I assume that for "housing and capital receipts" the hon. Member means "local authorities' housing capital receipts". The substantial changes since 1997 to the regulations relating to these are in the following table. Any reader of the table will wish to be aware that under the set-aside regime, which ran until 1 April 2004, with-debt local authorities were required to set aside a proportion of the capital receipt generated by the disposal of a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) asset, for repayment of housing debt. For right to buy that proportion was 75 per cent. For
stock-transfer receipts the set-aside was also 75 per cent., unless the value of the housing debt exceeded 75 per cent., in which case the amount to be set aside was raised until it met the value of the debt. For other, non-dwelling sales, the proportion of set-aside was 50 per cent. The local authority was free to use the remaining 25 per cent./50 per cent. respectively for any capital purpose they chose.
From 1 April 2004, all local authorities were required to pay the Secretary of State the same amounts through the process of pooling which formerly would have been set aside. The exception is stock-transfer receipts which are not subject to pooling. Instead, the equivalent amounts of debt are assumed for the purposes of calculating housing subsidy to have been paid off by the authority.
|Date change came into effect
|Effect of change
Reduction in the set-aside requirement for receipts arising from the sale of dwellings. The reduction being determined with reference to costs incurred by the authority in the preceding year of buying back certain properties previously sold under RTB.
Replacement of the requirement for authorities with debt to set-aside a proportion of housing receipts with the requirement (for both with-debt and debt-free authorities) to pay the same amount to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many hectares of land were changed to residential use within flood risk areas in England in each year since 1997. 
The Government's aim is to avoid inappropriate development in such areas. Flood risk must be taken into account at all stages of the planning process. Development that would not be safe in the higher flood risk areas should be directed to areas of lower risk wherever this is practicable. We have strengthened the system significantlynew planning rules introduced last year (PPS25) make clear that councils should not give the go ahead to new housing in areas where the Environment Agency advise against it. The new rules are already beginning to have an
impact and it is vital that councils continue to work with the Environment Agency to ensure that new homes are safe from flooding and property sustainable for the future.
The total land area of England is approximately 13 million hectares. Around 10 per cent. of this is in an area of high flood risk, much of it within London and other existing urban areas. Of this high flood risk area, only around 2,500 hectares (0.2 per cent.) changed to residential use between 1997 and 2004 (the latest year for which information is available).
|Area of residential land in high flood risk areas (hectares)( 1)
|(1). Area of newly residential land with more than zero dwellings. (2). 1999 estimates unavailable due to incomplete data Notes: 1. There is an inevitable time-lag between land use change occurring and it being recorded, therefore data are constantly being updated. 2. The data in the table above are based on records received from Ordnance Survey up to June 2007. Source: Land Use Change Statistics data (LUCS 22A, October 2007)
The definition of high flood risk areas used by Communities and Local Government are the high risk zone mapped by the Environment Agency as being at a probability of flooding, excluding the presence of flood defences, of at least one in one hundred each year for river flooding and at least one in two hundred for coastal flooding.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in how many instances monies provided via key worker living have been recouped as a result of key workers leaving their profession in (a) East Worthing and Shoreham, (b) West Sussex and (c) across the entire scheme; what returns were recorded on the initial grant investments to key workers; what assessment she has made of the effect on the recruitment and retention of key workers of this facility; and if she will make a statement. 
Caroline Flint: We do not centrally hold data on the number of instances where monies provided via the key worker living scheme have been recouped as a result of key workers leaving their profession, or what returns were recorded on the initial grant investments to key workers.
Since April 2006 purchasers of New Build HomeBuy have five years to repay the assistance they receive if they leave qualifying employment. Purchasers of Open Market HomeBuy have two years in which to repay assistance.
Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) what recent discussions she has had with local authorities on pest infestation control in domestic properties following last year's flooding; and if she will make a statement; 
Mr. Iain Wright: The Housing Health and Safety Rating System is a risk based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. It was introduced by Communities and Local Government in 2006 together with local authority operating guidance for its use.
Local authorities are responsible for the local implementation and enforcement of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. If a property is found to contain serious hazards the local authority has a duty to take the most appropriate action in relation to the hazard.
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 29 October 2007, Official Report, columns 667-68W, on local authorities: grants, what the grant per capita was in real terms to each local authority in England in (a) 1998-99, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07; and what the average grant per capita in (i) district councils, (ii) unitary councils, (iii) county councils, (iv) metropolitan councils and (v) London boroughs was in each of those years. 
John Healey: I have deposited in the Library of the House a table showing the information on central Government grant per capita in real terms (at 2006-07 prices) for each local authority in 1998-99, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
|£ per head
|Class of authority
Communities and Local Government Revenue Outturn (RO) 1998-99, 2005-06 and 2006-07 returns
Central Government grant is defined here as the sum of formula grant (Revenue support grant, police grant, general GLA grant and redistributed non-domestic rates) and specific grants inside aggregate external finance (AEF), i.e. revenue grants paid for councils core services. In 1998-99, it also includes the SSA reduction grant but excludes the general GLA grant.
Figures exclude grants outside AEF (i.e. where funding is not for authorities core services, but is passed to a third party, for example, rent allowances and rebates), capital grants, funding for the local authorities housing management responsibilities and those grant programmes (such as European funding) where authorities are simply one of the recipients of funding paid towards an area.
Per capita figures for 1998-99, 2005-06 and 2006-07 are based on Office for National Statistics (ONS) 1998, 2005 and 2006 mid-year population estimates. The real terms figures have been revalued for 1998-99 and 2005-06 years at 2006-07 prices using the latest HM Treasurys GDP deflators.
John Healey: The following table shows the amount of formula grant, which comprises revenue support grant, redistributed business rates, principal formula police grant, SSA reduction grant (SSA review), SSA reduction grant (police funding review) and central support protection grant, where appropriate, for Derbyshire councils for the period 2000-01 to 2007-08.