Housing and Regeneration Bill

I wonder whether I could ask about the direction, which is the subject of the amendments and of Clauses 35 and 36. I find it a curious term, and I should like to understand whether it is intended that the HCA can give a direction retrospectively. I am not quarrelling with the concept of a deal between the HCA and a recipient which enables the HCA to share in the uplift in value and so on. However, I argue that it is improper for the HCA to come back five years later and say, ““Do you know? This parcel of land is proving to be much more valuable than we thought when we did the original deal. We direct that””. I think that, as in the fully private sector, two parties should make an agreement whereby one provides finance to the other and, as part of that agreement, the provider of the finance says, ““We will have interest. We will have a share of the capital when the property is disposed of”” and so on. That is a matter for agreement between the parties when the finance is made available. It is perfectly proper that they should come to whatever agreement suits them both but, frankly, for there to be any lack of certainty about what the HCA will require at the end of a process of development seems wrong.