Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
如果主辦機構得不到你剛才所說的體育會的支持，要到3個月前才去預訂場地，根本很多活動都舉辦不到。
If the organizer cannot get the support of NSAs as you mentioned and hence the booking of sports venues can be made only three months in advance many events will not be able to take place at all
因為如果到了明年8月才知道是否有游泳池游泳，很多人都來不到。
Because if the availability of swimming pool can only be confirmed in August next year many people will not be able to come
局長可否承諾幫助主辦人接觸......當然，你說他們不是奧運級，可能沒有資格見那些奧林匹克委員會、體育總會等，但最低限度幫助他們見第二優先類別的團體，讓他們得到足夠的場地及技術支援呢？
Could the Secretary undertake to help the organizer contact of course you said that they are not at the Olympic level so they may not be eligible to meet with the Olympic Committee and NSAs etc but at least you should help them meet with organizations belonging to the second priority category so that they can get sufficient venue and technical support?
局長可否承諾，確保主辦機構得到他們所需的體育場地及技術支援，讓我們明年主辦時不會"倒瀉籮蟹"，不會比其他主辦國家或地區失色呢？
Could the Secretary undertake to ensure that the organizer will receive the necessary sports venue and technical support so that the event to be held by us next year will not be a mess and outshone by other hosting countries or regions?
這是香港人的"面子"，希望你明白這一點。
I hope you understand that this concerns the face of Hong Kong people
說回歷史，2016年他們已經主動聯絡很多不同的政府部門當時我仍然任職民政事務局，所以我可以說出當時的歷史而我記得當時政制及內地事務局在2016年10月發出回信，表示政府部門會按照既定程序處理籌辦小組租用場地。
The organizer took the initiative to contact many government departments in 2016―I worked for the Home Affairs Bureau back then so I can recap the history―as I remember the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau issued a reply in October 2016 stating that government departments would process venue bookings by the organizer according to the established procedures
其實我在6月也回答過這個問題，我們的場地管理部門在2017年向他們介紹過香港有甚麼場地，但亦要根據既定的程序申請。
In fact I gave a reply to this question in June too . Our venue management department explained to them in 2017 what venues are available in Hong Kong and that application should be submitted according to the established procedures
我亦要特別提及，其實在申辦同樂運動會的過程當中，我們收到很多不同的聲音及意見，我在這裏不重複內容。
I also want to mention in particular that we have received many different views and opinions during the application process of GG2022 . I shall not repeat them here
在場地方面，據我理解，主辦單位其實差不多八九成的活動均已經找到所需的場地。
With regard to venues as far as I know the organizer has found the necessary venues for 80 % to 90 % of the events
其實同樂運動會不止是運動，亦是一個嘉年華會。
GG2022 is not only a sports event but also a carnival
當然，香港作為盛事之都，除了政府的場地，也有商界和私人場地供這種民間團體申請，而且據我理解，大部分賽事已經找到場地。
As Hong Kong is a events capital in addition to government venues the business sector and the private sector also provide venues for booking by such kind of non - governmental organizations . According to my understanding venues for most of the competitions have been identified
主席，香港行一夫一妻制，但因為我們是國際大都市，對於同性戀行為，我們都是包容的，甚至如果有人歧視他們，我們都會保護。
President monogamy is practiced in Hong Kong . However as an international metropolis we are tolerant of homosexuality and we will protect homosexuals from any discrimination against them
不過，問題是香港政府現時對於同性戀的朋友，其實是包容他們，還是鼓吹他們呢？
Having said that the question is whether the Hong Kong Government is now tolerant of homosexuality or advocating it
我舉個例子，正如吸煙人士，人人都知道吸煙對健康不好，但我們也尊重和包容他們吸煙，但問題是我們不會鼓吹吸煙。
Let us take smokers as an example . Everyone knows that smoking is bad for health . Nevertheless we respect and tolerate smokers without advocating smoking
今次特區政府支持香港同樂運動會，其實你們是在包容它，還是鼓吹它呢？
By supporting GG2022 in Hong Kong this time is the SAR Government actually tolerating or advocating it?
