-19money because such savings are necessary to ensure the sustainability of the social security system. 50. Thus, explaining the new seven-year rule to the Legislative Council’s Panel on Welfare Services (“the Welfare Panel”) on 10 March 2004, the Director stated: “The new residence requirement for social security benefits was recommended by the Task Force on Population Policy. Its aim was to provide a more rational basis for the allocation of public resources in the light of rising social expenditure and limited financial resources and to ensure the long-term sustainability of the provision of social security benefits to the community.”44 51. That is how the case has been argued. Andrew Cheung J noted that the Director’s submission was: “... that the legitimate aim of the seven-year residence requirement is to adopt a proper basis for the allocation of finite public resources in the light of rising social expenditure so as to ensure the long term sustainability of the provision of social security benefits to the society as recommended by the 2003 Taskforce on population.”45 52. It was an argument that the Court of Appeal accepted. Stock VP stated: “...ample justification has been provided for the contention that in order to sustain the viability of the social welfare system, the eligibility criteria required amendment. That was the result of anticipated problems posed by an ageing population, a low birth rate, by the fiscal deficit at the time of the decision, the continuing flow of OWP holders with a concomitant absence of control of immigration intake from that direction, decreasing emigration and the fact that the scheme was a non-contributory one.”46 53. In Mr Cheung’s Affirmation, 47 three related factors are said to contribute to the need for measures to safeguard the system’s sustainability: (i) 44 LC Paper No CB(2)1616/03-04(02), §11. Repeated in LC Paper No CB(2)1616/0304(03), §2. 45 Judgment §123. 46 Court of Appeal §108. 47 At §§52-54.