---

Planning Bill

My Lords, in responding to my amendments, my noble friend promoted me to an opposition amendment. I do not know whether that was intentional, but it was very nice of her—or not. I am grateful for her explanations, but am still pretty confused. The definition of a building is like yesterday’s definition of a goods train—a train that carries goods—in that it does not take you very far. Amendment No. 136A(1) refers to, "““anything done by way of or for the purpose of the creation of a new building,””." That is not the definition of a building. We would all be pleased to know what a building is. Maybe if you put a roof over a wind farm, it becomes a building. I worry more substantially about the point, made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about this merry-go-round of government money. That particularly applies to the railways, whether they are big or little ones; it is now buildings only. I do not know how we take this forward. We will have to read the Minister’s response in great detail and have a good think about what to do next, if anything. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.