1425
6
7
9
1430
(109)
Q-Then, Mr. LEIGH, you signed a letter to the Government, as one of the lead- ing engineers here, with regard to the question of the inspection of buildings, and the suggestion made was that there should be only responsible men entrusted with such
work?
A-Yes.
Q-In effect, that nobody should be allowed to carry on business unless properly qualified, and that responsibility should rest upon the architect?
A-I think no Member of the Institute of British Architects or of the Institute of Civil Engineers would like to be associated with collapses or failure. He would do his best to avoid them. Accidents may happen to anybody, but when it comes to a China- man who was only a tracer in my own office making out a plan for a building, absolu- tely ignorant of all laws of construction whatever, and so long as that drawing conformns in its outlines to the Building Ordinance, it must be passed by the Public Works Department; no one looks after the building. The plans are handed over to a Chinese contractor, and the building is run up. No Government supervision, (unless the Gov- ernment are prepared to put overseers on every job) will ensure correct designing and sound building. The only way is for the architect to be responsible.
By Mr. Shewan.-What constitutes a properly qualified architect ?
A-Anybody can sign C. E. to his name, or anybody can sign himself an archi- tect. In the letter we wrote to Government we suggested that any one who was a member or associate member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, or of the Institute of British Architects, should be considered duly qualified. For both of these you have now to pass an examination, and the Institution of Civil Engineers is very strict indeed as to the qualifications and abilities of a man before they admit him. We added in our letter that any one who was qualified in the opinion of a Board appointed by the Government, should be allowed to practise, in the same way as the Medical Board. We suggested the Works Committee of the Council should be the Board. There are lots of good men at home who are not members of either of these Institutions. We have no wish to shut out anybody, but we certainly do not like the way things are going on at present. The only wonder is that more houses do not tumble down.
By the Chairman.-Your idea is that the responsibility should rest upon the architect or engineer entrusted with the erection of the building?
A-Yes, I think that two or three Government overseers of buildings should go roun: and supervise generally as at present, but it is utterly impossible for them to give continuous supervision and take the responsibility. So far as I know, the Department has only one Inspector of Buildings-Mr. CRISP; he cannot thoroughly inspect the work being built by my firm, let alone what anybody else is doing. Now, if he is to be responsible for seeing that there is no breach of the Ordinance, he has got to do just what we have. He has got to examine the foundation before the concrete is laid, see that the walls are properly constructed, that all the floors are properly laid, that the party walls are proper, in fact, every detail of the building, he has to see that it is all in accordance with the Building Ordinance.
Q-If the Government had only two or three inspectors, do you think they would be sufficient to see there was no infringement or breach of the law?
A-Yes, they would be sufficient for general inspection.
By Mr. Thurburn.-The staff would require to be very large to carry out the present law out here?
A-No, because the law is pretty much the same as it is at home, only at home there is not the minute inspection. If a building tumbles down and somebody is kil- led, the owner of the building is had up for manslaughter. He is the only man res-
241