ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 2 February 1937)

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.

§ 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.