-41K.3 Fiscal deficit 112. Another point made by the Government on a number of occasions in seeking to justify the seven-year rule involves reference to the restriction being imposed a “against the background of a serious fiscal deficit”: “Against the background of a serious fiscal deficit and the implication of demographic trends and characteristics identified in the [Task Force] Report, the Administration took the view that there was a strong case for applying a uniform 7-year residence requirement for providing heavily subsidized social services.”104 113. It is significant that the deficit is put no higher than a “background” feature. It is also significant that when Stock VP referred to this, he spoke of “the fiscal deficit at the time of the decision”. Judicial notice may be taken of the following figures derived from the annual accounts published by the Government:105 Year HK$ millions 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 114. Net Surplus /Deficit (43,384) 10,979 (restated) 19,434 48,974 (restated) 124,867 179,343 (133,103) 145,252 96,724 Operating revenue 151,244 167,014 Operating expenses (210,727) (212,188) Expenditure on social security (21,815) (22,860) Exchange Fund surplus (deficit) 31,488 65,738 192,369 231,156 (207,827) (206,907) (23,247) (23,444) 24,571 33,165 223,627 265,269 250,609 242,133 274,637 (208,318) (218,835) (251,775) (251,376) (247,132) (23,185) (24,130) (27,466) (27,959) (25,928) 65,887 63,821 (146,429) 116,309 50,037 The figures show that there was indeed a net deficit in the year ended 31 March 2003. However, the figures indicate that the seven-year rule was not introduced to cut spending so as to rein in that deficit. They also show that such deficit was not a persistent feature of Government finances. The figures suggest that the key determinants of whether there would be a net 104 Mr Cheung’s Affirmation, §55. 105 Available online at http://www.try.gov.hk/internet/eharch_annual.html.