Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
為履行《公約》的規定，我們建議制定《條例草案》提供法律框架，訂定條文，賦權食物及衞生局局長訂立規例以履行《公約》的規定，並訂明漁農自然護理署署長及其獲授權人員的執法權力，包括搜查、檢取、移走、測試、扣留東西、出售或處置被沒收東西、逮捕，以及與海事處和其他主管當局交換資料的權力等。
In order to comply with CCAMLR we propose to enact the Bill to provide a legal framework and introduce provisions to empower the Secretary for Food and Health to make regulations for implementing the provisions of CCAMLR and set out the enforcement powers of the Director and authorized officers of the Agriculture Fisheries and Conservation Department AFCD including the powers to search for seize remove carry out tests on and detain things sell or dispose of forfeited things arrest persons and exchange information with the Marine Department and other competent authorities
法案委員會在召開3次會議後已深入討論和釐清相關條文的內容。
The Bills Committee has held three meetings to discuss in depth and clarify the relevant provisions
政府在聽取法案委員會的意見後，同意就《條例草案》提出適當的修訂，我會於稍後時間提出。
Having listened to the Bills Committees views the Government has agreed to propose appropriate amendments to the Bill . I will propose them later
在《條例草案》獲立法會通過後，我會透過《條例》下賦予的權力，訂立兩項規例： 首先，我們會實施證書制度，規管犬牙南極魚的進出口。
After the passage of the Bill by the Legislative Council I will make two regulations by virtue of the powers conferred by the ordinance Firstly we will implement the Catch Documentation Scheme to regulate the import and export of toothfish
每批捕獲或付運的犬牙南極魚，不論經由海、陸、空入口或出口香港，都必須根據《公約》規定附有有效證書。
Each catch or shipment of toothfish no matter imported to or exported from Hong Kong by sea land or air must be accompanied by a valid document issued in accordance with the provisions of CCAMLR
漁護署會透過發出入口/出口證書的申請，確保犬牙南極魚經香港的貿易符合養護措施的規定。
Through applications for the issuance of importexport documents AFCD will ensure that toothfish trading through Hong Kong complies with the Conservation Measures
其次，我們會訂立港口檢查及管制規例，規管載有南極海洋生物的漁船進出香港水域，包括檢查該些漁船，以及拒絕讓一些曾參與"三非"捕魚活動的漁船進入香港。
Secondly we will formulate regulations for port inspection and control to regulate the entry of fishing vessels carrying Antarctic marine organizms to Hong Kong waters including inspection of such vessels and deny entry of vessels ever engaged in IUU fishing activities to Hong Kong waters Annex C
這兩項規例會在立法會通過《條例草案》後，再提交立法會審議。
These two regulations will be introduced to the Legislative Council for scrutiny after the Bill is passed by the Legislative Council
我們亦曾於2018年年初進行公眾諮詢，徵詢持份者包括貿易公司、海產行業和餐飲業協會的代表，以及環保團體對於在香港實施《公約》及規管犬牙南極魚貿易的意見，業界普遍認為有關的規管不會對日常營運造成重大負擔，環保團體亦支持建議。
We also conducted a public consultation in early 2018 to gauge the views of stakeholders including trading companies representatives of seafood trade and catering associations as well as environmental groups on the implementation of CCAMLR and regulation of toothfish trading in Hong Kong . The trade generally considers that the relevant regulation will not cause significant burden on their daily operation . Environmental groups also support the proposal
我們打算在《條例草案》及兩項附屬法例獲通過大約6個月後，才正式實施新的規管制度，讓業界有充足時間作出準備。
We intend to officially implement the new regulatory regime about six months after the passage of the Bill and the two pieces of subsidiary legislation so that the trade has sufficient time to prepare
我們預期新的規管對香港整體的貿易不會有實質影響。
We do not expect that the new regulation will have a substantial impact on Hong Kongs overall trade
剛才葛珮帆議員提出關於人手的問題。
Earlier on Dr Elizabeth QUAT raised a question about manpower
在法例實施首5年，每年進行化驗的樣本數目大約有300個。
In the first five years of implementation of the legislation about 300 samples will be tested each year
最後，我要感謝法案委員會主席何俊賢議員及各位參與審議的委員、立法會秘書處和法律顧問團隊，令《條例草案》的審議工作得以順利完成。
Lastly I would like to thank Mr Steven HO Chairman of the Bills Committee as well as the members who took part in the scrutiny the Legislative Council Secretariat and the legal advisory team for successfully completing the scrutiny of the Bill
