Mr. Tim Murnane:

I might take the second question first about uniformity in design. As engineers, we are takers of design. An architect, in response to what is in a town plan or development plan, will determine what the outline of the design is, in conjunction with the client. We have to receive that and respond. Our designs respond to others so it is difficult for us to influence that. On the general question of types of modular construction, modular schools and special needs units in schools, etc., there is certainly a move toward that and creating modularity and repetition. In terms of apartment design, there are certain solutions where repetition is appropriate, efficient and it is a sensible approach. My comment earlier on forms of contract follows the same principle. If you have a tried and trusted solution, repeat it.

That question should really be directed more towards architects and town planners in terms of whether we want all the towns to look the same and whether we want variety in design. We probably do, but as an engineer, I am not qualified to comment on that. We are receivers of the architectural solution and we put structure on that. There is certainly a lot of sense in what the Cathaoirleach says. It is consistent with what I say about contracts. Why are we inventing the wheel over and over? Why are we introducing ourselves to risk and problems associated with a solution that has not been done before when the answer is to have as much uniformity as possible without compromising on quality in design.

In terms of design changes, which was the first question, everything we do is new and unique in lots of ways. When you do a construction project, you examine the ground. The ground is never uniform anywhere. You could have one field with one particular set of ground conditions. If you go to another field, it could be completely different. When we do site investigations, we try to mitigate the risk of things being different. The ground is a good example of why it is very difficult to predict everything. There could be archaeology that had not been discovered.

It goes back to my point about design. It is about investing in design and giving enough time for design. Sometimes, we are so driven by the programme as a community of construction people - I include the clients, design team and contractors in that - and that we have to be out by a particular time, that you are immediately trying to design solutions within the time you have rather than the time that is required to do it fully and completely. That question is one I ask as well. I agree. We should invest in design, give appropriate time for design and you will really reduce the risk of subsequent variations. The answer is in part of our submission and that is my view. Others may have their own.