Housing and Regeneration Bill

I do not know. We have been asked this question. Because we do not require a return to be made within that definition, I do not have that information. I will take advice about that and, if I can give any sort of ball-park figure, I will come back to the Committee with it. Flooding is an important issue and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, powerfully raised the issue of its impact. We put forward up to £180 million to try to help with some of those tragic situations; that is vital. The point about PPS 25 is that it gives us, for the first time, a hierarchy of risk, which we identify in terms of where we can build with modification. How do we assess the nature of the risk and what do we have to do? As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, you cannot not build on flood areas in this country; you must assess the risk. That is where the Environment Agency comes in. PPS 25 gives us a much more accurate tool than we have ever had before. In addition, the Environment Agency crucially works closely with local authorities, which must do the flood assessment with it; that cannot be the job of the HCA. I take the noble Lord’s point, however, that we must make a proper response to the Pitt report. I am conscious of time. In conclusion, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that density is an issue. It exacerbates all the issues we are talking about. However, the challenge is to build for higher densities and include space; think of the Italian piazzas or Kensington crescent. We can do that with intelligence. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, about MoD land. It is not as he says at all. We must get good value for our own public land, which is making a big contribution to how much, where and how we can build. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place, but to put it as he did, in terms of a degree of exploitation, was unnecessary and inaccurate. I hope that, after that long debate, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.