§ As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
§ CLAUSE 1.—(Use of title "Architect.")
§ 11.7 a.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
I beg to move. in page 2, line 16, to leave out from the second "the," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, or the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 5937.As the Bill stands, its provisions apply to some local authorities and not to others, and we have the anomalous position that a local authority in an area with, perhaps, 2,000 inhabitants will have exemption, whereas a local authority which controls an area with, perhaps, 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 people will not. A catchment board functioning over an area so large that a penny rate will raise £150,000 will not be able to have exemption under this Act, whereas a small local authority, where a penny rate raises, perhaps, no more than £200, will get exemption. It is in order to do away with such anomalies that it is proposed in this Amendment to introduce the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, because under that Act a local authority is defined as:The council of a county, county borough, metropolitan borough or county district, the common council of the City of London and any other local authority within the meaning of the Local Loans Act, 1875.The introduction of the Local Loans Act, 1875, will obviate the anomalies which otherwise the Measure would create.
§ CLAUSE 2.—(Date of application for registration.)
§ 11. 10 a.m.
Mr. Edmund Harvey
I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert:or in any part of the British Empire.It is not in any spirit hostile to what I believe to be a most valuable Measure that I am moving this Amendment, but I think that the framers of the Bill have overlooked a possibility of hardship and 1894 injustice which I am sure they would not wish to happen in the case of an architect who has been practising for a long time in the Dominions, or India, or in some of our Colonies, and has then for personal reasons, possibly for reasons of family or health, come back to England and still has the probability of being able to do very good architectural work for a number of years. It would be a great pity if such a man were placed in the position of young students of 20 or 21, and I feel sure the framers of the Bill would be willing to meet a case of this kind. We want to see the widest possible interchange of professional thought in the Empire. Great services may be rendered by men who have had this Empire experience. We have in this House a distinguished architect who has had a large overseas practice. I will not bring a blush to his face by indicating his name. We all know that the profession has gained greatly by such experience, and I hope that it will be possible to meet the case I have put forward. There may not be many men in this position, but I think the Bill should provide for them.
§ Sir Robert Tasker
I beg to second the Amendment.
As I understand that the Amendment is to be accepted, I do not propose to weary the House with any comments.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ 11.13 a.m.
§ Sir R. Tasker
I wish to raise a point of Order before we come to the Third Reading. No provision seems to have been made in the Standing Orders for Private Members' Bills, and perhaps because of that oversight, 15 Members who had been selected to serve on the Committee which considered this Bill found themselves in the position of receiving only 24 hours' notice of the meeting of the Committee. I have consulted Erskine May's volume on Parliamentary practice, but that seems to be singularly silent about the procedure in the case of a Private Members' Bill. All that I can find is a reference to Private Bills, and 1895 I understand there is a distinction between a Private Bill and a Private Member's Bill. The Selection Committee having chosen the Members, the Chairman of the Committee, of whose conduct I am not complaining, then fixed the day for the first meeting, and the day selected left those Members with only 24 hours in which to prepare for their work on the Committee. A reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings shows that three Members requested that the Committee might be adjourned in order that there might be more time, and I do know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), who very much desired to take part in the proceedings, was unable to do so. I wish to know whether some steps can be taken to ensure that Members have reasonable time in which to make preparations to perform their duties on a Committee.
As I understand it, the hon. Member is complaining that there is an omission in the Standing Orders, that there is nothing in Standing Orders as to the interval that should be allowed between the appointment of Members to a Committee and the sitting of the Committee. It is a question, therefore, of amending the Standing Orders.
§ Sir R. Tasker
May I then ask for your guidance? I confess that I am at a loss to know how I am to alter these Standing Orders.
I suggest that the hon. Member might consider putting a Motion upon the Order Paper proposing to make the alterations which he considers necessary.
§ 11.16 a.m.
