament itself should lay down in the Bill what character the board should take. I would ask the House to refer to the Second Schedule. If there is any criticism of the board, it is rather that it is too comprehensive, too wide, too large, and has too big a number of organisations represented. It is really a democratic body, in the wider sense. It might almost be said to be a mass meeting, because there are no less than 70 members drawn from other organisations, and it is to be the authority responsible for setting examinations. The size and character of the board was due to the benevolence of the promoter in trying to meet every opposition in the most reasonable spirit.

I cannot help having a suspicion that there are some people who do not want us to have a proper examination for the qualification of registered architects. Clause 7 is an essential part of the Bill. Without it, my hon. Friend would be wise to drop the Bill and not to proceed further with it. All that Clause 5 does is retrospective, in bringing in existing architects. Clause 7 provides for the future, that men who are to be qualified to call themselves registered architects, shall have proper examination tests.

May I ask the hon. Member a question about Clause 7? A paragraph in that Clause says:

"The council shall recognise as examinations under this section examinations, the passing of which is or may be recognised for exemption from the final examination of the Royal Institute of British Architects."

It has been suggested, and I put this forward with an earnest desire to see if we can reach an agreement, that after these words there should be inserted the words: "or of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors." In all our Debates on the Committee stage, there was obviously a battle between the two associations. If it is possible for the phrase that I have just given to be inserted, it may be possible to reach agreement.

I am not the promoter of this Bill, and am not in a position to accept Amendments or, really, to speak on behalf of the architects. I have really been on the Committee as a detached observer. I am informed that the examinations of the Royal Institute of British Architects have been going on for many years, while on the other hand—I am not going to make any bones about it—this mushroom organisation, which was promoted for one purpose and one purpose only, to prevent this kind of Bill from becoming an Act of Parliament, and has had no examinations up to the present, wish, now that we have this Bill, to invent an examination for the purpose of bluffing the House of Commons. Mr. Culpin, who is a Labour Alderman of the London County Council, and a former president of this mushroom organisation, was so disgusted with its members that he has resigned all connection with it. The hon. Member, in a very conciliatory spirit, has given very reasonable prominence to this new organisation, he is going to get it into the Bill, and I think he ought to be satisfied with that. As far as I am concerned I do not attach much importance to the examinations of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but I do attach importance to the examinations of the Board laid down in the Schedule to this proposed Act of Parliament.

The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton), in his attempts to justify his Amendment, has indulged in a most blood-curdling tale of the iniquities of the Royal Institute of British Architects. He has made all sorts of charges against it which really cannot be sustained. As a beginning, he tells us that it is a snobbish institution and a close corporation. I do not think he said it was "a snobbish institution"; it was one of his friends who supplied that adjective, and he adopted it as his own.

On the contrary, unlike my hon. Friend who, I think, also comes from the north of Britain, I am more careful and deliberate in the choice of language than my hon. Friend on the right.

I will not enter into questions of geography with the hon. Member, but I say these attacks on the Royal Institute of British Architects are most unworthy. As Members of this House we ought to remember that this Chamber was built by Sir Charles Barry, who was the son of a poor itinerant book- seller. He went into the architectural profession with nothing, and eventually became President of the Royal Institute of British Architects. To throw about unworthy charges of its being a close corporation and of its snobbery degrades the House and does no justice to whatever motives lie behind the opposition to this Bill. No doubt many hon. Members have received a letter this morning protesting against this Bill from the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, which indulges in the most wild charges. It begins in a way which may commend itself to some Members of the House:

"To you as a Member of Parliament, a lover of justice, and a defender of the rights of the people, I appeal."

Then it goes on to make quite unsustainable charges against the Royal Institute of British Architects. This organisation, which we are told is to be regarded as quite as eminent as the Royal Institute of British Architects, has a most curious council. Its president is Sir Edwin Lutyens, who is probably the greatest architect alive in these islands, and who, I consider, has done more to increase the loveliness of this country than any architect of our time. But Sir Edwin Lutyens is a genius, and his translation from the Royal Institute of British Architects to this organisation is rather an instance of the artistic temperament than any evidence of his genuine love for educational work in architecture. I notice, also, the name of the Duke of Marlborough. I have a great respect for the Duke of Marlborough; he is a friend of mine and has one of the most beautiful houses in England; but I could not regard the Duke of Marlborough as being an architectural authority. Then we see the name of a late Member of this House, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, whom we have never regarded as being an architectural authority. There are also the names of a number of members of another place. That in itself seems to be a little bit snobbish. It is outrageous that this organisation should search the country for vice-presidents and yet not select a single Member of this unfortunate Chamber.

The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) is a Member of this House.

There are also the names of Lord Colwyn, Lord Rutherford, Sir William Bragg and others, but the only name which really commends itself to the House is that of the distinguished Scottish Member sitting below me and I take it that he himself is there in his capacity as an engineer and not as an educationist in architecture. This Amendment has been brought forward, I maintain, simply as a wrecking Amendment. It will break up the whole purpose of the Bill. I have no brief for the Royal Institute of British Architects, but I feel it is essential that this particular Clause should remain intact, because the whole question of our architectural education is at stake. We cannot strike out an essential Clause and leave the whole position unregulated.

