Ms Tina Donaghy:

Regardless of that, it makes good sense. This is taxpayers’ investment. They are investing in our social housing infrastructure and we want to make sure that it is well management, well maintained and fit for purpose for future generations.

I wish to come back on the acronyms. Back in the day when the wheels came off in 2008 and 2009, the construction works management framework was renegotiated. That was when they came up with Government Construction Contracts Committee, GCCC, contract. Professor Hegarty probably knows much more on GCCC than I do. At the time I was coming from a different jurisdiction. I was coming in after working for a very large housing body in London and we had much more flexibility around procurement. It was all about value for money, reinforcing what the professor said. We were looking for value for money, projects that could be replicated and building relationships with developers and house builders. We had very tall orders of developments to be done. At that time, they were streamlining the delivery partners in the UK as well, so they were cutting the number of housing bodies down to a minimum. That is when we had a contract called PPC2000 and it was a partnering contract where perhaps one tendered one’s first project. The benchmarks within the procurement or the pre-qualifying conditions were greater than just cost; they were about replication, reduction and a set of key performance indicators, KPIs, that would be measured and monitored throughout the progress of the project and further projects. One looked at cost saving as one replicated. It would work well for something like the-----