§ Mr. Muff
I was observing that, having served upon the Committee, I did not wish to detain the House or even to oppose the Third Reading; but, now that we have reached the Third Reading of the Bill which consolidates this body, the Royal Institute of British Architects, I venture to hope that the Institute will use its new powers mercifully. We have not been able to raise the question of examinations on this Bill and I shall not raise it this morning, nor have we been able to raise the question of the sum which is vested for ensuring that young students may be helped with scholarships 1896 in order to become successful architects. I recognise that the Institute has a prevailing interest in the administration of this matter which should not be wholly theirs. I make a final appeal that the Royal Institute of British Architects will administer their great, vested, preponderating interests to the benefit of this great profession. Some of their members have been responsible in the past, just as others have been, for monstrosities in the construction of buildings, but I hope they will use mercifully the increased power, which they are now receiving as an addition to their already almost overwhelming power, upon those who have also contributed to making our buildings more beautiful.
§ 11.18 a.m.
§ Mr. Viant
I rise to make a few observations in opposition to the Bill. I was a Member of this House in 1926 when a similar Bill was first introduced, and I opposed it with others on that occasion. We were successful, as we had been before a Select Committee for some considerable time, in obtaining various concessions in respect of the framing of that Bill. Speaking for myself, and quite a number of others who have strenuously opposed this Bill at each stage, I want it to be understood that we take no exception whatever to the setting up of a standard for the profession. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We are evidently all agreed upon that. I want the House to be aware that many hon. Members who have not been present and listened to the Debates have voted for the Bill because they desire a standard of architecture, and of qualification for those who wish to enter the profesion.
Arguments were used on the Second Reading against ribbon development of the kind that has been taking place in our cities and towns; many Members of the Royal Institute of British Architects have engaged in and lent themselves to ribbon development. As a matter of fact, numerous Members of the Institute are responsible for the abortions which go by the name of architecture disfiguring our cities and towns to-day. I said on the Second Reading that no building in this country was so degrading to the name of architecture as the headquarters of the Royal Institute of British Architects in Portland Place. It seems in keeping with the machine age and mass production, 1897 I agree, but there are no aesthetic qualities about it whatever.
The Bill has been advanced with a view to safeguarding the profession of architecture. How are you going to do it? The House is handing over to the Royal Institute a monopoly. The 2,500 architects with equal qualifications who are members of the Incorporated Institute of Architects and Surveyors have no say in respect to examinations and to the standards that should be set up. I wonder what would have happened in this House if the Mineworkers Federation had come here and sought a charter such as we are giving this morning, to confer upon them the right to give mining certificates to their members. This House would have been up in arms and would have cast the proposal out immediately, but by this Bill we are giving the power to the Royal Institute to hand out certificates for architecture to all and sundry who subscribe to their examinations. That is not by any means safeguarding architecture. I want the House to be aware of precisely what we are doing in this regard. If the Federation of Building Industries had attempted this procedure, we should have cast it out.
We are too willing—and this criticism includes many of my colleagues on this side of the House—to grant to professional organisations charters which they have no right to expect in a democratic country. Furthermore, will the Bill make it easier for the young man or young woman possessing qualifications in architecture to get into the profession? I say that it will not. The manner in which the scholarship scheme is being administered should not in any sense inspire the House with confidence. Questions were placed on the Order Paper yesterday by myself seeking information from the Home Secretary in respect of the administration of the scholarship fund. According to the replies given by the right hon. Gentleman he has no jurisdiction in regard to the manner in which the scholarship fund is administered. But, when the Bill was going through Committee, the Committee was led to believe that the Home Secretary would watch the manner in which these funds were being administered. I think we are entitled to take exception to the administration of a fund in this way. The amount awarded for scholarships in 1935 was £156 10s., but the adminis 1898 tration costs amounted to £308 10s., and the average age of the persons to whom the scholarships were awarded was 20.
The hon. Member is now referring to a matter which is not in the Bill, and which, therefore, is not in Order on the Third Reading.
§ Mr. Viant
I mentioned it by virtue of the fact that this is legislation by reference. The original Act embodies the scholarship scheme, and it is not possible to consider the merits of this Bill as apart from the original Act. That is my reason for mentioning the manner in which the scholarship fund has been administered and the small number of those who are benefiting from it. I bow to your Ruling, but that is the reason why I referred to the matter.
§ Mr. Viant
I bow to your Ruling. The next point that I want to make is this: When the Bill leaves this House, the House will have no further power in regard to it. The charter will have been conferred, and the Home Secretary admitted in his replies yesterday that he has no jurisdiction over the manner in which the charter is administered by the organisation upon which these powers are conferred. In my view, our educational system for the training of architects is entirely wrong. I speak as one who has been associated with the industry, from my apprenticeship days upwards, for over 40 years.