主席，香港作為一個舉辦很多不同盛事和項目的多元化城市，任何企業或組織若希望舉辦盛事，只要按照程序進行，香港是有空間讓它們舉辦不同類型的活動的。
President Hong Kong is a diversified city that organizes many different major events and projects . Any company or organization that wishes to organize a major event simply have to follow the procedures . There is room in Hong Kong for them to organize various types of event
所以，從我們的角度而言，最低限度從民政事務局的角度而言，我們主要以體育政策來看，甚至亦要顧及宗教方面。
Hence from our point of view or at least from the perspective of the Home Affairs Bureau our main concern is the sports policy and may even have to take the religious aspect into consideration
之前同樂運動會申請舉辦時，政府部門收到大量反對聲音，例如明光社、性傾向條例家校關注組等，就這次申辦提出強烈的反對意見，擔心有些信息會造成社會分化。
When the application for GG2022 was filed government departments have received a large number of oppositions from for instance The Society for Truth and Light and the Family School Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ordinance Concern Group . They strongly opposed the application worrying that some messages would cause social division
所以，最低限度在我們民政事務局而言，作為場地管理部門，任何團體如果要申辦不同的項目，只要沒有違法，我們就會按照既定程序來跟進。
Hence from the perspective of the Home Affairs Bureau at the very least we as the venue management department will handle the application for organizing various events from any organization according to the established procedures as long as there is no violation of the law
我現在想問局長，除了在社會價值和家庭價值方面有機會引起大量市民出來反對示威外，局長有否想過任何一位參賽者如果屆時"不生性"，宣傳一些敏感的政治議題，包括好像這個台灣的同志運動會其實我不太關心這個議題，最初我希望他們低調舉辦就算，但現時一而再，再而三地要我們關注局長有沒有能力負責呢？
Now I want to ask the Secretary apart from the possibility of arousing the opposition of a large number of people to demonstrate for social and family values has the Secretary thought about if any participant does not behave himselfherself and promote some sensitive political issues just like what this Taiwan Gay Sports and Movement Association has done―I actually do not care much about this issue and just hope they would keep it low - profile but now it repeatedly draws our concern―will the Secretary be able to take responsibility?
因為他們沒有監管，參賽者穿甚麼運動衫、掛甚麼旗幟，國旗也好，甚麼旗也好，你們有否擔心過呢？
As there is no monitoring have you ever worried about the sportswear put on by the participants and the kind of flags they hang whether they are the national flags or any other flags?
我現在越了解便越認為當中很複雜、很混亂，政府真的要謹慎處理這個議題。
The more I understand the situation now the more I find it complicated and chaotic . The Government really has to handle this issue cautiously
至於他們在香港進行體育活動或文化活動，同樣需要依照香港的所有法例來進行。
The sports or cultural activities to be held by them in Hong Kong will likewise have to comply with all laws of Hong Kong
主席，我剛才聽完局長的解釋，亦看到其主體答覆，表面上是說公平、表面上是說共融、表面上是說道理，但完全失去了焦點，這些分明是披着羊皮的豺狼，但他仍然善待他們，他忘記了2014年的佔中、忘記了2019年的"黑暴風波"，這根本是一而再、再而三即將來到的風暴，但他沒有知覺，上兩次已經沒有知覺，今次怎能夠再沒有知覺呢？
President I have listened to the Secretarys explanation and read his main reply . On the surface he talked about equality inclusion and being reasonable but actually he has completely lost focus . These are clearly wolves in sheeps clothing yet he still treats them kindly
就此，兩位局長均要肩負這個責任，如果他們今天仍然迷迷惘惘、糊糊塗塗，別人說共融，他們便共融，最後被人"溶了"也不知道。
Both Secretaries have to take this responsibility . If they remain confused nowadays and talk about inclusiveness just like everyone else they will be melted before they know it
連國家安全這條底線也不守，然後容許這些以同樂運動會為名......還要提升至與奧林匹克比拚、比較。
Without safeguarding the bottom line of national security they let these so - called Gay Games and even compare it with the Olympics
不是這樣的，要弄清楚主導在哪裏......