主席，我謹此陳辭，懇請各位議員支持《條例草案》及我稍後提出的政府修正案。
President with these remarks I implore Members to support the Bill and the Governments amendments that I will propose later
主席，我謹代表《南極海洋生物資源養護條例草案》委員會，匯報法案委員會的商議工作。
President on behalf of the Bills Committee on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Bill I report on the deliberations of the Bills Committee
《南極海洋生物資源養護條例草案》的目的，是為了在香港實施《南極海洋生物資源養護公約》及其養護措施訂定條文。
The Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Bill the Bill seeks to implement the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and its conservation measures in Hong Kong
新法例會授權食物及衞生局局長，就實施與香港相關的6項養護措施訂立規例。
The new law will authorize the Secretary for Food and Health to make regulations to implement six conservation measures relevant to Hong Kong
政府當局計劃在《條例草案》通過後制訂兩項規例，以實施犬牙南極魚產品證書制度及漁船港口檢查和管制。
The Administration plans to make two regulations after the passage of the Bill in order to implement conservation measures on the Catch Documentation Scheme for Antarctic toothfish toothfish port inspections and control for fishing vessels
法案委員會與政府當局舉行了3次會議。
The Bills Committee held three meetings with the Administration
委員曾討論的主要事宜包括：實施《公約》對業界的影響、南極海洋生物資源養護委員會日後在香港的地位、將訂立的規例的適用範圍、執行新法例所需的人力及資源，以及僱主及主事人的法律責任等。
The major issues discussed by members of the Bills Committee included the impact of the implementation of the Convention to the industry; the future status of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources in Hong Kong; application of the regulations to be made; the manpower and resources for enforcement of the new law; and the liability of employers and principals and so on
委員普遍支持在香港實施《公約》。
Members generally supported the implementation of the Convention in Hong Kong
政府當局表示，根據養護委員會蒐集所得的統計數字，近年香港的犬牙南極魚進口量大約為各締約方總出口量的10%，業界普遍認為，在香港引入對犬牙南極魚貿易的規管措施，並不會對其營運造成重大負擔。
The Administration advised that according to statistics compiled by the Commission toothfish imported into Hong Kong in recent years represents about 10 % of the total volume exported by Contracting Parties of the Convention . The trade generally considered that the introduction in Hong Kong of regulatory control over the trading of toothfish would not cause significant burden on their operations
《條例草案》第3條旨在訂明，養護委員會在香港具有法人地位；以及在香港享有所需的法律行為能力，以執行其《公約》下的職能。
Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to give the Commission in Hong Kong the legal personality which will enable the Commission to enjoy in Hong Kong the necessary legal capacity to perform its function under the Bill
有委員關注到，養護委員會所執行的實際職能為何，以及是否有必要訂明養護委員會在香港具有法人地位。
Members had questioned the exact functions of the Commission as well as the necessity of giving the Commission a legal personality in Hong Kong
據政府當局所述，依據《公約》第八條，締約方有責任在其境內給予養護委員會法人地位。
According to the Administration there was an obligation on a Contracting Party to give the Commission a legal personality in the respective territory pursuant to Article VIII of the Convention
養護委員會秘書處設於澳洲。
The Secretariat of the Commission is based in Australia without a presence in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region HKSAR
雖然政府當局預期養護委員會不會在香港特區積極履行其職能，但當《公約》的適用範圍延伸至香港特區時，香港特區須承擔這項責任。
While the Administration does not anticipate that the Commission will actively perform its function in HKSAR it is an obligation applicable to HKSAR once the Convention is extended to HKSAR
《條例草案》第3b條中"所需的法律行為能力"此一詞彙，說明賦予養護委員會法人團體所具有的法人地位，以及一個有完全行為能力的成年自然人所具有的一切權力，以令養護委員會在香港具有訂立合約、取得和處置動產及不動產，以及提起法律程序及在法律程序中抗辯的權力。
The term necessary legal capacity in clause 3b of the Bill referred to giving the Commission the legal personality of a body corporate and all the powers of a natural person of full age and capacity such that the Commission could enjoy the powers to enter into contracts to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable properties and to institute and defend legal proceedings in Hong Kong
