Mr. Seán Armstrong:

Especially when it comes to large-scale developments, one is talking about reworking a design. It is a variation and a change in a contract. It is a delay and a cost and it has schedule impact.

What we found in the past is that depending on the impact of the change in regulation, we can change the transition arrangement. If it is a very significant change in regulation, especially in the non-residential sector, we found that two years might be needed if we are talking about wall thickness and the thickness of insulation in walls. If it is a minor amendment, sometimes we reduce the transition arrangement to one year or six months. If it is something that happens at the very end, sometimes it can be shorter than that. We adjust the transition arrangements depending on the impact of the regulation. The only point we made when we suggested that amendment is that there must be some provision for a transition arrangement, and that is not in the directive at present. If it is not provided for in the directive, it will lead to severe and major contractual problems. It has been done previously so I believe it needs to be provided now.

Regarding MEPS, the point there is where feasible. When we are using the phrase "where feasible" there, the intent is-----