-31bodied adults and children; and of 20% for households with more than three such persons.76 It contained a calculation of the percentage savings to be achieved by such measures, ranging from a saving of 5% in single member households to 17% in households with five members.77 That recommendation was implemented in June 1999.78 Such a policy, creating disincentives against the development of a culture of dependence, may readily be seen as rationally aimed at ensuring sustainability. J.2 Reduction in the standard rate 82. Another rational response to concerns about mounting expenditure and sustainability was the order of the Chief Executive in Council to reduce standard rates of CSSA across-the-board by 11.1% to take effect on various dates in 2003 and 2004.79 83. The Legislative Council Brief described the problem faced as involving unacceptable unabated growth in welfare expenditure. It noted that upward adjustments had been made to standard rates by 6.5% in 1997-98 and 4.8% in 1998-99. 80 However, as at December 2002, the total CSSA caseload was 266,571, representing a year-on-year growth of 10.3%, with the “unemployed” CSSA caseload having increased by 40.3% over the same period. This led to the projection that the approved provision of CSSA in 2002-03 of $16 billion (already up 11.1% on actual the expenditure of $14.4 billion 76 Report §49. 77 Executive Summary, §22. 78 Mr Cheung’s Affirmation, §40; Legco Brief HWF CR 2/4821/58 (03) Pt 68, §11, 25 February 2003. 79 Legco Brief HWF CR 2/4821/58 (03) Pt 68, 25 February 2003, §1. 80 Ibid, §2.