《條例草案》第4至7條賦權食物及衞生局局長訂立規例，以在香港實施《公約》及相關養護措施。
Clauses 4 to 7 of the Bill seek to set out the regulation - making powers of the Secretary for Food and Health for implementing in Hong Kong the Convention and the relevant conservation measures
本會恢復《南極海洋生物資源養護條例草案》的二讀辯論。
This Council resumes the Second Reading debate on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Bill
主席，我發言支持郭榮鏗議員的議案。
President I rise to speak in support of Mr Dennis KWOKs motion
我認為，律政司司長鄭若驊絕對有必要和有責任前來立法會，交代她就前行政長官梁 振英秘密收取UGL Limited 巨額"分手費"作出不檢控決定前拒絕尋求外聘律師法律意見一事。
In my view it is absolutely necessary for Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG and also her obligation to give an account in the Legislative Council on the refusal to seek legal advice from outside counsel before making the decision of not prosecuting former Chief Executive LEUNG Chun - ying for his undisclosed acceptance of a substantial parting fee from UGL Limited UGL
在去年12月12日，律政司司長突然發表聲明，表示不會對梁振英提出檢控後，公眾一片譁然。
The statement on not prosecuting LEUNG Chun - ying issued somewhat unexpectedly by the Secretary for Justice on 12 December last year has led to public uproar
如果屬實，有關決定無疑嚴重違反法律公平公義的原則，更嚴重削弱市民對律政司的信心，此事不可輕視。
If all this is true then the relevant decision is undoubtedly in serious breach of the legal principle of fairness and impartiality one which has even greatly dampened peoples confidence in the Department of Justice DoJ . This cannot be taken lightly
因此，我們促請鄭若驊到議會席前，光明正大地向議員和公眾解釋清楚決定的理據，以免律政司的公信力蕩然無存。
For all these reasons we urge Teresa CHENG to attend before this Council to give Members and people a clear account in broad daylight on the grounds for her decision so as to avoid shattering DoJs credibility
事實上，如果律政司決定就案件不提檢控，是絕對有責任同時提出具說服力的理據。
In fact if DoJ decides not to prosecute the case it is definitely obligated to put forth convincing grounds at the same time
回顧此事，即前行政長官梁振英秘密收取UGL巨額"分手費"作為他之前協助UGL收購戴德梁行和持續擔任該公司的顧問的報酬。
Let me recap this incident . Former Chief Executive LEUNG Chun - ying secretively accepted a substantial parting fee from UGL as a reward for his earlier assistance to UGL in its takeover of DTZ Holdings plc DTZ and agreeing to remain as an adviser of the corporation concerned
雖然談判"分手"時，梁振英已辭去董事職務，而戴德梁行的董事會主席也知道他與收購的買家洽談"分手費"，但有關的"分手費"協議並沒有得到戴德梁行的董事會通過，涉嫌觸犯代理人未經許可下收取報酬的防賄法例，表面上有足夠證據提出檢控。
While LEUNG Chun - ying had already resigned as a board director when the negotiation on his parting was underway and the DTZ board chairman was also aware of his parting fee negotiation with the buyer in the takeover deal no consent was given by the DTZ board to the relevant parting fee agreement . This allegedly violated the anti - corruption law governing an agents acceptance of reward without permission . There is sufficient prima facie evidence to press charges
如果要推翻這個假設推斷，便要找出當年戴德梁行董事會知悉及同意梁振英單獨收取巨額"分手費"而導致收購價下調的證據，否則無法令人信服。
If one wants to overturn this assumption and inference one must find evidence showing that the DTZ board knew and approved LEUNG Chun - yings acceptance of this substantial parting fee himself and the resultant downward adjustment of the purchase price or else one can hardly convince others . The point is very simple
道理十分簡單，"打工仔"私下兼職賺取1,000元也會被人檢控，但公司董事竟然在未得到董事會或股東大會同意下秘密收取買家數千萬元報酬但卻不被檢控，這是否合乎道理呢？
An employee will be prosecuted for earning 1,000 from moonlighting . But a company director who secretively accepted a reward amounting to tens of millions of dollars from the relevant buyer without the consent of the board of directors or the general meeting nonetheless has not been prosecuted . Can this stand to reason?
