Mr. David Hall:

I do not think there was any. I am sure, somewhere along the line and buried in the Department of Finance, that there is some logic but it makes no sense. I say that because many older people who are nearing the end of their life or are retired have peripheral tail ends of mortgages remaining and there seems to be an injustice in them being penalised. Arguably, as one goes into the higher scale, people get a bit excited about people with larger mortgages as it is assumed that there is a natural correlation to their wealth. There is an asset wealth but not a real wealth. The point made by the Deputy is 110% correct. Many people have worked and have gone through the crisis, have survived and have a modest mortgage, which they are very fortunate to have and are very thankful to have. However, in the past 12 months these people have been penalised because, again, there has been a bit of an obsessive compulsive disorder regarding people with tracker mortgages and the Department thinks it is okay for those with tracker mortgages to be punished. There is no logic in penalising a very special cohort of people who are as vulnerable. Just because they have a low mortgage does not mean that they are super wealthy, safe and secure. Plus, the cost of living and everything else that has happened with it will have caused great difficulty. I, respectfully, would say the same applies to landlords as they are in the same situation. It does not correlate to what the assumption is and I think the provision is a silly insertion.