Mr. Lake, could I just add to that? I certainly think that one thing you could not throw at the government we've had for the past ten years--and I'm not suggesting you are--is that it has in any sense thought it was sufficient to give people income support and leave it at that. They have been very vigorous in their active labour market policies, very much along the lines you were suggesting in your contribution a moment ago.
One can always argue about whether they implemented it properly or whether they had the right priorities, but I think in terms of a strategy they have very much been pursuing the sort of thing you were suggesting should be pursued. It's not altogether bad, but as David said, it's expensive. I think you do have to look at the U.K. as perhaps a sign that there's a limit to that as well.
If I may add one more point, which has come up a number of times--it came up in the previous question--about business, our government has not put any demands on business, nor has it really sought to alter the behaviour of business. I think you probably have to do both--try to equip and enable the individuals, but also alter behaviour in business. I think we have pursued a rather one-sided policy there. If you pursued a two-sided policy you might have a bit more success than we have.