一直以來，律政司只表示，證據未能確立戴德梁行不同意梁振英接受這筆款項。
All along DoJ has contended that based on the evidence it has failed to establish DTZs disagreement to LEUNG Chun - yings acceptance of this sum
這說法實在荒謬。
This assertion is honestly absurd
如果董事會同意，梁振英便可以合法收取報酬，如果董事會沒有同意，而梁振英收取報酬，便屬於非法，這不是最簡單的道理嗎？
If the board gave its consent then LEUNG Chun - yings acceptance of this reward would be lawful . If the board did not give its consent then LEUNGs acceptance of this reward would be unlawful . Is this not simple?
未能肯定董事會不同意，即可能有董事在知情下同意或有董事在知情下反對，亦有可能是董事根本不知情，所以既沒有給予同意亦沒有反對。
If the boards disagreement cannot be established the reason may be that some directors gave informed consent or some directors gave informed objection . The reason may also be that the directors were simply not in the know about it so they did not give their consent or objection
顯而易見，董事會從來沒有同意。
One thing is very obvious though The board of directors never gave its consent
換言之，作為代理人的梁振英收取報酬並不合法。
In other words LEUNG Chun - yings acceptance of the reward in his capacity as an agent was not lawful
為何律政司反而將未能確立不同意等於合法呢？
Why did DoJ instead consider his act to be lawful just because it failed to prove its disagreement?
即使鄭若驊自己所涉及的僭建事件，亦透過刑事檢控專員尋求外聘法律意見。
Even in the unauthorized building works UBWs incident involving Teresa CHENG herself outside legal advice was likewise sought through the Director of Public Prosecutions
前行政長官和現任全國政協副主席的梁振英所涉及的UGL一案至今引起全港甚至國際關注，但律政司竟然一反常態，堅持"親力親為"，既不尋求獨立法律意見，亦沒有詳細解釋背後理據，與以往處理涉及公職人員的案件的手法截然不同。
The UGL case involving LEUNG Chun - ying who is former Chief Executive and current Vice - Chairman of the CPPCC National Committee has aroused local and global concern . But DoJ nonetheless insisted on taking up the case itself in defiance of the normal practice and refused to seek independent legal advice and offer any detailed explanation on the underlying grounds in total contrast to its handling of previous cases involving public officers
試問政府如何釋除公眾對律政司有政治考量的疑慮呢？
How can the Government possibly allay peoples concern that DoJ was influenced by political considerations?
這做法會否削弱公眾對刑事司法制度及法治的信心呢？
Will its handling shatter peoples confidence in the criminal justice system and also the rule of law?