We shall be doing great harm if we do not make this Bill as taut as possible. I should have thought its object would have commended itself to the Labour party. All over the country there are boys and girls whose parents are sacrificing considerable sums in order that they may be educated. Some of these boys and girls have won scholarships. By striking out this Clause we are saying that any person, a tinker, an undertaker, or any sort of charlatan, can call himself an architect and practise in competition with thoroughly qualified young men and women who have spent four or five years in an educational school such as the University of Liverpool architectural school, or the school, in connection with the London University. The best thing I can say about the Clause is that two of the most eminent teachers of architecture in this country, Professor Reilly, of the Liverpool University and Professor Richardson of London University who have done more for architectural education than almost any others in the country, have both said that the Clause is absolutely vital for the education of young architects and for assuring them a decent career. Hon. Members opposite had their run in Committee and were defeated, and I appeal to them now to accept the Clause and allow us to do tardy justice to a great profession.

The excellent speech of the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) is vitiated in this respect, that he has attended the Committee only once or twice and that his knowledge of the Bill is almost entirely negligible.

On a point of Order. I attended the Committee very regularly, and, as for my knowledge of the Bill, I do not think that is very relevant to the hon. Member's argument.

If the hon. Member's knowledge of the Bill is not relevant to this argument, I will leave the matter there.

I said relevant to "your argument."

I strongly resent the fact that the four or five months' sincere work which I have put in to try to make this a decent Bill should be interpreted in the way it has been. I care not a scrap for the Royal Institute of British Architects or the other association, but I claim that when I have finished with this Clause 7 no hon. Member on the other side of the House will be found willing to support its retention in the Bill. That is a serious and a strong statement to make. It has been well said that this Clause is the heart and core of the Bill. During the past day or two extraordinary social pressure has been brought to bear with a view to securing that this Bill shall pass. Architects in general are placed in a position to bring great social pressure upon hon. Members. I have here a letter from a local secretary, saying:

"Architects (Registration) Bill.

The Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill will probably be taken in the House of Commons on Friday morning, the 17th day of April. I enclose a stamped postcard, and shall be glad if you will kindly complete this and address it to your local Member of Parliament at the House of Commons and post not later than the 15th April.

It is of special importance that Members residing in the Division of Mr. W. T. Kelly, M.P. for Rochdale, and Mr. Guy Rowson, M.P. for Farnworth, should comply with the above request.

P.S.—I am enclosing an additional two postcards, and should be glad if you would kindly have same completed either by your wife or professionally interested friends."

I do not see why that request should be restricted to a man's wife, and I do not see why his uncles and his aunts should not be brought in. A good deal of pressure has also been brought upon hon. Members who have been trying to make this Measure into a decent Bill. I am afraid that those who make up the membership of the Royal Institute of British Architects have been deluded by the pressure which has been brought to bear upon them. Only those who have been closely associated with the work of the Committee can speak with authority on the Bill. I will try to put before hon. Members an explanation of our position, although we have been condemned in advance and personal motives have been attributed to us. I am in favour of the registration of architects, but I want to see the public protected. If this Bill had passed as it was introduced on the Second Reading, it would have been nothing short of a public scandal. I claim credit along with my hon. Friends for having, in a large measure, prevented that from happening. Unless Clause 7 is radically dealt with this morning, there will be no working-class boy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—who will ever have the chance of moulding another building as beautiful as the one in which we are assembled.

I will now deal with Clause 7, and I ask hon. Members carefully to follow my argument. First of all, the Board of Architectural Education is in the Bill but not of the Bill. It is in the Bill, but the Council have no control whatever over that board, and I challenge any hon. Member to deny that statement. I challenge the promoters of the Bill to say explicitly that any activities of that board are under the authority of the Council. The Council is under the authority of the board. Clause 7 says:

"The council shall recognise as examinations under this Section examinations, the passing of which is or may be recognised for exemption from the final examination of the Royal Institute of British Architects."

1.0 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) made an excellent speech in which he said that not even the universities should have a permanent hallmark in this Bill. May I point out that the Royal Institute of British Architects are demanding in this Bill—and will get it if the Measure passes—a permanent hall-mark in the Bill. As an organisation, I have nothing against the Royal Institute of British Architects. I have not a friend nor an enemy in that body, and to me it is an impersonal organisation. It is, however, a trade union, and I protest that the House of Commons should give to a trade union a power over and above and beyond the supreme power of the Council. The Board of Architectural Education is a chartered instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am not attacking that organisation as such, and I am not pleading for this or that association, but I am asking that the class from which I sprang shall be protected. I repeat my statement that the Board of Architectural Education is the chartered instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Here is the charter from which I will quote Clause 4:

"Subject to the by-laws for the time being, the Council shall formulate and from time to time alter and amend a scheme or curriculum for education in architecture and may appoint in relation thereto such boards or committees (whether or not consisting wholly of members of the Royal Institute) as may from time to time be prescribed by by-laws, and the Council may apply the funds of the Royal Institute in making provision for and furthering and developing any such scheme or curriculum, and in providing for lectures or teaching, and for the holding of examinations in accordance therewith, and for granting certificates in connection therewith and (subject to such exemptions as may be allowed by or in accordance with the by-laws) no person shall in or after the year 1913 become entitled to admission for the final examination for associateship of the Royal Institute unless he shall have passed through a course of study under or in accordance with such scheme or curriculum."

