Lords Sitting of 2 February 1937

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
INDIA AND BURMA (EXISTING LAWS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EVESHAM AND PERSHORE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (PORT OF MANCHESTER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

PUBLIC RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill is designed to make better provision for the preservation, care and custody of the public records of Scotland, a subject which has aroused great interest, both historical and sentimental, of late in Scotland. Some time ago, the Convention of Royal Burghs submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland a comprehensive memorandum representing that steps should be taken to improve the existing arrangements for the care and
30
preservation of Scottish public records, and a few weeks ago the Secretary of State received a deputation from the Convention on the matter. Some of the representations by the Convention call for legislation, and it is to meet these representations that the present Bill has been introduced. Two of the most important points relate to the existing arrangements for the care of Sheriff Court records in Scotland and to certain Scottish records which are at present in London. There is a feeling that the older records of the local Sheriff Courts in Scotland should be centralised at the Record Office in Edinburgh in order to ensure better preservation and better facilities for public inspection; and it has been urged that certain records at present in London—more particularly some records which were removed from Scotland by Edward I in 1296—ought to be restored to Scotland because they are Scottish, and not English, records. Both these points require legislation, and both are dealt with in the Bill now before your Lordships.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides machinery for the transmission of Court of Justiciary and Court of Session records to the Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland. In practice these Court records are at present transmitted to the Keeper, but under a variety of confused authorities, statutory and otherwise. This clause simplifies and regularises an existing practice. Clause 2 provides for the transmission to the Keeper of Sheriff Court records of records not less than twenty-five years old (except in special cases), as may be directed by order of the Lord President of the Court of Session on the application of the Keeper and after consultation with the Sheriff concerned. The subject of Sheriff Court records was considered by the Sheriff Court Records Committee which was appointed in 1925 and reported in 1926. The Committee found that the existing provision for the custody locally of Sheriff Court records was in some respects unsatisfactory, and that the available accommodation in some Sheriff Court houses was inadequate. They accordingly recommended that the older Sheriff Court records should be transferred to the Keeper of the Registers and Records, in order that they might be kept in central custody, and under arrangements which would ensure their proper preservation and their availability

31
for inspection by the public. The present Bill makes provision on these lines.
It is, of course, clear that the whole of the Sheriff Court records of Scotland of twenty-five years old cannot immediately be transferred to the Keeper; nor is this necessary, because at some Sheriff Courts there are excellent arrangements for the care of records locally. The intention is to deal first with those Sheriff Court records which most need better provision for care, preservation and availability to the public; and to deal thereafter with the records of other Sheriff Courts in order of need, by successive steps and on systematic lines. This will avoid the risk of accumulating masses of records in the Record Office before they can be properly dealt with.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the transfer to the Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland of certain records which were removed from Scotland by Edward I in 1296, and which are at present in the Public Record Office, London. These records are described in the First Schedule, and those of your Lordships who are interested may care to glance at the list of remarkable documents which appears in that Schedule. They are properly Scottish records, and therefore should be kept in Edinburgh rather than London. The terms of the Bill on this point have been adjusted after consultation with the Master of the Rolls. It is true that the desire for the return of these records to Scotland is based on sentimental considerations, but the desire is none the less strong. It is proposed to return these records to Scotland because they are Scottish records, which Scottish people want back. The Treaty of Northampton, 1328, has however often been cited as an additional reason for their return. That Treaty, under which the King of England (Edward III) renounced all pretensions to dominion in Scotland, is preserved in the General Register House at Edinburgh. Amongst other things it provided for the restoration of all documents touching the freedom of Scotland, and some of the documents described in the First Schedule of the Bill appear to come within this category. In passing this Bill, therefore, your Lordships will have the satisfaction of knowing, not only that it returns Scottish records to Scotland in accordance
32
with the wishes of Scottish people, but that it implements the provisions of a Treaty which was concluded more than 600 years ago.
Clause 4 enables records relating exclusively or mainly to Scotland and held by any Government Department, Board of Trustees, or other body or person, to be transmitted to the Keeper if the Department or other body concerned thinks fit and if the Master of the Rolls consents (in the case of any records which may be in his legal charge and superintendence). This provides statutory authority for the transmission to the Keeper of the records of the Scottish Office, in London as well as Edinburgh, and of other Scottish Departments. These records, when no longer required for administrative purposes, should clearly go to the Record Office in Edinburgh. The clause also provides statutory authority under which there may be transferred to the Keeper, so far as may be found expedient, records relating exclusively or mainly to Scotland and held by other Government Departments—for example, United Kingdom Departments. It is not contemplated that this will lead to any considerable transfer of existing records to Scotland.
The real value of subsection (1) is that it enables arrangements to be made, by agreement, in special cases where a particular record can conveniently be sent to Edinburgh, and where that record may be of greater public interest (and of no less value to the historian) in Edinburgh than in London. It is in fact a permissive clause. Subsection (2) enables town councils and other local authorities in Scotland to send their records to the Keeper, if they so desire and the Keeper consents. Many town councils in Scotland take a great pride in their records and do not want to part with them. It is understood, however, that at least one or two town councils would be glad to transfer their records to the Keeper, and this subsection provides the necessary enabling power. Provision is made for consent by the Keeper in order to guard against the risk of the Record Office in Edinburgh being at any time swamped by an undigested mass of local authority records. Clause 5 is desired by the Master of the Rolls in order to make it clear that his