正如我剛才所述，重點在於慣例是，但凡涉及重要人物或高官觸犯法律的敏感案件，均會尋求外間獨立的法律意見，以釋除公眾疑慮，而且這做法一直行之有效。
As I said just now the most important point concerns the established practice of seeking independent legal advice from outside counsel on any sensitive cases involving important figures or senior officials in breach of the law as a means of allaying public concern . And this has proved to be effective all along
梁振英的UGL案件涉及本港最高層的官員，如要說服市民律政司沒有偏袒，外判法律意見便是很強烈的理據。
The UGL case involving LEUNG Chun - ying is one concerning the top official of Hong Kong . The legal advice offered by outside counsel is a strong ground which can convince people that DoJ is not biased in his favour
不過，可惜的是，律政司由始至終除不斷重複尋求獨立法律意見不是慣常做法外，始終無法解釋為何拒絕就一宗如此敏感的案件尋求獨立法律意見。
But regrettably DoJ has kept saying throughout that seeking independent legal advice is not an established practice and it has even failed to explain why it refused to seek independent legal advice on this sensitive case
在社會層面而言，單單為了釋除公眾疑慮，免卻偏私爭議，維護律政司中立的權威，尋求獨立法律意見可謂百利而無一害。
From the social perspective seeking independent legal advice will only do good without any harm to achieving the mere objective of allaying public concern avoiding controversies over favouritism and safeguarding DoJs reputation as a neutral authority
前刑事檢控專員江樂士亦表示，律政司在政治敏感的案件中須按既定政策，尋求獨立法律意見。
Former Director of Public Prosecutions Ian Grenville CROSS has also contended that DoJ must seek independent legal advice on politically sensitive cases in accordance with its established policies
前任律政司司長梁愛詩、黃仁龍及袁國強皆有跟從這政策。
The Secretary for Justice of previous terms including Elsie LEUNG WONG Yan - lung and Rimsky YUEN also adhered to this policy
本星期一，香港大律師公會亦發表了意見書， 要求鄭若驊交代一般案件的決策過程及檢控細節，包括是否決定提出檢控的理據，以釋除公眾疑慮。
This Monday the Hong Kong Bar Association also issued a submission urging Teresa CHENG to explain the decision - making process and prosecutorial details in general cases including the grounds for deciding whether to prosecute a case so as to alleviate public concern
與此同時，香港大學民意研究計劃最近一項關於新任問責官員的民望調查顯示，鄭若驊的評分已"插水式"下跌至30.4分，較上月下跌6.7分，創上任後的新低。
At the same time a recent survey on the popularity of new accountability officials conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong shows that Teresa CHENGs rating has nosedived to 30.4 points a drop of 6.7 points over her rating last month and also a record low ever since her assumption of office
這評分不單是問責官員中最低，更是歷任律政司司長評分的新低，比2003年梁愛詩處理就《基本法》第二十三條立法時的民望更低，足見市民已不信任司長。
This rating is not only the lowest one among all the accountability officials but also a record low among the Secretary for Justice of the previous terms and it is even lower than Elsie LEUNGs popularity rating in 2003 when she handled the enactment of legislation for implementing Article 23 of the Basic Law . This aptly shows that people no longer have confidence in the Secretary for Justice
由此可見，事件引起公眾及法律界重大關注及質疑。
From this we can see that this incident has aroused grave concern and queries among the public and the legal profession
鄭若驊作為公職人員，必須向公眾清楚交代究竟梁振英有何特別之處，以致律政司放棄尋求獨立的法律意見。
As a public officer Teresa CHENG must clearly explain to people what is so special about LEUNG Chun - ying so much so that DoJ declined to seek independent legal advice
我認為，其中一項合理推斷，是現任全國政協副主席梁振英現時身份尊貴，因此案件細節不能讓獨立的大律師或公眾知悉，只可由律政司司長閉門作決定。
In my view a reasonable inference is that all is because of LEUNGs eminent status as incumbent Vice - Chairman of the CPPCC National Committee so the case details must not be disclosed to independent counsel or the public and the Secretary for Justice alone should make the decision behind closed doors
如此說法屬實，便是公然偏私護短的決定，是特區政府律政工作的一大耻辱。
If this is true then the decision is marked by blatant favouritism a huge disgrace to the SAR Governments administration of justice
