But one area I want to turn to, which is—I think aligned to what Nicola Willis was talking about—this issue about the definition of clause 58 around what is a residential home. And my good colleague has highlighted a very practical issue. I've had personal experience of a constituent exactly in the situation that Nicola Willis was talking about where, took on a new job, moved, and actually got caught and was very worried about the situation around the brightline test. And, of course, it doesn't appear that there's any ability or exclusion. So we know there's already three exclusions. One is dealing with your own home, if your matrimonial home, or you inherited. This is a case of hard—someone missing out as a result of changing circumstances. This is more than just bad luck, actually, and I think it will happen to a lot of people over the forthcoming years, particularly when you stretch out the brightline for 10 years, not five even; it was probably OK under two, just. But putting that length of exclusion on it means that there's going to be a lot more people caught by this issue. And I'm just wondering why the Minister didn't actually think about adding a fourth, which is, really, a hardship clause, around reflecting some of these situations that are reality and will occur, no doubt about it.