It is not like that at all . We have to figure out who is in charge
當然就着共融或國安方面，我不是國安委委員，但我相信相關的部門會審慎地處理任何會帶來香港和國家風險的問題。
With regard to inclusion or national security I am not a member of the Committee for Safeguarding National Security but I believe relevant departments will handle any issues that may bring risks to Hong Kong and the country prudently
主席，我以法案委員會主席的身份提交報告。
President I deliver the report in my capacity as the Chairman of the Bills Committee
《2021年法律執業者條例草案》旨在修訂《法律執業者條例》第31A條，讓非大律師的律政人員在符合相關資格規定的情況下，可獲委任為資深大律師。
The Legal Practitioners Amendment Bill 2021 the Bill seeks to amend section 31A of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance Cap . 159 so that legal officers who are not barristers are eligible to be appointed as Senior Counsel SC upon satisfying the relevant eligibility requirements
法案委員會共舉行了2次會議，就《條例草案》作出詳細討論。
The Bills Committee has held a total of two meetings to discuss the Bill in detail
對於政府當局建議，非大律師律政人員跟私人執業大律師及大律師律政人員一樣，應在符合有關資格規定的情況下具資格獲委任為資深大律師，委員均表支持。
Members have expressed support to the proposal that same as barristers in private practice and legal officers who are barristers legal officers should be eligible to be appointed as SC provided that the eligibility requirements are satisfied
至於《條例草案》建議獲委任為資深大律師的非大律師律政人員，只在任職律政人員期間，才有權使用資深大律師的名銜，有委員認為，這建議有違公平對待大律師和非大律師律政人員及選賢任能的原則。
As regards the proposal in the Bill that a legal officer appointed as SC is only entitled to use the title of SC when holding office as a legal officer some members considered this contrary to giving fair treatment to barristers and legal officers as well as the merit - based selection principles
他們認為，獲委任為資深大律師的非大律師律政人員必須符合成為資深大律師的實質資格規定，並且經同樣程序由終審法院首席法官委任，因此理應讓他們在離開政府時保留此名銜。
They held that since legal officers appointed as SC must satisfy the substantive eligibility requirements of SC and be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal CJ through the same process they should be allowed to retain the title after leaving the Government
政府當局回應時強調，《條例草案》一方面旨在確保所有律政人員只要符合實質資格規定，不論他們是否大律師，均應同樣具資格獲考慮委任為資深大律師；另一方面旨在確保私人法律執業者的任何權利均不受影響，亦不會干擾大律師與律師作為法律服務提供者的專業劃分。
In response the Government stressed that on the one hand the Bill sought to ensure that irrespective of whether they were barristers or not all legal officers should be equally eligible for consideration to be appointed as SC upon satisfying the substantive eligibility requirements . On the other hand the Bill also sought to ensure that any rights of the legal practitioners in the private sector would not be affected and that the professional demarcation between the barristers and solicitors branches as legal services providers would not be disturbed
上述建議已在《條例草案》的兩個重要目的之間取得適當平衡。
The proposal did strike a balance between the two important objectives of the Bill
政府當局亦指出，獲委任為資深大律師的非大律師律政人員，若在離任政府後及於私人執業時獲准保留該名銜，或會對公眾造成混淆。
The Administration also advised that if legal officers appointed as SC were allowed to retain that title after leaving the Government and when practising in the private sector it might cause confusion to the public
為讓被委任為資深大律師的非大律師律政人員在離職時可保留資深大律師名銜，委員提出了不同的建議。
In order to enable legal officers non - officers appointed as SC to retain the title of SC after leaving the Government members put forward various proposals
部分委員建議設立與"資深大律師"有所區分的新名銜，讓符合有關資格規定的非大律師律政人員有權在任職律政人員時以至離任後使用該新名銜，以及提供途徑方便已獲委任為資深大律師的非大律師律政人員，在離職時可以轉為大律師，使他們在離職後可繼續保留該名銜。