The point that I make is that this is a chartered instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects. When was it introduced, and why is it pressed now with such insistence? The reason is this. The Admission Committee was originally a statutory committee, but, in Committee upstairs, we got it put under the control of the council; and then, as another way out of the difficulty in which they found themselves, it was insisted that this chartered instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects should be inserted in the Bill—not under the control of the council, but the council would have to accept its demands and its orders, instead of vice versa. That is a position which no House of Commons could allow to be maintained. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said that, if it could be shown that the result would be to form a close corporation, he would not assent to it.

A memorandum has been sent out by another organisation, not of architects, but the Institute of Builders, and I regret that that memorandum does not seem to have had the close attention that it merits in connection with this matter. It gives the history of this Board of Architectural Education, and it says this:

"It will be seen from Clause 7 that the Bill provides, first, that the Registration Council"—

that is the dominant authority of the Bill—

"must accept for recognition the examinations recommended by only one board of education. It provides that the Registration Council shall employ"—

not may—

"only one examining board, and that the Registration Council shall have no authority to regulate the decisions of the Board of Architectural Education."

I want to go further. This Bill in its purpose is a Registration Bill; that is accepted; and no Registration Bill ever passed in this House, whether in relation to doctors, dentists, or nurses, containing within it an educational or examining instrument. There is being inserted into this Bill a wing or an instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects, whose main purpose is to control the examinations in its own trade union interests. Is there anyone who doubts that?

I have here an extract from a report issued by the Royal Institute of British Architects in about the year 1927, on the question of overcrowding in the architectural profession. It is a report by a joint committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Association of Architects, Surveyors and Technical Assistants; and I want hon. Members to associate that question of overcrowding with the power that it is now proposed to give to this instrument of the Royal Institute of British Architects. The report says:

"There are to-day some 12,000 architects, including 1,300 pupils and students, in England and Wales, as against 7,000 40 years ago. These figures are obtained from the census returns, and represent an increase of 70.65 per cent. The population of England and Wales has increased from 26,000,000 to 38,000,000 during the same period, representing an increase of 46.15 per cent. In other words, there is to-day one architect or potential architect to every 3,167 of the population of England and Wales, compared with one to 3,714 40 years ago. It appears, therefore, that the number of architects who describe themselves as such in the census returns has risen in a greater proportion than the population during the past 40 years. Admitting that these figures are incapable of absolute proof, the Joint Committee feel that at least as many men are entering the profession as the profession can at the present time absorb."

What is the significance of that? I am anxious that this Bill should go through as a decent Registration Bill for all architects, but let it be remembered that the membership of the Royal Institute of British Architects numbers somewhere about 7,000 architects, so that, by this Clause, complete power is to be given into the hands of that organised body of 7,000, not merely of examination, but of moulding the curriculum and raising the standard of education so that no lad of my class will have any opportunity whatever of entering the profession. The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green said that we need not worry about that, that the Board of Architectural Education in the Second Schedule was to be settled when we came to it, and that we could put in what we chose. But that Board of Architectural Education is a chartered body, and you can put in whom you please. An hon. Member shakes his head. May I ask him—

The Board of Architectural Education to be set up by this Measure is an entirely different body from the body to which the hon. Member has been referring. The Board of Architectural Education for the purposes of this Measure is constituted in the Schedule. I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member, and confess that I have been unable to follow him.

I challenge the promoter of the Bill to say that the Board of Architectural Education in this Bill is not the chartered instrument to which I have referred.

Does the hon. Member's question call for a reply, or shall I deal with the matter in my speech later?

If the answer be a simple negative or otherwise, the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to say so, but it would form a very bad precedent if, when challenges were offered by hon. Members, they were continually answered by the hon. Members to whom they were offered.

I thought that perhaps the hon. Member's question might be a rhetorical question, which really needed no answer.

I thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the forbearance which you have shown towards me. I do not want to put a rhetorical question; I demand a plain answer to a plain question, when the promoter of this Bill is replying, as to whether that Board of Architectural Education is the chartered body I have referred to, and whether it has not had a charter from the year 1913. I demand an answer to that question when the hon. and gallant Member replies, and I would ask hon. Members to note whether the answer is "Yes" or "No."