33
responsibility for any record ends when that record has been transmitted by him, or with his consent, to the Keeper.
Part III of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions designed to facilitate the work of the Record Office. Most of these are based on provisions which already apply in the case of England under the Public Record Office Acts, 1838 and 1877. I think I need trouble your Lordships with only two clauses in this Part of the Bill. Clause 8 provides for fees for inspection and search of records to be prescribed by the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt, with the approval of the Treasury. The existing fee-making powers do not cover the whole field and the comprehensive power in Clause 8, which is drawn in modern form, will serve to regularise and simplify the position. Clause II provides for the distribution of the duties of the Principal Extractor of the Court of Session, in part to the Keeper and in the main to the clerical staff of the Court of Session. It also provides that the vacant offices of Principal Extractor and Assistant Extractor shall cease to exist. The main duties of the Principal Extractor are closely associated with those of the general clerical staff of the Court of Session, and it is now found convenient to merge these duties with those of the general clerical staff. The change will effect a small economy and is opportune, as the office of Principal Extractor is about to become vacant while that of the Assistant Extractor is already vacant.
I think that these are the main provisions in this Bill which call for explanation on my part. There can be no doubt that the present arrangements in Scotland for the care and custody of public records are susceptible of improvement, and this Bill goes a long way towards making better provision for the preservation, care and custody of the public records of Scotland. I commend it to your Lordships for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of a Bill amending the Architects (Registration) Act of 1931. Your Lordships were good enough five years ago at my instance to pass the principal Act into law. That Act established a register of architects, and the register was formed by including those who were bona-fide practising architects at the time and for two or more years subsequently. The Act was entirely voluntary in its character. Any person included thereby on the register was entitled to style himself "registered architect." This amending Bill proposes to confer the title of architect simpliciter upon those who are already qualified as registered architects and upon others. The proposal follows what has commonly been done with regard to many professions in this country—the barrister, the doctor, the surgeon, the solicitor and others, whose titles so to speak are copyright. Since this Act came into force no fewer than 12,000 architects have qualified to be entered on the register as registered architects. Our object has always been that, by registration and by ensuring that future entrants upon the register are men of skill and education, the general standard of architecture shall be raised. I think that the Act has worked smoothly, and the number I quote, 12,000, is so large a percentage of the bona-fide practising architects as to indicate, in my opinion, that the Act has been well received by those to whom it applies. I do not hesitate to say that at least 90 per cent. of the registered architects are very ready to support this amending Bill, and I am very glad to add to your Lordships that the Bill has the support of a large number of prominent and influential members of the building profession.
The Bill is very modest in its compass. It only affects the use of the name or title. Anybody in future can build or construct or design a house or any other building if he so pleases, but he must not call himself an architect. In future we want the title of architect to be earned and to apply, therefore, only to qualified persons. The process is quite well recognised. The Registration Board has set up a most elaborate education committee on which, I suppose, every architectural view of education is amply represented. They sanction examinations held from time to time at Universities or colleges or elsewhere, and these Univer-

