Mr. E. W. Bunn (F) (GLC): As a member of the CP 110 Code drafting committee, I felt that, in some respects, the conclusions reached in the paper could be said to reflect on the work of the committee. The paper concludes by saying that a Code should not be a repository for all the latest, most complex and fashionable methods of calculation. It should define the effort that is necessary and sufficient for the satisfactory design of normal structures. I fully support this view, and this is what we intended to do in CP 110. But drafting took place in the period after Ferrybridge, Ronan Point, and various other happenings, and therefore there was a tremendous insistence from the Official Inquiries set up, and from engineers in general, that there should be a more fundamental approach to design. This encouraged the adoption of the limit-state method and introduced the concept that the design method used should give as accurate a representation of actual behaviour as is practicable. This is all set out in section two of the Code as a statement of objectives and general recommendations, i.e. the philosophy of design.