I was dealing with the effects of this proposal. If this instrument be given the power which it is proposed to give to it upon the council, making the council subordinate to it, then that body will have a complete, close, corporative grip on all interests in the architectural profession from now onwards. If I may strike a personal note, I would say this. I left school at 14. I worked in a wagon works till I was 21. At night school I studied from the age of 16 onwards every night till I was 21. I got home at six in the evening, sat up studying till two in the morning, and got up at five in the morning, and, at long last, after an indescribable time, I got to the University. I say that no lad in that position can ever hope in the future, if this Clause be passed, whatever may be his study in the building trade at technical institutions at night, to become an architect.

Hon. Members on this side of the House who opposed the Second Reading, and who, for some strange reason, supported some of the proposals made during the Committee stage, opposed it on that ground, and they were assured by the hon. and gallant Member that those points would be seen to in Committee. We did try to do that. We had an Amendment providing that 30 per cent. of the fees should be given in order to enable scholarship lads to go forward. It was ruled out of order, because that is not the purpose of the Bill, which is a Registration Bill, and, indeed, I questioned, on a point of order, whether it could be made an educational instrument. I have here a speech of the hon. Member for Salford, a very eloquent speech indeed, with regard to this matter, in which he said:

"There ought to be no class bias. If I felt that the ordinary worker had not as much opportunity to contribute his brains and skill and experience to this great profession, I should be the last to support this Measure."

It was promised by the promoters that something should be done for that. I challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to show me in the Bill that anything has been done to give special facilities for working lads. There is nothing. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) said just now that, if a certain Amendment were accepted, he would be prepared to accept that. I am not prepared to accept that on behalf of the public and on behalf of the class from which I have sprung. He made a speech also in which he asked that special provision should be made and special guarantees given for that. The speech of the Under-Secretary on behalf of the Government was also significant. He said:

"On the other hand, there is criticism from many that by virtue of a Measure of this kind we are apt to create a very close corporation, and many people in these days view that with great suspicion,"

We are entitled to regard the matter from a different point of view from the powers extended to the medical profession, the dentists or the legal profession, and this Bill gives a decided advantage to architects over and above the medical profession, the legal profession, the nurses' profession, or the dental profession:

"It would be unfortunate if art should be robbed of the greatest artists merely because they were not registered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1930; col. 1278, Vol. 244.]

There is another argument. I hope I speak with some knowledge and authority as an educationist. This is an educational instrument inserted in a Bill which will help to mould architectural education and all education in this country. It is of the very essence of architectural education that it is a creative art. To attempt to mould it and to make it rigid would be the maddest folly in the eyes of any educationist. That also is the purpose of the Bill. I am a registered teacher, and I want to see men who are architects given proper safeguards, and I want the public to be protected, but I beg hon. Members to cut out all ideas of any association from their mind. I know the Bill from the first word to the last. If it it passed in its present form, for many a year those who come after us will say it is incredible that the British House of Commons gave such powers. Our position has been simplicity. When the Bill first went upstairs, I said, "Give me an independent council representative of the architects and the allied and kindred interests and the public. Let that council appoint its own committees, its admission committee, its registration committee, its discipline committee, and you can have your Bill." That was surely a fair offer. It is perfectly straightforward and simple. It is because that was not granted that these interminable difficulties have been caused and devious means have been adopted to get forward what should have been a plain, simple instrument for giving I label and qualification to architects.

Whatever our political views may be, I know that hon. Members above and below the Gangway have as great an anxiety and desire to protect the public and working-class children in regard to education in this respect as I have. I beg of them to see that that Board of Architectural Education, above the council in its authority, dictating to the council in its authority, not only getting complete control and grip of the entrants, but moulding the architectural education for many years to come—I beg hon. Members opposite, who may differ from me often politically, to understand that I am prompted only by the sincere desire to give a decent opportunity to working-class lads and girls who may come forward in the future, and also to protect the interests of the great public.

I rise to support the Amendment. When the Bill was being read a Second time and it was going to be opposed, I felt very diffident about speaking on the matter, but I did my best to get the opposition withdrawn. The promoter made this statement:

"I am authorised on behalf of the promoters to say that, if the Bill is sent to Committee after having received Second Reading, we shall be prepared to meat any reasonable suggestions which will make the Bill a better, more efficient or more effective weapon to secure the object that we have in view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1930; col. 1261, Vol. 244.]

I know my hon. and gallant Friend will say that he has done so. From the beginning this has been the contentious Clause in the Bill. This Educational Board is the authority in the Bill. All that we want is that it shall be subject to the council. There is an elaborate council established, but its powers are taken away, because the Clause says:

"If on the advice of the Board of Architectural Education."

The council can only act on the advice of this Board of Architectural Education which, therefore, is the supreme body in the Bill. It is appointed by the council of the Royal Institute of British Architects, so that we shall have the council of the Institute of British Architects, which is the supreme authority, in the Bill made a statutory authority.

The council of the Royal Institute of British Architects will not enter into the Bill at all.