§ Mr. Viant
The building industry. I know many of our young men who have gone through their apprenticeship, who attended evening classes and obtained all the technical knowledge which enabled them to obtain their City Guilds certificate. They obtained that certificate with honours in building construction, and no one could be more capable or more efficient in preparing, not theoretical plans, but working plans. Over and over again it has happened that those who have had charge of work have had to prepare their working drawings from the original drawings, because the architects were unable to prepare for them a working drawing, for the reason that they had had no practical training whatever. If architects are 1899 to be efficient, they should spend a portion of their time in being trained in the workshop, so that they may have some practical as well as theoretical experience. The educational system provided for in this Bill does not give that.
Again, the architect, like the artist, is not a manufactured article. The artist is born, and the potential architect also should be discovered in his younger days. The architect, equally with the artist, should have some aesthetic qualities. If our architecture is to be improved, it will be along those lines, and we should be seeking our students of architecture among the younger people, and not among those who have reached the age of 22 or 23, as is the case here. On broad general grounds I contend that the House is doing wrong in conferring this charter upon one professional organisation while others with equal ability and an equal standard of efficiency are ignored. Furthermore, I would suggest that, the architects having succeeded in this regard, other industries, trade unions and so on would be equally justified in seeking a similar charter from this House. I do not expect that they would get it, because we know quite well the attitude that would be taken up by our opponents, but none the less the House should be aware of the wrong it is committing to-day, and I hope that a substantial number of Members will go into the Lobby against the Bill.
§ 11.32 a.m.
§ Mr. Lyons
There is a good deal in what has been said by the last two speakers that I should like to endorse. You have declined, Mr. Speaker, to call the Amendments which were put down in the names of certain of my hon. Friends and myself, and therefore I conceive that it would not be right for me now to deal with the matters to which those Amendments related; but I would like to point out to the House that this is a Bill torestrict the use of the name Architect to Registered Architects and to extend the time within which practising architects may apply for registration.I hope the House will realise that, in addition to the points raised by the last speaker, the Bill restricts others in an extraordinary way and, as I see it, confines the vested interests already given to one society of architects, reaffirming to them rights which nobody else is allowed 1900 to have, and it may well be that it will deny that equality of opportunity which the House would like to see in so many other circumstances. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about your own profession? "] There is no comparison between the two. I should not be in Order in discussing the facts which enable me to say that with authoritative detail, but there is no denial of opportunity whatever in my profession. It seems to me that this Bill is very closely associated with the Act of 1931, but it fails to carry out the intention of Parliament as expressed in that Act, and makes no provision —
§ Mr. Bossom
I wonder if my hon. and learned Friend would explain to the House how many of the annual examinations are held by the body to which he is referring, and how many are held by other bodies in this country?
§ Mr. Lyons
I do not know whether I should be in order in dealing with that, because it is one of the very topics dealt with in the Amendments which you, Sir, have declined to call, but, if it were in order, I could enlarge upon it in great detail. Perhaps I might put it in this way. The examination involved by the Act of 1931, apparently, has never been put into force, and, if this kind of thing is going to continue, it will make the vested interest of which others have already spoken even more unfair than it may be at the present moment. I would ask the House to realise what the implications of the Bill are, and the hardships it will entail on many people, and to consider even now whether the exceptions provided for at the end of Clause 1 (1), such as, for example, the non-application of the Bill to a person who is a member of the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, will make for any of the good work that was claimed to be within the ambit of the Bill by those who spoke on its behalf when it was first introduced. There are many objections to this Bill in its present form. It will do a certain amount of injustice to many people, for whom this House desires to create no injustice. It will confer on others benefits which it may well be said are merely an extension of vested interests to one section which is not prejudiced in any degree by the present position. But if this Bill is accepted as it is, I join in the hope that 1901 the powers conferred may be used wisely, and as equitably as possible.