如此說法並非事實，鄭若驊更有需要前來立法會作詳細解釋，重建公眾對律政司的信心。
If this is not true then it is all the more necessary for Teresa CHENG to give a detailed explanation in the Legislative Council so as to rebuild public confidence in DoJ
主席，我最後想回應司長剛才的發言。
President lastly I wish to give a reply on the earlier speech of the Secretary for Justice
首先，司長說傳召議案一旦獲得通過，便會影響律政司作刑事檢控決定的獨立性。
First the Secretary for Justice argued that the passage of this summoning motion would adversely affect DoJs independence in making prosecutorial decisions on criminal cases
不過，實情卻是，由於她作出了這個疑點重重的決定，又拒絕向公眾清楚交代，因而無法令廣大市民釋除對"獨立不等於獨斷獨行"的疑慮。
But the truth is that owing to her questionable decision and refusal to give people a clear account the general public are unable to allay their concern that independence does not mean arbitrariness
律政司作為本港的行政、立法及司法三權分立的重要支柱之一，如果失去公信力，不單影響香港及國際社會對本港司法制度的信心，更會拖垮整個政治體制。
DoJ is one of the important pillars in the separation of powers among the executive the legislature and the judiciary in Hong Kong . The loss of public confidence will not only affect the confidence of the local and international communities in our judicial system and this may even ruin the entire political institution
如果她願意這樣做，我們怎麼會建議根據《基本法》第七十三條傳召她，花費議會時間呢？
If she had agreed to do all this how would we have proposed to spend the precious time of the legislature on summoning her under Article 73 of the Basic Law?
此外，司長亦說前來議會交代便等於接受公審，我覺得真的是荒天下之大謬。
Furthermore the Secretary for Justice has also argued that giving an account in the legislature is tantamount to receiving a public trial . I think this honestly sounds very ridiculous
立法會的職權是監察政府施政，每年皆有不少官員前來議會向議員以至社會交代工作。
The Legislative Council is vested with the function and duty of monitoring the Governments policy implementation . Every year many officials come to the legislature to give an account of their work to Members or even the community
這是政府官員的責任，亦是議會的職權及使命所在。
This is a duty of government officials and also a function and mission of the legislature
我剛才已清楚說明，當案件涉及高官或重要人物及引起公眾特別關注時，律政司為釋除令人覺得他們有所偏袒的疑慮，便應尋求獨立法律意見，以往 的做法一向如此。
As I have explained clearly DoJ should seek independent legal advice if a case involving senior officials or important figures has aroused particular public concern so as to alleviate peoples concern about favouritism on their part . This has been an established practice all along
如果改變這做法，便需要交代為何要作出改變，否則公眾一旦無據可依，日後律政司便說了算。
In case of any changes to this practice DoJ must explain the reasons for such changes . Otherwise if the public have no basis to follow then DoJ can have all the say in the future
事實上，鄭若驊自上任以來醜聞不斷，包括她自己的僭建風波以至放生梁振英，在短短一年間，她以一人之力便幾乎將律政司的專業及誠信消耗殆盡，令人心寒。
In fact since Teresa CHENG assumed office she has been caught in successive scandals including her own UBWs incident and her decision to let go of LEUNG Chun - ying . Over a short span of one year she alone has plunged DoJs professionalism and integrity into near devastation . This has sent shivers down our spine
在UGL一案中，為釋除公眾疑慮，我絕對支持原議案要求律政司司長鄭若驊前來立法會席前解釋不尋求獨立法律意見及不作檢控的原因。
To allay public concern about the UGL case I definitely support the original motions request for summoning Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG to the Legislative Council to explain the reasons why she refused to seek independent legal advice and proceed with prosecution
此外，為釋除公眾疑慮，她更應該立即尋求獨立法律意見，處理此案。
Besides to allay public concern she should even seek independent legal advice forthwith and deal with this case
是否意味着未來我們會 與內地簽訂一些移交被告或被定罪人士的安排，所以現在要預先草擬呢？
Does it mean that in future we will make certain arrangements for the surrender of accused or convicted persons with the Mainland and therefore we have to draft a provision in advance?