Some members suggested that a new title distinctive from Senior Counsel should be created and those legal officers who satisfied the eligibility requirements should be entitled to use that new title during and after they left office as legal officers . Moreover a channel should be provided to facilitate those legal officers who had been appointed as SC to switch to the barristers stream after leaving office thus enabling them to retain that title continuously
政府當局察悉委員的建議並已作出回應。
The Administration had taken note of and responded to members suggestions
部分委員認為《條例草案》的建議對挽留律政人員而言或許並不吸引，並懷疑會否只能令非常少數的律政人員受惠。
Some members were of the view that the proposals in the Bill might be unattractive for the purpose of retaining legal officers and questioned whether the Bill would only benefit a very small number of legal officers
政府當局回應時表示，挽留律政人員並非《條例草案》的目的，而可令多少人受惠亦非主要考量。
The Administration replied that the retention of legal officers was not the objective of the Bill and the number of persons who might benefit from the Bill was not a major consideration either
政府當局重申《條例草案》主要目的在於維護平等原則，讓所有律政人員均享有同等對待及權利。
The Administration reiterated that the main objective of the Bill was to uphold the equality principle that all legal officers should deserve the same treatment and rights
在審議的過程中，委員關注獲委任為資深大律師的非大律師律政人員操守的監管問題，以及在委任非大律師律政人員為資深大律師一事上，政府當局與專業律師團體的關係。
During the course of scrutiny members were concerned about the regulation of the conduct of a legal officer who was appointed as SC and the relationship between the Government and legal professional bodies in respect of the appointment of legal officer as SC
政府當局已回應委員的提問。
The Government had responded to members questions
此外，有委員認為在《條例草案》獲通過後，政府當局應探討將《條例草案》為非大律師律政人員作出的類似安排延展至私人執業律師，讓他們也可有機會獲考慮委任為資深大律師。亦有委員提出，長遠而言，當局或需檢視將法律服務提供者劃分為大律師及律師兩個分支這種做法是否有持續需要及理據。
Moreover some members considered that after passage of the Bill the Administration should explore extending similar arrangement for legal officers
代理主席，剛才很多同事都說這法案已審議多時，終於今日可以來到大會三讀。
Deputy President many colleagues said earlier that this Bill after a lengthy process of deliberation is eventually tabled to this Council for Third reading today
我忽發奇想，如果這一刻是"35+"的議會，這法案有否機會提上來討論？
I have a thought that suddenly popped up in my mind . If at this moment this is a 35 Council is there any chance for this Bill to be tabled for discussion?
有否機會通過？
Is there a chance for it to be passed?
亦慶幸有延任一年的時間，可以令到這法案回來大會，實在是萬幸。
Luckily with the extension of our term of office for one year this Bill can return to this Council and this is indeed most fortunate
代理主席，都市固體廢物徵費其實不是遲了幾年，而是遲了超過20年，因為大家看鄰近地區，無論是日本、南韓、台灣，當大家都覺得這些地方做得似模似樣、井井有條時，其實別人是早過我們幾十年就已經起步。
Deputy President actually the charging for municipal solid waste MSW is late not for a few years but for over two decades . It is because as we can see from the neighbouring regions whether it be Japan South Korea or Taiwan when we think that these places have performed quite satisfactorily and in a well - organized manner actually they already made a start several decades ahead of us
這些地方的經驗告訴我們，徵費提供了一個誘因，而實際上減廢是要靠分類。
From the experiences of these places waste charging provides an incentive and it actually relies on waste separation to achieve waste reduction
當然，大家聽到很多廣告都還是說"揼少啲 慳多啲"，背後其實還有一句，就是"請你多做分類"。
Of course many advertisements are still telling us to dump less save more and behind it there is actually a line that reads more waste sorting please
但是，一些人會駁斥說只要從非法途徑丟棄廢物，便可以"慳多啲"。
However some people may argue that one can save more by simply dumping waste through illegal channels
所以，我們早前曾 與其他議員同事進行交流，究竟我們為何要做環保？
In this connection some time ago we had some exchanges with other Members . Why should we work for environmental protection?