§ 11.36 a.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore
I find it very difficult to answer some of the speeches which have been made, because they seem to suggest that there is much more in the Bill than there really is. This Bill is introduced simply to undo a grievous harm which was committed in the 1931 Act, which is the principal Act. In that Act, towards the end of the proceedings, we were forced, for reasons of time, to insert the word "registered" in front of the word "architects ". We were rather unhappy about that, because anyone who was on the register was obviously a registered architect; but in order to save time we accepted the Amendment. The general public do not realise the difference between the words "registered architect" and the word "architect ". If they see that any man has a brass plate with the word "architect" on it, they assume that he has all the qualifications and knowledge of a registered architect. Therefore, we have been forced to take this opportunity of rectifying that position. In order that no disadvantage shall be caused to anyone, we also extend up to two years the period in which those who desire to register can do so.
If I were to embark on a reply to some of the statements made by the hon. Member opposite and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) it would take more time than I propose to occupy; but I will say that it is totally wrong to go always on the lines that the Royal Institute of British Architects are the criminals of the piece. It is the largest architectural body in the world. Owing to its high status and great reputation, every good architect wants to belong to it, with the result that it has more members than any other architectural organisation, by a long way. To call it a villain, animated by dark purposes against the very body that it exists to protect, is totally wrong. I would point out that that on the council which is a statutory body set up by the 1931 Act, the Royal Institute take only their proper and legitimate part. We have five members on it representative of the Treasury Bench, and there is also representation for the Government of Northern Ireland. Will the House believe that all 1902 these crooked transactions in regard to bursaries and scholarships are taking place when these people are on the Council? It is casting a slur on them.
§ Sir T. Moore
They are perfectly capable of explanation, as hon. Members know. I think I should be out of Order in going into them, because that would be going back on the debate we had in 1931. It was actually overlooked when the Act was passed that six months must elapse before any money at all was got in by the Council. We had to get an Act passed in order to enable the Architectural Council to collect sufficient reserves to enable them to carry out the very specific functions set out in the Act. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) went on to attack the Board of Architectural Education. There are members representative of this very body on that board, and I think that its present president is one of the strongest supporters of this Bill, the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). I think the building industry cannot be completely and fairly represented by the hon. Member for West Willesden; otherwise we should not have the hon. Member for East Woolwich so strong in his advocacy of this Measure. We have, as hon. Members know, a desire to ensure that the general architectural and creative standards of architecture shall go up. It is only by such means as this that we shall eliminate slums and ribbon development.
All that the Architectural Council insist upon is a minimum technical standard. As regards their own development, architects may go on their own lines; but the council insist on this minimum standard. That is why there are certain bodies which are not yet recognised as being proper bodies for examination purposes. If they have not yet submitted a test examination which is accepted by this wide body of headmasters and schoolmistresses, the Cooperative Union and other organisations representative of our national life, these people have decided that such bodies are not sufficiently equipped to have their examinations recognised. As soon as they conform to the standard they will be recognised by this board. Architecturally, 1903 we have come to the end of one long period and are starting a new one. I hope that, for the whole countryside, it will mean a change for the better. We have been too long at the mercy of people with insufficient knowledge and no architectural education. We have an opportunity for young architects to take part in the reconstruction of our countryside and great cities. We believe that, by this Bill, we are enabling these architects to enter into their heritage and provide new creative work for the benefit of our people. The public themselves will be the first to benefit by the Bill. When a public authority goes to an architect in future, it will know that not only has he artistic instincts but the necessary technical education.
§ 11.44 a.m.
§ Sir R. Tasker
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) has followed the usual practice of indulging in a little romance. Let me just point one or two misstatements he has made—no doubt innocently, but very ignorantly. I do not say that offensively. I cannot be expected to take quite the same view of architecture as my hon. and gallant Friend. He says that all the best architects belonged to the Royal Institute of British Architects. [Interruption.] I wrote down his words.
§ Sir R. Tasker
I will put it this way and say that they would liked to belong to the Royal Institute of British Architects. I have here a list of some of the most eminent architects this country ever produced who were not members of that Institute—Roland Anderson, John Bentley, Geo. F. Bodley, W. Butterfield, Basil Champneys, Somers Clarke, Horace Field, Thomas Garner, Herbert Horne, T. G. Jackson, Gilbert Scott, and Norman Shaw. I could go on like this and give scores of names of architects, some of whom were elected to the Royal Academy because of their architectural qualifications.