Not directly but indirectly, in that they appoint the architectural board. I want my hon. and gallant Friend to see if he cannot do what I think is a reasonable thing, and make this council, which is a representative body, and which we have gone to great trouble to get made a representative body supreme. The admission committee is subject to the council. Why then make the council subject to the Board of Architectural Education? That is the whole of the difficulty that we have to meet, and that is what is causing the confusion. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said the Board of Architectural Education is a very large body and, as such is representative. My objection to it is that it is far too large. An ad hoc body is one that has few interests in common. It is appointed from different bodies but their interest is in only the one thing for which they are appointed. If members belonging to any particular body, teachers, architects or anyone else, come together they have many things in common. It means that this Board of Architectural Education is really a committee which is in existence at the present time, and it is the supreme body in this Bill.

I reiterate what has been said that the Registration Council must recognise the examination of only one organisation. They must employ only one examining body, and that is the examining body which is not subject to the authority of the council mentioned in the Bill. The council can only act upon the advice of the examining body. The Clause is not necessary at all, because Clause 5 makes provision for doing all that is necessary. The Bill will stand as a unit without the present Clause.

May I appeal to the promoters of the Amendment, and also to the promoters of the Bill, to see whether the point of both parties cannot be met by a very small alteration in the middle of Clause 7, where it says:

"The council shall recognise as examinations under this Section examinations … of the Royal Institute of British Architects."

I think the position would be met if the word "shall" were removed and the word "may" inserted in its place. The Clause would then read:

"The council may recognise as examinations under this Section."

If that were done, the apparent hold of the Royal Institute of British Architects over the council would be removed, because the council would be empowered to accept their examinations or not as they thought fit. I make this suggestion, and I hope that both the promoters of the Bill and of the Amendment will accept it.

As this discussion proceeds my astonishment increases. One hears statements of fact made here with great assertiveness by Members who have given many hours to this Bill upstairs which cannot be supported by the text of the Bill we are discussing. At this moment, we are being asked to believe that the Bill, as it stands, restricts the examinations contemplated by the board to the examinations of the Royal Institute of British Architects. That is not correct. I invite hon. Members to look at the Clause which we are discussing. A great deal of prejudice has been imported into this discussion. Let us try and get clear of it and look at the actual words which are before us. In Clause 7, page 4, line 23, it says:

"The council shall recognise as examinations under this section examinations, the passing of which is or may be recognised for exemption from the final examination of the Royal Institute of British Architects,"

One would suppose that there the Section ended if we listen to some hon. Members, but it goes on to say:

"and on the advice of the education board the council shall recognise as examinations under this Section examinations for the time being organised and held at any school of architecture."

How any Member of this House can get up and represent that the examinations contemplated in this Bill are examinations conducted only by the Royal Institute of British Architects passes my comprehension, when I look at the actual terms of the Measure. What is the authority under this Clause which has to give the advice for the inclusion of these further examinations? If hon. Members will look at the Second Schedule, they will find that the education board is constituted on remarkable lines. No section of this great profession and no body of organised representatives who have relative interests is left outside the composition of the board.

Will my hon. Friend explain who are the people who are recognised? Who are the people indicated by the words in the Schedule:

"The passing of whose examinations is or may be recognised."

Are they the Board of Architectural Education?

As I read the Bill, I understand that the whole of the examinations for which provision is made are to be recognised on the advice of the Board of Architectural Education.

I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House.

"The council shall recognise as examinations."

That is the first reference, and further:

"If on the advice of the Board of Architectural Education …. constituted for the purposes of this Act in manner prescribed in the Second Schedule to this Act, and to be appointed annually by the council, the pre- scribed qualifications include the passing of any examinations, the council shall provide for the holding by the education board"—

which is not under the control of the council and over which the council has no control or influence whatever.

I am very anxious, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept the assurance, to get this Bill through the House to-day. I have received numerous communications from architects in the cities of Nottingham and Derby, and in the whole of the Midlands begging me to do what I can to-day to assist in passing the Bill, and I have risen now merely for that purpose. I have confined myself to two questions of fact with which my hon. Friend dealt in eloquent terms and on which, I think, he unintentionally misled the House. In misleading the House, it may well be that in his own mind he is not quite clear as to the intentions of the Bill. The first question I think I have already established by referring the House to the actual words in the Bill. It is not correct to say that the examinations contemplated by this Bill are only examinations of the Royal Institute of British Architects, because the Bill goes on to provide for other examinations. The second question of fact is as to the composition of the board which is the authority under the Bill to which further examinations shall be referred.