為何要減少廢物？
Why should we reduce waste?
為何要善用資源？
Why should we put resources to good use?
但是，我要強調，如果從利益出發的話，有人便會問，我們現在要多付金錢去減廢，要多做工夫，亦要花費更多的時間，這還可以說是利益嗎？
However I must emphasize that if we do it because it is in our interest some people may ask what interest there is to speak of when we have to pay extra money do extra work and spend extra time to reduce waste now
所以，我反而要強調的是，我們應該在未來要多強調每個人的公民責任，也是作為地球一種生物或人類的一種責任，而這責任就是要減害。
So quite on the contrary let me stress that in the future we should put more emphases on the civic responsibility of each person and our duty as a living thing on earth or as human beings and this very duty is harm reduction
如果不是從一個減害的角度出發，其實很難遊說所有人或多些人去做。
If we do not do it from the angle of harm reduction actually it is very difficult to persuade everyone or more people to do it
事實上，減害的工作不單對地球減害，還包括對有限的資源減害，對下一代減害等。
In fact harm reduction refers not only to reducing harm to the earth but also reducing harm to the limited resources and to the next generation
所以，能夠把這目標說得更理直氣壯，我認為是有必要的。
Therefore I think it is essential to spell out this objective more righteously
代理主席，看回香港，現實是土地十分珍貴，寸金尺土，如果用作堆填，值不值得呢？
Deputy President looking back on Hong Kong the reality is that land is most precious and scarce
部門曾經提過"轉廢為能"，意思說得直白一點，就是焚化爐。
The Department has put forward the idea of waste - to - energy before and to put it plainly it is all about incinerators
兩星期前，我們環境事務委員會的委員看了不少的回收場，其中一個是做淤泥焚化，而這個T․PARK的確提供了一個不錯的環境，如果不是疫情影響，它開放時是排長龍的，但現在由於疫情影響則沒有人用。
A fortnight ago our members of the Panel on Environmental Affairs visited many recycling sites . One of these sites engages in incineration of sewage sludge and this T․PARK has indeed provided quite a good environment . Had it not been for the epidemic there would have been long queues during its opening hours but no one is using it now due to the epidemic
可是，這便有一個問題，焚化爐是需要的，每個地方都有，但我們要確保焚化的物料是不可回收的物料，不能夠是一些可以回收或還有價值的物料，我覺得這條底線是要守護的。
But there is a problem here . Incinerators are what we do need just as it is needed in all places but we must ensure that the materials to be incinerated are non - recyclables . They cannot be recyclable materials or materials that still have value
另外牽涉的就是廢物出路的問題，因為很多參與這個法案委員會的同事都曾提出，當實施垃圾徵費，加強分類工作之後，理論上收回的都市固體廢物種類會增多，數量也會增多，究竟部門是否有適當的方法去處理呢？
This I think is the baseline that we must uphold . Another issue involved is the outlet for waste . It is because as pointed out by many colleagues who took part in the Bills Committee when implementing waste charging and enhancing waste separation theoretically the types and quantities of MSW to be recovered will increase
當然，大家都認同，最理想的方法就是本地處理，本地處理無須再增加排放和污染，亦對其他地方減少負面影響，不是有錢便可將垃圾推到其他人的地方。
Does the Department have appropriate measures to deal with it? . Of course as we all agree it is most desirable for such waste to be handled locally for this will not further increase emissions and pollution and will reduce the adverse impacts on other places . It is not right to dump our waste in other peoples places simply because we have the money to do so
所以，這牽涉的下一個問題是，在處理都市固體廢物方面，究竟我們是用甚麼思維呢？
Therefore the next question involved is our mentality in handling MSW
一定是沒錢賺的，還要"倒貼"，不符合經濟效益，做不做呢？
It is certain that no profit can be made and worse still extra money has to be paid for it which is not cost - effective . Do we still do it or not?