We were retold the story of the architect with the brass plate. I know a great many architects, but I do not know any of them who puts out a brass plate. There may be such people in existence, but I would ask the House whether any 1904 Member seriously thinks that anyone would go into a man's office to ask him to spend thousands of his money because he had a brass plate outside his door. He would want to know something about the reputation and work of the architect before he entrusted him with the expenditure of his money. A reference was made to crooked transactions. The hon. gentleman the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) did not suggest that there had been crooked transactions; no one has ever suggested it. Does my hon. and gallant Friend know of any?
§ Sir T. Moore
The pamphlets issued by certain bodies, which, I believe, the hon. Member represents, asserted very distinctly that there were actions which would not bear investigation, and if that does not mean crooked actions I do not know what does.
§ Sir R. Tasker
I deny that emphatically and say that my hon. and gallant Friend's terminology is most inexact. No documents can be produced alleging crooked financial transactions. The hon. Member for West Willesden said that certain moneys were expended for scholarships and criticised administration costs, but I must not pursue that because Mr. Speaker has already indicated that such matters cannot be introduced. No one has suggested what the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) referred to when he said that nobody had dipped his fingers into the till. I am very indignant that this sort of suggestion should be thrown out, in order to create a kind of atmosphere detrimental to those who are opposing the Bill. The Bill is not so innocent as it would appear to be. It restricts the use of the name "architect" to registered architects, and extends the time within which a practising architect may apply for registration. It is an accurate and proper description to say that it is a Bill which requires those who are to legislate and vote upon it to study the principal Act as it is legislation by reference.
I do not suggest to the House that the State will be overthrown if the Bill is passed or that it will be overthrown if the Bill is rejected. I do not suggest for a moment that it will affect my practice. I know that it will not. It will not affect the practice of men who have gone through the workshop. I agree with the 1905 hon. Member opposite who said that the proper place in which to begin training as an architect is in the workshop. It is there that you learn what may be done with materials and how to use them. One can afterwards go into an office and learn draughtsmanship. No one ever became a great architect who did not know a good deal about the material which he was called upon to use in the construction of his building. One would think, in listening to those who advocate this Bill so strongly, that they are afraid of those Tapers and Tadpoles who obtain little commissions which those who have made any mark at all in the profession do not covet and do not want.
Will this Bill alter ribbon development or bad building? No, Sir, it will make no alteration. Precisely the same people who are doing bad designing to-day will go on doing bad designing in future. They will submit their plans to the local authority and the local authority will pass them. Members of this House who have served on local authorities and have taken part in passing building plans will support me when I say that, provided that plans are in accordance with the by-laws, the building Acts, or the regulations, approved by the Ministry of Health, the local authorities have no right to refuse such plans. All that they can do is to see that their inspectors make quite sure that some kind of resemblance to skilled operative work is employed in the erection of the property.
I believe that those who are responsible for running the Royal Institute of British Architects must spend a lot of their time in contemplation. They pose as the Yogis of the profession. It is regrettable and deplorable that the busy practitioner has no time to spare to guide, govern and control architecture. I am not a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but I object very strongly to anybody belonging to any institution reviling those who follow the same practice, and saying "He is not in my institute; he is therefore a blackleg or a bad egg." The Bill will not enable a poor boy or a poor girl to get into the profession. Many hon. Members know about Polytechnic institutions and art schools. It ought not to be necessary that the parents should be compelled to spend large fees year after year in one of the special architectural schools or, 1906 alternatively, to spend a large sum of money by way of premium.
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) is present, because it affords me an opportunity of exposing the references which he once made to influence Members of this House. My hon. Friend has referred to the squares of Bloomsbury and to the nobility of the buildings, and so on. There is only one square in Bloomsbury, and that is Bloomsbury Square. The only good architechtural building in Bloomsbury Square is one that has been erected in the last 20 years. which occupies the whole of the east side. There is another building of fair average merit, which is occupied by the Royal Society of Literature. All the rest of the buildings are speculative buildings of the last century of ordinary London stocks and stucco.
