...). In the Architects Act 1997 (as amended) education is referred to in Part II which is headed "Registration etc.", not in Part III which is headed "Discipline". References in Part II are: "educational establishments" in section 4A(2)(c)(i); "education and training " in section 6(2A); "educational bodies" in section 6(3)(b); "architectural education" in section 6A. "The Education Fund" is mentioned in SCHEDULE 2 (Section 27, Transitional Provisions). In Part III of the Architects Act 1997 "Discipline" is being used in one of the secondary meanings, such as: punish to gain control or enforce obedience: "The teacher disciplined the pupils rather frequently"; the act of punishing: "The offenders deserved the harsh discipline they received" Professional Conduct Committee of the ARB The legislation requires there to be a Professional Conduct Committee of the Board (whose remuneration or expenses are decided and paid by the Board as the corporate body). The function of this Committee is to hear and determine allegations against registered persons which have been formally reported or referred to it in accordance with the Architects Act 1997 (as amended) and the Rules which the Board is authorised to make. The Act states explicitly that failure to comply with the provisions of the code of professional conduct issued by the Board shall not be taken of itself to constitute unacceptable professional conduct. The Act also provides for the publication of a statement exonerating an architect against whom an allegation of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence has not been sustained. Judicial precedent On an appeal to the Divisional Court in 1957 concerning a pure breach of the Code of Professional Conduct under the legislation then in force (the architect was practising an estate agent's business as well as his own), when the registration body was constituted under the name the Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom, Mr Justice Devlin ruled: "It is not of itself disgraceful to disagree with a majority view and to act accordingly. It is only if a man has bound himself in honour to accept that view and to act according to the code that a deliberate breach of the code for his own profit can be called disgraceful". In the course of giving judgment in this appeal Lord Chief Justice Goddard had mentioned a letter which had been sent in 1937 by "the president of the council" [sic] to the Institute of Chartered Surveyors