-44L.2 Reliance on charities 120. The Government also makes the argument that, if denied CSSA, new arrivals are able to seek help from charitable institutions. Mention is made of charitable trust funds which assist people in family crisis and temporary financial hardship, mainly in the form of one-off grants; charities which provide foodstuffs and hot meals; and charities which provide second-hand clothing, furniture and appliances, and so forth.113 It is self-evident that such charitable help can only be of a temporary or emergency nature. It may supplement but cannot be a practical substitute for CSSA. 121. More importantly, the argument is in principle objectionable. It really amounts to the Government abdicating its constitutional responsibility for social welfare to private charities and trying to make a virtue of the existence of such charities in the proportionality analysis. The Hong Kong residents concerned find themselves destitute and eligible for short-term or emergency help from charities because they have been excluded from CSSA as a result of the Government’s adoption of the seven-year requirement. It is exceedingly unattractive for the Government then to shrug its shoulders and say: “Well, you can always approach local charities as a supplicant for their goodwill”. 122. The primary responsibility of the Government for social security and the subsidiary role of voluntary agencies have been recognized since at least 1970 when, in a Memorandum for the Executive Council,114 the Government stated: “It is highly desirable, both at present and for future planning, that Government should be responsible for public assistance, and that there should be a clear distinction between the responsibilities of voluntary agencies in this and other social welfare fields.” 113 LC Paper No CB(2)1616/03-04(03), §17. 114 XCC (70) 14, For discussion on 17 March 1970, §5(f).