When I gave way to my hon. Friend whose devotion to this matter we all recognise, I was directing the attention of the House to the Second Schedule of the Bill which sets up the authority which recognises the examinations. I was asking the House to realise that this authority is constituted on the widest and most responsible lines. It includes representatives of the Workers' Education Association—I am speaking as an old member of the national executive of that body—representatives of the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, the Art Workers' Guild, and all sorts of bodies whose interests are directed to the great profession of architecture. I ask the House to say that the composition of that authority, which is to determine what further examinations shall be held under this Bill, is of such a character as to satisfy this House and that the widest possible limits have been searched to bring within the ambit of the Bill all interests, all classes and all sections of the community which ought to be included. I know that it is the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) to achieve that object, and I appeal to him to realise that everything has been done to effect those purposes. This is my first intervention in the discussion. Here is an opportunity for the House to lay the foundations of a great and enterprising profession, on which are built the hopes of countless men and women who are devoting their energies to this high cause, and I plead with the House to pass as rapidly as it can to the remaining stages of this Bill in order that those hopes shall not be defeated.

I do not want to take up the time of the House, but one or two very definite questions were put to me which I should like to answer. I was asked by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) in what way I or my Friends seek to provide facilities so that a poor boy may find a happier and easier way into the architectural profession. An Amendment was put down in Committee by some of the hon. Member's Friends, to the effect that 50 per cent. of the fees which were paid by applicants for registration on the register should be devoted to bursaries and scholarships for those of inadequate means. Unfortunately, owing to the wording of the Amendment and the place where it was sought to insert it, the Chairman had to rule it out of order. This morning, however, we have devised a fresh Amendment, which I am happy to say will be put before the House. It is on the lines which the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) and others had in view.

The hon. Member for Walsall also asked me whether there was a charter for the Board of Architectural Education. Of course, there is no charter. We are only setting up that body under this Bill. There was a charter for the Royal Institute of British Architects and its ramifications, but the board in that case was a body solely dominated by the institute. The board which we propose in the Bill is an independent Board of Architectural Education, and at this moment it has no charter of any kind. The hon. Member for Walsall also referred to a statement made in Committee to the effect that the London County Council had approved of this Bill, and he said that that was subsequently denied by the late chairman of the County Council. I have taken the opportunity to look up the minutes of the London County Council for the 18th May, 1927, and I find that the statement in the minutes is as follows:

"The Board of Architectural Education set up by the Royal Institute of British Architects has been in operation for some time and is of a widely representative character, as is indicated above."

The County Council were discussing this Bill. Finally, they passed a resolution:

"That the provisions of the Architects (Registration) Bill be approved on educational grounds, and that the Parliamentary Committee be so informed."

That is not the point that I raised. The hon. and gallant Member is referring to something which I did not state.

Then I have given an extra piece of information.

What I said was that Sir Robert Tasker, Chairman of the London County Council, had written a letter in which he said:

"The only examinations"—

We are talking about examinations by this particular private institution which are to be exalted into pre-eminence by the Bill—

"held by the Royal Institute of British Architects during the past six years, when I was chairman of the Building Acts Committee, 1924–1929, and discussed by the Building Acts Committee or the Council, related to the examination of candidates for the office of district surveyor. The Committee were so dissatisfied with the ability of men who were examined by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and held their diploma, that the council decided to hold examinations themselves."

Yet it is those examinations which, under Clause 7, the Council shall accept.

The hon. Member's argument is really in favour of the Bill. The whole object of the Bill is to raise the standard of architecture and examinations, so as to produce a better type of architect in the future than has been the case in the past. When the Bill has been passed, that result will be achieved. I should like to tell the House how the Board of Architectural Education came to be established. Over 25 years ago there was no such board. There were various schools operating all over the country and various individuals with architectural ideals were in various branches developing on these lines. There were many organisations such as polytechnics and technical institutions, but there was no co-ordinating link. The Royal Institute of British Architects, therefore, felt that they were justified in taking up what ultimately proved to be probably their greatest task, that of co-ordinating, revitalising and directing these various schools on one common line and subscribing to one common standard of education. It was only a standard of education and in no way restricted architectural development. That went on for a short time and then it extended to such a degree that the Institute felt that it was getting beyond their hands, and they put it in charge of the Board of Architectural Education. That is how the board started. It consisted of representatives touching every side of architectural education, and it brought democracy into the educational side, which was all to the good.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but his arguments are irrelevant.

The hon. Member is not entitled to make two speeches.

The board has worked for 25 years to the complete satisfaction of every architectural student, every architect and every architectural organisation. It is a body that has advised His Majesty's Government. The London County Council goes to it for advice and are represented on it. All these efforts are to be suddenly scrapped, we are to undo the work which has slowly and wearily evolved during 25 years and to hand over the duties of this great organisation, this widespread, widely-represented democratic organisation, to a committee of this new purely professional council. You are stereotyping architectural education by the Amendment and it is for that reason mainly that I suggest that the House should reject it. I could say a lot more on this subject, but as we have spent over an hour considering this question I hope that we may now come to a decision.

Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether it would be within the power of this body to limit the number of entrants to the profession? Will they also be able to set up a standard of education as well as limit the number of entrants? Would it be possible, for example, for this body to say that women should not be allowed to enter the profession?