§ Sir R. Tasker
I will retrace my steps, from the contemplation of Bloomsbury and come back to the House of Commons. Reference has been made to the Board of Architectural Education, to whom is entrusted by the Registration Council, certain duties. The Board of Architectural Education consists of 75 persons. One would assume that the Board would carry out their duties and hold examinations, but the House may be interested to know that it has never yet held an examination. The Board has approved certain schools but I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) will confirm this—it has been alleged that those schools are dominated by members of the Royal Institute of British Architects. That may be a good or a bad thing, and they ought not to be condemned because they are controlled by members of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I should be the last person in the world to condemn them, but it does bring about a position of affairs that appears undesirable. The examinations ought not to be conducted on lines which really make the student learn how to pass—to please the examiners of his school, and cram up the things he is sure to be asked, the teacher becomes subordinated to the examiner. Teaching has to follow examinations and pupils form the habit of looking to examination as the true end of education.
§ Sir R. Tasker
I was attempting to drag in that reference, because one cannot become registered unless he passes an examination, and I hoped that I should be in Order. If I am not in Order I will leave that subject. I would ask the House not to give to a particular body such big powers as are provided in this Bill. The House ought to hesitate before creating a monopoly. We believe that democracy and democratic government are best; but this is autocratic government. It is a kind of Hitlerism in architecture. The Bill makes no attempt to cultivate and develop architecture but to convert it into a monopolistic trade making a business of art. It is forging a weapon to coerce everyone into the fold of the Institute. It is handing over a great profession to a small group of people. The people who should be encouraged are the artist architects, and not the men who slavishly copy things that appear in the building papers. If I thought the Bill would be of service to the building community, which is the biggest industry in the Kingdom, I would heartily support it, but because of its narrow, cramped and confined ideas, which only strengthen the hold of one particular institution on a profession and an industry, I feel bound to oppose the Bill.
§ 12.3 p.m.
§ Mr. Ammon
I shall not detain the House long in what I have to say on this Bill as there is another to follow which affects the lives and the work of a great number of people. The first thing that we have to remember in discussing this Bill is that the House has already considered the question at length on at least two former occasions, and has approved legislation by the overwhelming majority of four to one, the present Bill has come unscathed through Committee. The Bill ought to commend itself to the House. There are two particular points to which I should like to refer. One is the position of the Committee and the other is the possibilities of people of humble circumstances being able to reach heights in the profession. My hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) was unfortunate in his reference to the miners, and his statement that there was no examination with regard to them.
§ Mr. Ammon
They would not have to go through the School of Mining. The position in regard to mining is somewhat similar to the present case. There is a committee which has to consider the examination for the granting of mine managers' certificates, which are given after examination on various subjects relating to the theory and practice of mining. They must have practical experience and pay a fee of two guineas. The examinations are conducted by a board of mining examiners, containing representatives of mineowners and of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) is one of the members; the right hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) is another member, and a former member of this House, Will Lawther, is a member. Therefore, from that point of view the hon. Member's analogy breaks down completely.
Let me turn to the architects' profession. On the proposed council you will have all the education authorities, the London County Council, representatives of the workers and also representatives of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society. In regard to what the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) has said, I took upon myself, after the discussion which took place in the House, to go to a presentation of prizes by the Architects' Association in order to hear what was said. The prizes were presented by a distinguished French architect, and the man who received the first prize had come through the Liverpool Art School. Afterwards I had a talk with him, and he said that he was the son of a South Wales miner and that his father had never earned more than £3 a week, but by the self-denial of his parents and the winning of scholarships he had been able to reach that point. The majority of the people who were successful on that occasion had come from humble circumstances, through evening schools. May I quote from the speech I made on the Second Reading of the Bill? I do not think my statements can be challenged. I said: 1909A large number of those who have passed these examinations have attended evening classes or have been able to study at home, or have taken correspondence courses. I will give the figures. There were 215 successful candidates at the two Royal Institute of British Architects examinations held in 1936, and of these 128 trained themselves by attending evening clases, while the remaining 87 studied at home or took correspondence courses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1937, Col. 1558, Vol. 330.]In the face of evidence like that, to say that a barrier is put up against those who come from humble homes is a misuse of language.
§ Mr. Benjamin Smith
Will the hon. Member tell the House the number of children of school-leaving age who have been granted scholarships in this particular association?
