It's related to what I've said, in a sense, which is that the building of networks in community is what essentially helps support. You start, obviously, with families. Family is the first community any child is going to have experience with, so the more stable that community for them, the more likely it is they will develop in a constructive manner. Almost every figure we refer to in there shows that.
That's not to say it isn't feasible for somebody whose relationship broke up to bring up a child with care and nurture and support. It's just a lot harder, and this is the point. The difference between the amount of effort that's required for somebody who is on their own bringing up a child is enormous. That means, therefore, that the likelihood of that child getting less care and less support is simply a fact. It's incredibly difficult to do that, and it is more expensive, ironically, to do so because you're having to do everything two people would two. It's not finger-wagging or lecturing people on that, in terms of relationships; it's simply making the observation that this is not something anybody would really want to do if they had the balance of choice.
When we looked at some of the stuff in the creation of networks, we did look at relationships inside here, because that first community, that family community, is critical to setting the path for everything else. We looked at cohabitation, whether it was the same as marriage and if it led to higher levels of lone parenting, more broken homes. We looked at the figures on that and found that was the case.
Then you move from family into the next level of community.