No, the hon. Lady is quite wrong. As a matter of fact, we have brought in the Union of Headmistresses in order to look after the interests of women.

It is not only a question of sex, but a question of numbers. Will it be within the power of this body to limit the number of entrants?

No.

I am not quite clear as to the functions of this Board even after the explanation that has been given. It must get its instruction from some other body or council. It is a hotchpotch, which is simply a device of the council to create a privilege for itself. It seems that the council is to set up an Education Board and that it is then going to take instructions from the Board. If that is the position it requires some elucidation and simplification if it is going to be satisfactory. I am not against the registration of architects, but I object to a special privilege being given to the profession. I am quite willing that it should be put on the same basis as the teaching profession and protected in the same way. The hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill became rhetorical and told us that all that has been said by those who are opposing the Bill was moonshine. He told me on one occasion outside the House that he had the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives in his pocket—

Oh, no.

I think I am entitled to put that construction upon what he said. The National Federation of Building Trade Operatives have no authority to speak for the building trades in this matter. I am a member of the building trade and I have never been consulted as to my attitude towards this Bill. My attitude has been guided by the result of my experience as a member of a Scotish education authority. One of our most difficult tasks is to advise boys what to do when they reach the age of 16 and 17. I have had to tell them to carry on at the evening school, where there is a course in building and engineering which may lead to naval engineering and to architecture, but if this Bill goes through and you leave the control in the hands of the Institute of Architects—

No Member of the Royal Institute of British Architects is mentioned in the Board of Architectural Education at all, nor need there be a single member of the Royal Institute of British Architects on the board.

I am aware of that, but if they are the puppets of the Royal Institute of British Architects it is just as bad. I do not think we should stultify our evening school education in this way. We are spending money on developing evening school education, and we are going to allow the Institute of Architects to shut the door on pupils who may have the ability to go from one stage to another until they become the 20th century successors of the late Sir Charles Barry. If we allow these channels to be closed and are going to rely on the universities and other public schools it will not be in the interests of architecture. If the Amendment is rejected, I hope we shall be given an independent body not subordinate to the Royal Institute of British Architects.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, after the word "Act," to insert the words:

"one of whom shall be a person practising in Scotland."

I do not know why I have been selected to move this Amendment, except that it—

To save time I will accept the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 2, to leave out from the word "that," to the end of line 7, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"out of the total amount received in such fees annually by the council a sum of not less than 50 per cent. must be devoted in each year by the council for the purpose of providing scholarships and maintenance grants for the assistance of students of inadequate means."

I think the whole House will agree with the principle of this Amendment. It is a proposal that half the fees of registration should be spent on scholarships and grants to enable poor boys or girls to go to the universities or schools.

On a point of Order. I am not quarrelling with the spirit of this Amendment because we, the critics of the Bill, made this suggestion ourselves, but I wish to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether, in the consideration of these Amendments we have now passed from Clause 8 to Clause 15 because on Clause 11 there are some Amendments which are of drafting character and which I submit ought obviously to be considered.

All the Amendments on the Order Paper to the previous Clauses which were to be selected have been called, and the Amendment which has now been moved comes in its proper place at this stage.

With great respect may I point out that Mr. Speaker at an earlier stage indicated that Amendments of a purely drafting character, to correct obvious omissions made in the Committee stage, should be accepted and that, so far, every such Amendment has been accepted by the promoters.

I cannot allow the matter to be debated. The last Amendment which I called was on Clause 8. The next Amendment on the Paper is to Clause 11, page 6, line 8, but that Amendment is not selected and has not been called. The first Amendment on the Order Paper after that which I select is that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs to Clause 15, page 8, line 16, after the first "the" to insert "Education." The hon. Member misunderstands. Only those Amendments selected are called and he is not entitled to question the discretion of the Chair. The Amendment now before us is to leave out the words from "that" down to the end of line 7 and to insert the words which I have already read.

On a point of Order. May I ask whether this Amendment is in order? The Amendment proposes to leave out the proviso in Sub-section (1) of Clause 15 and the effect of the proviso is to limit the fees and charges to such amount as is necessary to cover the expenses of the Council. The Amendment also proposes to substitute words to the effect that half the sum raised in this manner is to be devoted to scholarships. In other words, the sum to be raised must be at least double the amount necessary to cover the expenses of the Council. Is it in order at this stage of the Bill to increase the charge to be made under this Clause, because that is the effect of the Amendment?

This is not a capital charge on the Treasury. I may also say that before Mr. Speaker left the Chair I consulted him about this Amendment and he concurred in the view that the Amendment was entirely in order.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, after the second word "the," to insert the word "Privy."

This word is inserted in order to make it quite clear that the reference is to the Privy Council, and not to the Council constituted under the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:

"(iii) One representative for each five hundred and portion of additional five hundred persons on the Register not being members of either the said institute or the said association, but being corporate members of an incorporated architectural society of national scope recognised by the council as an electoral body for the purposes of this Schedule of the Act, such representatives to be elected thereafter annually in the same proportion by the governing body of the said society."