§ Mr. Ammon
The answer, of course, is that this is arranged for those who come from secondary schools, but there is nothing to prevent children passing from elementary schools to secondary schools, as all these successful candidates did. In no case do children pass direct from the elementary school into the professions. In the Post Office itself even telegraph messengers have to go through a course of education. I submit that, in view of the evidence before us, it is rather wasting the time of the House to pursue any opposition to this Measure on what I may call a purely factional line, especially having regard to the importance of the Measure.
§ 12.10 p.m.
§ Sir Reginald Clarry
In common with most other hon. Members I have been the victim of lobbying and much corre
§ spondence in regard to this Bill, and it seems to me that so far as the opposition to it is concerned it is much ado about nothing, and largely emanates from personal feelings. In a word, the Bill corrects a disability of the 1931 Act, and is generally in the national interest. I have much pleasure in supporting the Third Reading.
§ 12.11 p.m.
§ Mr. Bossom
We should all feel very sorry if we did not express our gratitude to the late hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), who when he was quite ill accepted the responsibility of introducing this Bill as a result of the Ballot. He is no longer with us, but we are much in his debt for assuming this task. I want also to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Home Office officials for their courtesy and help in putting the Measure into shape. We are by this Measure joining up with the remainder of the Empire, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many of the Crown Colonies who already have similar legislation. I hope that in the course of the years this Measure will cause the public to refuse to accept illiterate architecture, from which we unfortunately have suffered in the past, but which will now I trust pass away. I am not going to say any more, but I would like to thank the House for the consideration it has given to the Measure, to which I hope they will now give the Third Reading.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 32.1911
|Division No. 201.]||AYES.||[12.12 p.m.|
|Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)||Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Chater, D.||Ellis, Sir G.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Chorlton, A. E. L.||Elliston, Capt. G. S.|
|Allen, Ll.-Coi. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)||Clarry, Sir Reginald||Entwistle, Sir C. F.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Cove, W. G.||Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||Fildes, Sir H.|
|Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.||Crossley, A. C.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.|
|Barr, J.||Crowder, J. F. E.||Grant-Ferris, R.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Davidson, Viscountess||Green, W. H. (Deptford)|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Davies, R. J. (Weslhoughton)||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Benson, G.||Davison, Sir W. H.||Grenfell, D. R.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Gridley, Sir A. B.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Dobbis W.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Doland, G. F.||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Brawn, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Dower, Major A. V. G.||Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)|
|Bull, B. B.||Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)|
|Burke, W. A.||Dngdale, Captain T. L.||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Duncan, J. A. L.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.|
|Cape, T.||Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Hannah, I. C.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)||Eckersley, P. T.||Harris, Sir P. A.|
|Channon, H.||Edmo[...]son, Major Sir J.||Harvey, Sir G,|
|Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)||Edwards, Sir C (Bedwellty)||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)|
|Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Markham, S. F.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Marshall, F.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwish)|
|Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Horsbrugh, Florenes||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Messer, F.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Hulbert, N. J.||Montague, F.||Storey, S.|
|Hunter, T.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Hurd, Sir P. A.||Munro, P.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Hutchinson, G. C.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Joel, D. J. B.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|John, W.||Palmer, G. E. H.||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Parker, J.||Thorne, W.|
|Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Parkinson, J. A.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Pearson, A.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)||Perkins, W. R. D.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Kimball, L.||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Kirby, B. V.||Pritt, D. N.||Watt, Major G. S. Harvie|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Poole, C. C.||Wells, S. R.|
|Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.||White, H. Graham|
|Leach, W.||Ramsbotham, H.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Leslie, J. R.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)|
|Liddall, W. S.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Remer, J. R.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Wise, A. R.|
|McCorquodale, M. S.||Ridley, G.||Withers, Sir J. J.|
|Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Ritson, J.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Russell, Sir Alexander||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|McKie, J. H.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Mr. Bossom and Lieut.-Colonel|
|Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.||Samuel, M. R. A.||Sir Thomas Moore.|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir M||Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Hardie, Agnes||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Stephen, C.|
|Banfield, J. W.||McEntee, V. La T.||Summerskill, Edith|
|Batey, J.||McGhee, H. G.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Broad, F. A.||Macquisten, F. A.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
|Butcher, H. W.||Maxton, J.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Muff, G.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Daggar, G.||Paling, W.||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Day, H.||Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Seely, Sir H. M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Groves, T. E.||Shinwell, E.||Mr. Viant and Sir Robert Tasker.|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.