I find myself in the unusual and confusing state of being in agreement with an architect and a solicitor at the same time: Barry Munday and John Redmond (11 April, pages 39 and 53).
I do believe in the need for systems and procedures, but I, like Barry, have felt and seen the scourge of over-regulation. Once upon a time we could do our work with the minimum of input from "specialists". Now we seem to need an expert for everything in case we fall foul of a regulation and end up in court.

Regulations and box-ticking forms are no substitute for properly trained and competent people. Computers, QM systems and intranets have not always helped. It is all too easy for non-practical people to write procedures, and when someone makes a mistake say, "Didn't you read this or check that?" We are expected to read too much material, much of it irrelevant to us.

But over-regulation must benefit someone, and not just lawyers. There are European Union commissioners, whose job it is to produce it. Then there are those who create cottage industries on the back of them. Is it a co-incidence that we seem to have a government full of legal weasels?

I also believe in consistency. Like John, I have never understood why the Construction Act did not impose a mandatory scheme. The act has been around long enough and we now have enough experience of adjudication and its faults to implement one.