That clearly demonstrates that one of the outcomes of the Celtic Tiger was that there were more resources to channel into support for those who are least well off.
An interesting dimension to that, and it's something that has created a lot of problems for us, is that the rate of relative poverty actually increased while all this was happening. This is based on incomes generally in the state, and they were rising at such a rate. There were more jobs; there were better-paid jobs. There was increasing female participation in the workforce; therefore, there were a lot more two-income households. There were reductions in tax levels, which was a key part of the economic policy, a way of keeping wages at a moderate level and compensating workers a bit through lowering taxes.
While all this was happening there was a general increase in income and significant improvements were made in social welfare, but despite that, the gap between the majority in terms of standard of living and the less well off was increasing, even though, overall, everybody's standard of living was improving.
So it's this type of problem or challenge that a strategic approach can address. First of all, you find out it's happening, then you find out why it's happening, and then you begin to tackle the causes of it. We've been trying to tackle it over the last nearly 10 years. We're beginning to do it in terms of not just keeping social welfare payments high, but also issues such as activation, getting people back to work, and removing barriers to employment--a whole range of areas like that. But it's how you tackle poverty in a complex, rapidly changing society. If you leave it to normal, individual policy areas, they won't be able to move on it as well as they will through a more strategic approach.