如果大家還是停留在這個問題上，便已經說明我們未夠決心去解決都市固體廢物的問題，因為當大家還是用錢衡量環保的時候，其實永遠都沒有答案，反而我們應該要搞清楚這是我們的責任，即使貼錢都要做。
If we still continue to ponder this question it shows that we are not determined enough to tackle the MSW problem . It is because if we still measure environmental protection in monetary terms actually there will never be an answer . Instead we should understand clearly that this is our duty and we must go ahead with it even though extra money will have to be paid
當然，要做到本地處理，便要搞好科研，要投入多一點，研究如何令我們能夠在本地重用這些我們自己製造的廢物。
Certainly in order for waste to be handled locally it is necessary to properly take forward scientific research and provide greater input to study how the waste generated by ourselves can be reused locally
問題在於我們投放到科研的資源有多少、成效有多少。
The question lies in how many resources we have ploughed into scientific research and how effective the results are
除了科研可以帶動就業之外，前線的回收再造都能夠提供就業崗位，這亦是我們香港工會聯合會很強調須帶動一個"綠領"工業或"綠領"就業的方向。
Apart from the fact that the development of scientific research can spur employment frontline waste recovery and recycling can also create jobs . This echoes the direction of promoting a green collar industry or green collar employment that we in the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions have strongly emphasized
代理主席，2019年，上海實施了《上海市生活垃圾管理條例》。一年後，上海的垃圾填埋率已經由四成四下降至6.3%，大大減少了堆填的需求，這亦作為我們很好的參考。
Deputy President in 2019 Shanghai implemented the Regulations of Shanghai Municipality on Municipal Solid Waste Management and one year after that the landfilling rate in Shanghai dropped from 44 % to 6.3 % and the demand for landfilling has been greatly reduced
這數字都算驚人，亦需要處理。
This figure is quite astonishing and needs to be addressed
所以，都市固體廢物收費的落實，我希望能夠起到應有的作用。
Therefore with the implementation of MSW charging I hope that the desired results can be achieved
對於法案要求的18個月準備期，我們認為是合適的，因為觀乎周邊鄰近的地方，事實上，任何地方都沒有一蹴而就的成效，都是要經過一段時間的艱苦奮鬥，因為這項都市固體廢物收費的法案不是"埋門一腳"，即不是在龍門前踢一腳，而是剛剛"開波"，在固體廢物的處理上剛剛"開波"。
Regarding the 18 - month preparatory period as required by the Bill we consider it appropriate because if we look at the neighbouring places we will see that success was not achieved instantly in any of these places as they all had to work very hard for a period of time . It is also because this Bill on MSW charging is not the final kick to scoring a goal that is it is not the last kick before the goalpost . Rather the match has just started
正如我小時候很喜歡看的《足球小將》一樣，他"扭"一個波，由中場"扭"到龍門都要數集的時間，射一球波也要數集的時間。
When it comes to MSW disposal it is just the very beginning . This can be compared to Captain Tsubasa which I very much liked to watch when I was a child . When he was dribbling the ball it would take several episodes for him to dribble it from midfield to the goalpost and it would take several episodes for him to score a goal
當然，這一集是很重要的，能夠先"開波"，之後的過程，我相信還是要很多熱血的市民、公眾一齊參與，去克服不同的困難，然後才達到我們的目的。
Certainly this episode now is very important as the match can get started first . In the subsequent process I think it still requires the participation of many passionate citizens and members of the public to overcome various difficulties before achieving our goal
習主席在2018年的新春賀辭中很強調幸福是要奮鬥出來的。
During his Spring Festival speech in 2018 President XI strongly emphasized that hard work is the path to happiness
