Without pointing to anything in particular, the Minister told us that she doesn't believe that requiring people to go out and look for a job has any effect on welfare dependency. Well, that's another extraordinary claim, because if it's true that requiring people to look for a job a year after having a kid on a benefit has no effect on whether or not people go out and get a job and get off benefits, then you have to ask why are we here doing it? You'd have to assume that people are going out and getting a job anyway, in which case we never needed this policy. Or, on the other hand, here's another possibility—what the Minister just said is not supported by the evidence. Actually, having a requirement to look for a job a year after you have a kid on a benefit results in more people than would otherwise look for a job, more people working, and fewer people dependent on benefits. That sounds like a more plausible explanation, especially when the Government itself is looking to remove the requirement. Why would they remove a requirement that didn't make any difference, as the Minister claims?