In particular, I wonder if the Minister could explain the thinking behind having two pathways for a thing becoming a building product or a method becoming a building method. If we look at the new section 9A(1)(a), it says, "In this Act, building product means a product that— … could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building;". It then goes on in section 9A(3)(a) to (d) to say, "In determining whether something could reasonably be expected to be used as a component of a building, the following are relevant considerations: … the purposes for which the thing is ordinarily used: … the purposes for which the manufacturer or supplier intends the thing to be used: … the purposes for which the thing is represented as being used for: … the purposes for which the thing is likely to be used (because of the way in which it is presented or for any other reason)." It then goes on to say that that list is "relevant, but not determinative, considerations and do not limit what may be considered." 