35
sity diplomas are accepted, if adequate, as entitling the successful candidate to be called a registered architect. That will apply in the future just in the same way. I would only add that, in order to do no injustice to people who are to-day practising architects, any bona-fide practising architect to-day will be entitled to be entered upon the register as an architect if he applies in the ordinary way and satisfies the admission committee that he is a bona-fide practising architect to-day. That moratorium will last for two years, in order to give those persons a chance of joining if they so desire.
Now let me say a word about precedents for this. I quoted various analogies—doctors, surgeons, dentists and so on—in this country, and with regard to the architectural profession as such I was surprised how widespread is this desire to secure some assurance that an architect shall receive as sound and adequate an education as possible. All over the Empire this prevails. For instance, it prevails in South Africa. Several States in Australia—notably New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia—have the same practice. It also prevails in Canada, in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and several other Provinces. In the United States no fewer than forty-one States have varying degrees of qualification, some of them with severe tests, tests far more severe indeed than anything proposed in this Bill. I find, my Lords, that not only in the Empire where this principle prevails, but, elsewhere, in the United States, no allegation is made that this principle has led to abuse. It has not. In fact, it is the general belief that the principle is a really good thing. The name of architect in my opinion connotes a very serious, a very solemn and a very important profession. It is a privilege, and it is a privilege which in my opinion ought to be earned. I think the public is entitled to such protection as this kind of register can give, and, moreover, everything leads one to believe that public opinion is more and more exercised by the dangers which arise from bad planning and bad architecture. We want both planning and architecture to be improved. The general feeling among the architectural profession is that registration is one step of many which will be necessary towards increasing the efficiency of the profession, the need of
36
which, as I say, is more and more generally recognised. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. The Bill proposes really to complete what the Act of 1931 began. As the noble Earl has said, registration under the Act is voluntary, and after five years experience of the operation of the Act it has been found that it has not quite met the purpose for which it was passed and that the interests of the public and of the profession have not been safeguarded in the manner contemplated. The Act proceeded, no doubt wisely, by making registration voluntary. It was opening up new ground and it was therefore advisable that it should proceed with caution. Voluntary registration however has still left grievances and the present proposal is to remove those grievances. What is proposed, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl, is that persons who have passed certain examinations should be admitted to the register and should be required to register. It is also proposed that those who have not passed such examinations, but who are in practice at the passing of the Bill, should be entitled to come forward and be registered. They have two years in which to make up their minds, and in that respect the Bill follows the precedent of the Act of 1931, which also gave two years for the purpose of registration by those who were not qualified by examination to become registered architects.
What one always feels about a Bill of this kind is that the public interest may be ill served. It may be said that this Bill no doubt protects the profession, but what about the public. If one looks at the constitution of various bodies set up under the Act of 1931 I think it will be seen that that question is completely answered. The Act of 1931 set up three distinct bodies. It set up a Registration Council which has to prepare and keep the register. It set up a Board of Architectural Education which has to apply the regulations in regard to examinations and also to advise on examinations. The third body is an Admission Committee, which has to examine every application for registration. Unlike the solicitors' profession and the medical profession and other professions, these bodies are not

37
confined to the architectural profession, and that is the chief ground on which I support this Bill, inasmuch as it enables these various bodies to get advice from outside the profession.
For example, the Registration Council consists of members of the profession and kindred professions, and also representatives from the Institute of Builders, from the National Federation of Building Employers and from the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, as well as from certain other bodies. In addition to that, various Government Departments appoint representatives, such as the Board of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Office of Works, the Scottish Department of Health and the Governor of Northern Ireland. With regard to architectural education, there again outside persons are members, such as representatives of the Institute of Builders, which appoints two members, the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, which also appoints two members, and other bodies such as the Royal Academy and the Royal Society of Arts. The Admission Committee also has representatives of outside bodies. It seems to me that in these circumstances the interests of the public are properly safeguarded. I support the Bill because to my mind it will, in the first place, raise the status of the architectural profession, and, secondly, it will safeguard the public. There is only one other observation I should like to make. This Bill does not prevent any one from designing or planning a building, provided that he does not hold himself out as an architect.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I think it right that I should say a few words about this Bill on behalf of the Government, although I fear that I shall not be able to help your Lordships to come to any very definite conclusion, because I do not intend to deal with the Bill on its merits at all. I say that not because the Government are not fully aware of the importance of the Bill. We are as aware as anybody else that of architects it is particularly true, owing to the solidity of their material, that the evils that they do live after them. At the same time I feel that I should express regret on behalf of the Government—a regret which I have no doubt is shared by the mover of this Bill—that so little time and so little notice
38
have been given for it to be ventilated in the public Press and examined by public opinion. Although the noble Earl who moved this Bill described it as a very modest measure, no one knows more than he that in fact it is highly controversial. I think I can prove how controversial it is by recounting to your Lordships its history: how it began and bow it is now proposed to end.
This Bill dates back to 1927, ten years ago, when a Bill was introduced in another place which provided that no one should practise under any name, title or style containing the words "architect," "architecture" or "architectural" unless he was a registered person. Ten years ago that proposal was hotly and fiercely debated on Second Reading in another place, and in consequence a Select Committee was set up which made many Amendments to the original Bill, but finally decided not to report the Bill to the House because the final vote of the Committee did not represent the Committee's real views. Your Lordships can therefore see how very hotly debated the Bill was. At the same time that Select Committee recommended that another Bill should be introduced giving effect to their recommendations and their Amendments, and, in fact, in 1928 such a Bill was introduced and, in 1931, was passed.
That Bill provided that no one could call himself a registered architect unless he had been approved and registered by the Registration Council. That in itself, it seems to me, was a considerable step in the direction which the Royal Institute of British Architects desire to take. They have that protection now, and they have had it for only five years. They always regarded that step as a preliminary; they made no bones about it before the Select Committee. One of their witnesses, Major Barnes, said in his examination:
"What we were desiring to get—
he was referring to the 1927 Bill—
"represents what we believe in the course of time we will get public opinion to concur in, but it has been made evident to us that we have not arrived at that stage yet and probably may not for some considerable length of time."
it is quite clear that this Bill revives the whole of that old controversy of ten years ago, the controversy of whether the word

