-40Government to be met by public funds. Government officials in charge of social welfare have rightly rejected attempts to undermine that principle. 109. This is exemplified in two places in the December 1998 report of the Inter-Departmental Steering Group. It will be recalled that the Steering Group recommended the reduction of the standard rate for larger households.101 It had also been suggested that payment of standard rates to such households should be capped. The Steering Group’s response was: “We do not support this idea because by capping the benefits payable to larger households, the basic needs of some family members would not be provided for at all. This is against the objective of the CSSA Scheme.”102 110. They also referred to a suggestion that CSSA for able-bodied unemployed recipients should be cut off or reduced after a time limit of say, six months, so as to encourage them to find employment. The Steering Group rejected that suggestion stating: “...we do not propose to terminate or reduce assistance for able-bodied unemployed recipients after a time limit. A balance has to be struck between ensuring incentives to work and the guarantee of basic livelihood. If termination or reduction of benefits was to be introduced and was seen as leading to undue hardship, it would run the risk of undermining the fundamental function of our social security system.”103 111. Perhaps it is because the seven-year residence requirement originated, not in a specialist social welfare review, but as something of a sidewind deriving from a long-term population policy study, that there has not been proper recognition of the threat posed by the seven-year restriction to those fundamental social welfare values – values which have received constitutional acknowledgement in Article 36. 101 Section J.1 above. 102 December 1998 Report at §48. 103 At §§55 and 56.