I will not waste much time on this Amendment, for two reasons. First of all, if I may say so quite jocularly, when the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) raised the point of Order just now, he was showing that he was not entirely familiar with what we were doing, and unfortunately that is true of a large number of Members, necessarily, who have not been in Committee on the Bill.

When the hon. Member makes that charge against me, perhaps he will explain what he means.

I mean what I said when I was speaking on the question of the Board of Architectural Education, that it is very difficult for us who have been dealing with this Bill upstairs to explain to Members who have not been intimately associated with it in that way the precise pros and cons of the arguments there adduced.

The hon. Member said that I did not understand the Bill. He is mistaken. I understood the Bill perfectly, and if he thinks I did not, perhaps he will explain to me where I was wrong. I was not wrong in my understanding of the Bill, but in my appreciation of the point of Order.

That is precisely what I was getting at. I said that the right hon. Gentleman had not known what had been dealt with at that time, and it was not for me, but for the Deputy-Speaker, to correct him; and, after all, my remark, as I said, was jocular. The first two paragraphs of this Schedule deal with two of the associations that exist at the present time, and those two associations do not cover even a half of the number of architects in this country. There are approximately 20,000 architects an this country, and if I give the generous number to the Royal Institute of British Architects of about 7,000 and 2,000 or 3,000 to the other associations, that only makes about 10,000, so that there are still another 10,000; and this is a provision, if there is another association formed, to enable them to become part and parcel of the General Council.

Before we pass this Amendment, I should like to comment upon the curious argument which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane). He is, I understand, a teacher, and I am very glad indeed that this wide space is between me and his pedagogic arm, because I tell the House frankly that the language that he has used to the distinguished gentleman the late foreign Secretary and to other Members of this House to-day is really intolerable. He has told us that we know nothing about the Bill, but this insolent pedagogic omniscience is not language that commends itself to the House. This particular Clause is vital to the Bill, and I feel sure that everyone will agree that we must set up a system of education and registration which is watertight. This particular Clause to which objection is taken is vital to the whole Bill, and I hope that in order to facilitate the pas- sage of the Bill, the House will accept this principle and oppose an Amendment which is really wrecking in its intention.

As will be seen from the Bill, the Schedule shows that this new council will consist of architect members, and after all, this is a Bill for the registration of architects. I therefore cannot accept the Amendment.

I should like to know—

On a point of Order. Did not the hon. Member second the Amendment?

No.

He distinctly rose and said something.

It was seconded by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken).

I certainly took the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) as seconding it.

I asked if the hon. Member opposite did second it. I certainly did not second it myself.

The hon. Member, with an impulsiveness which is rather noticeable and which I am sure all of us admire, managed to get in first. It was my intention to second the Amendment, but, seeing him rise, I naturally gave way. However, I am pleased to see that even inadvertently he has accepted the principle of the Amendment. In fact, I gather that he is asking the House to support it. My hon. Friends agree that his speech was really in support of this addition to the Schedule, and, late a recruit though he be to the penitent form, we welcome him gladly in order to strengthen our somewhat depleted forces.

This Amendment, if accepted, would very considerably shorten the discussion on the Bill, because it would mean that some of the other associations to whom it is sought to give special representation in the Schedule—which hon. Members will see we desire to alter by a considerable number of deletions—would be met by this provision. For instance, there is the Faculty of Architects, and there is the Architectural Association, and there is quite a number of somewhat small and, I think I may say, not national bodies, or semi-national bodies, which the promoters of this Bill have felt that they desire to placate by giving them representation on the Council. If this comprehensive and general Amendment is accepted, it will mean that a good many of the other deletions which we are suggesting would naturally be accepted without any long controversy or discussion.

There are more architects in the country than those who have already been brought into the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Incorporated Society of Architects and Surveyors, the Faculty of Architects, the Architectural Association, and other smaller bodies. Someone has suggested that we are legislating to-day for probably a good many years to come, and if any other association in the future get a membership of such considerable proportions as will entitle them, morally if not legally, to representation on the Council, this general Amendment will enable them to be represented. In fact, we suggest that this Sub-section would be a far better way of dealing with all the contending claims of some associations than by putting them in the Schedule as is suggested in the Bill.

What does this House know about the different organisations which are now in the Schedule? We have to take on trust the recommendations of the hon. and gallant Member who is promoting the Bill. He has never told us in Committee what these organisations are. He has never thought it necessary to give the Committee upstairs any kind of informa-

I should have thought that the main object of this Bill was to weld architects more or less into one body, and not to encourage the setting up of a large number of additional associations. After all, architects have already the choice, as is to be seen in this Schedule, of five, or, including Ulster, six different branches of architectural bodies. It seems to me that any architect can find a home in one of these existing bodies, and that there is no need to cater for a body which can only arise in the imaginations of hon. Members who propose this Amendment. In these circumstances, I hope that the House will leave the Bill as it is.