如果當局現時已開始討論，並在《逃犯令》中寫下如此這般的條款，其內容其實是很空泛的，亦是非常草率的做法。
If the Administration has started the discussion and therefore it has to write down such provisions in the Fugitive Offenders France Order I shall say the content is actually rather vague and it is a rather hasty approach
這便是此條條文將來會有的客觀效果，並帶來非常嚴重的後果。
This is the objective result of the provision and it will bring about very serious consequences
即香港作為獨立的司法管轄區，是不能夠拒絕內地任何一項移交逃犯的要求，以致必須忽略其他國家包括現在談論中的法國要求移交罪犯或一名被告。
That is as an independent jurisdiction Hong Kong should never reject any request from the Mainland concerning the surrender of a fugitive and it has to ignore the request made by any other foreign country―including France which is under discussion―for the surrender of an accused or convicted person
就此，我們是不能拒絕內地的要求，一定要符合內地移交罪犯的要求。
In this connection we cannot reject any request made by the Mainland and we have to comply with the Mainlands request of surrendering of an accused or convicted person
即是說，根據一貫普通法，香港作為獨立司法管轄區應有的酌情權和考慮點，便需全部丟棄。
That is to say as an independent jurisdiction Hong Kong has to forsake all the power of discretion and considerations under the common law
這樣做便會很草率，因為我們不知道香港與內地未來究竟會有甚麼協議或安排，我相信屆時的爭議性亦很大。
This approach is too hasty as we do not know what agreement or arrangement will be made between Hong Kong and the Mainland . I believe that it will also cause huge controversy
如果就這樣寫入條文，便會令我們將來與其他外地簽署的任何逃犯令協議，都要有指定的條文，就是假如將來與內地簽訂了移交協議及安排，便會超越或蓋過香港與其他外國不同司法管轄區所簽訂的安排。
If this provision is written down it will necessitate stipulation of specified provisions when we sign any agreement relating to a fugitive order with any foreign places in future . It is because the agreement or arrangement to be made between Hong Kong and the Mainland in future on the surrender of fugitive will supersede or supplant arrangements signed between Hong Kong and other foreign jurisdictions
首先，我必須指出，這種做法沒有基礎，亦非常草率，我們亦在不知情的情況下，將所有香港作為獨立司法管轄區本身所擁有的酌情權，拱手相讓給內地。
In the first place I must point out that the approach is groundless and too hasty . Unknowingly we will surrender voluntarily the power of discretion entitled to an independent jurisdiction to the Mainland
另一問題是，我們問當局究竟是憑甚麼來決定，如果將來香港與內地訂下一些移交疑犯的安排，這種安排必定要蓋過與其他國家及司法管轄區訂下的安排呢？
Another question we have asked the Administration was about the basis on which the Government decided that the surrender arrangement of fugitives to be concluded between Hong Kong and the Mainland should supersede other arrangements made between Hong Kong and other countries or jurisdictions
律政司的人員當時是這樣回答：例如一名被告身在法國巴黎，但是法國里昂市要求將該疑犯或被告轉移到里昂市的法院受審，法國政府亦必會將該人士送到里昂市，而不會理會香港同時提出將該人士移交到香港受審的要求。
The officer from Department of Justice replied that if a defendant was in Paris France while the city of Lyon requested the transfer of the suspect or defendant to the court in Lyon to stand a trial the French Government would definitely transfer that person to Lyon and would ignore the simultaneous request made by Hong Kong for the surrender of that person to Hong Kong to stand a trial
這個比喻聽起來似乎有點道理，但仔細想想，由於香港是在"一國兩制"的制度下，這便是一個不符合香港實際情況，也是不準確的比喻。
The analogy sounds reasonable . However if we think it over under the framework of One Country Two Systems it will not be the case that fits the actual situation of Hong Kong and it is not a precise analogy
就是法國沒有"一國兩制"，她本身是一個國家，司法管轄區亦只有一個；而香港在"一國兩制"下，是獨立的司法管轄區；而內地的司法管轄區與香港的司法管轄區是分開的，兩個司法管轄區不會有從屬關係，亦沒有任何根本上的相連結。
It is because there is no One Country Two Systems in France . She is one state and she only has one jurisdiction . In Hong Kong under the framework of One Country Two Systems Hong Kong is an independent jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Mainland is separated from that of Hong Kong