39
"architect" should be protected in the public interest. It was hotly criticised on Second Reading in 1927. The Select Committee decided that in the public interest it was not necessary so to protect the word "architect."
Therefore, without saying anything whatever about the merits of the Bill, I feel that it is clearly for your Lordships to decide upon the merits of the speeches you have heard this afternoon whether a case has been made out for the necessity, in the public interest, of protecting the word "architect," and that after only five years of the protection of the words "registered architect." Secondly, it is for your Lordships to decide whether there is in fact any unanimity in the architectural profession itself as to whether this protection is desirable. As your Lordships have probably received a circular from an association which is a member of the Registration Council protesting against this Bill, it seems unlikely that any such unanimity can exist. Considering the immense opposition there was less than ten years ago to a Bill of this character, it seems prima facie unlikely that such unanimity exists. Therefore your Lordships must clearly decide this matter for yourselves, and on its merits. In view of the fact that these very controversial questions have not been sufficiently ventilated in public and that there seems grave doubt whether the architectural profession is unanimous in support of the Bill, I am afraid that, should your Lordships decide to pass this Bill, the Government will not be able to promise at this stage any facilities for it in another place.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I have no right to speak and I shall not try to do so, but I should like to assure the noble Marquess that if I had known he had felt so bitterly hostile to the Bill, and if he had told me that the Notice was inadequate—the Bill has been down for over a week—I should have been very happy to postpone it for a fortnight.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIREARMS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY (POWERS) MEASURE, 1937.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Queen Anne's Bounty (Powers) Measure, 1937, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name. I need not detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes in explaining that this is purely an administrative Measure, and pointing out what it does. Queen Anne's Bounty, as your Lordships know, make a good many payments to a good many incumbents, the principal one being the dividend which they receive on behalf of the incumbents from the tithe stock. They also make a number of payments, some of specific investments for particular benefices, some by charges upon their common fund which accrue at various stages through the year, so that they have been accustomed to make these payments in varying amounts, and five or six times or more, to a particular incumbent, in the course of a year. On the other hand, it is their duty to receive certain payments from the incumbents for their liability under the Pensions Measure, for their assessments in respect of dilapidations or mortgage repayments and the like.
The Measure proposes that all the sums which Queen Anne's Bounty is liable to pay to any particular incumbent in any year shall be totalled together in one sum, and all the payments that it is required to deduct because they are due from the incumbent shall in the same way be totalled together in one; and that when the deductions are taken from the amount which the Bounty has to pay, the residue shall be divided into four equal sums, and on every quarter day an incumbent shall receive a quarter of the net income that he will get from the Bounty in the course of the year. Obviously that would be very much to everybody's convenience, and it will have this additional advantage in the case of incumbents, that all of them will receive some of their income in advance of the date on which they would otherwise do so, because most of the dividends are payable half-yearly, and the first quarterly

41
payment would be made a quarter before it would now become due. In order that the expenses of administration may be met there is power given to the Bounty to charge the better paid benefices with a very small sum—less than one-half per cent. of what they pay to the incumbents—to meet those administrative expenses.
The other part of the Measure concerns the tithe stock which Queen Anne's Bounty would receive for the ecclesiastical corporations, that is for Deans and Chapters; and inasmuch as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners deal in all other respects with the incomes of Deans and Chapters it is thought convenient and advisable that Queen Anne's Bounty should be empowered to hand over to the Commissioners such stock as shall be given to them on behalf of these
42
ecclesiastical corporations. Those are the two sections of the Measure—one of an administrative character—which has received the unanimous support of the Church Assembly, and I hope your Lordships will feel that it is right that it should be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Queen Anne's Bounty (Powers) Measure, 1937, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.