-3307), with social security taking up the largest share (73%).85 He indicates how overall spending on CSSA has increased over the past decade: “In 1993-1994, expenditure for CSSA amounted to $2.4 billion. The upward trend in CSSA expenditure levelled off slightly between 1999 to 2001 at around $13.6 billion, and began to rise again in 2001-2002. In 2003-2004 Draft Estimates of Expenditure, the Administration was seeking a provision of $17 billion for CSSA to meet anticipated increase in demand. This is $780 million over the revised provision of $16.3 billion on 2002-2003.”86 88. He refers to new arrivals taking up CSSA benefits, stating: “Between March 1999 and June 2002, it was estimated that new arrivals on CSSA benefits rose from 14.3% to 16.6% of all new arrivals.” 89. He then points out how expenditure on new arrivals has increased: “The estimated CSSA expenditure on new arrivals increased from $1,467 million (or 10.8% of total CSSA expenditure) in 1999-2000 to $1,728 million (or 12% of total CSSA expenditure) in 2001-2002.”87 90. Those arguments are quite inadequate. It is clear that spending on social welfare in general, and on CSSA in particular, has risen markedly over the past decade. But that says nothing to justify the impugned restriction relating to new arrivals. In March 2003, the Director reported that only 18% of new arrivals were on CSSA.88 And on the figures derived from the evidence,89 new arrivals have generally made up 12% to 15% of the total number of CSSA recipients: 85 Mr Cheung’s Affirmation, §8 and §9. 86 Mr Cheung’s Affirmation, §53. 87 Mr Cheung’s Affirmation, §58. 88 Minutes of Welfare Panel meeting on 10 March 2003, LC Paper No CB(2)1738/02-03, §7. 89 LC Paper No CB(2)1401/02-03(03), for discussion 10 March 2003, Tables 1 and 4.