我相信，要減少廢物及做好垃圾分類，都是要大家一齊努力及奮鬥，才可以做到減排的作用。
To achieve waste reduction and separation I believe it will take our concerted efforts and hard work to produce results in waste reduction
代理主席，我發言支持《2021年法律執業者條例草案》的二讀。
Deputy President I speak in support of the Second Reading of the Legal Practitioners Amendment Bill 2021 the Bill
代理主席，這項《條例草案》是關於在律政司任職律政人員的事務律師可以透過這次修例，獲資格申請資深大律師的頭銜。
Deputy President this Bill is about allowing solicitors who work as legal officers in the Department of Justice DoJ to become eligible for the title of Senior Counsel SC through this legislative amendment
根據我們行內的處理方式，其實大律師才有資格申請成為資深大律師，現在經過修例後，任職律政人員的事務律師也有資格申請成為資深大律師。
According to the practice in our profession actually only barristers are eligible to become SC . Now following the amendment solicitors working as legal officers are also eligible to become SC
事實上，在律政人員中，我相信很多事務律師也具有十分豐富的訟辯經驗，而且他們的專業水平亦很高，其實他們絕對有資格申請成為資深大律師。
As a matter of fact I believe that among the legal officers many solicitors have rich experience in advocacy and are of a very high professional standard . In fact they are absolutely qualified to become SC
這次修例，我認為是公道的安排。
This amendment in my opinion is a fair arrangement
對於律政司採用這種方式，希望挽留部門內的人才，我也可以理解。
I understand that DoJ has adopted this approach to retain the talents in the department
不過，代 理主席，我要在此提出一些觀點。
However Deputy President here I would like to raise some points
在這次《條例草案》的整項審議或諮詢過程中，我留意到大律師公會表明反對，並在反對期間嘗試貶低事務律師，甚至暗示事務律師如果做到資深大律師便是次一等。
During the whole process of scrutiny or consultation of the Bill I noticed that the Bar Association had clearly expressed its opposition . In the course of its opposition it tried to belittle solicitors and even implied that if solicitors could work as SC they would be just second best
這類觀點實在令人反感，就正如大律師公會長期"掛羊頭，賣狗肉"，不搞專業，只搞政治一樣，令公眾覺得非常反感。
Such views are indeed offensive as in the case of the Bar Association which has long been crying up wine and selling vinegar engaging in politics rather than professionalism thus causing the public to feel disgusted . In the past solicitors and barristers used to deal with different types of work assuming different duties
這一點非常重要，我曾在法案委員會提到要明確肯定究竟哪個專業團體會對該等人士作出專業的監管，而政府的答覆十分明確，表示會由律師會對該等人士作出專業操守的監管，這亦是需要重點釐清的事。
This is vitally important . I have mentioned in the Bills Committee that it is necessary to make it clear which professional body will exercise professional regulation over these persons and the Government has replied explicitly that the Law Society will exercise regulation over the professional conduct of these persons . This is an important point which warrants clarification
其實我們曾提出意見，希望政府可以留意，我希望政府未來可以繼續觀察實施後的情況，例如任職律政人員的事務律師在申請成為資深大律師後，會否選擇沿用舊有方式來處理此事，例如他寧願放棄一些工作或請假，重新投入training，然後取得大律師的資格。
Actually we have raised a view to which I hope the Government will pay attention . I hope that after the implementation the Government will continue to observe the situation such as whether a solicitor working as a legal officer will choose to handle this matter under the existing approach after becoming SC . For example he would rather give up some jobs or take leave to receive training afresh and then obtain the qualification of a barrister
可以的話，為他們提供永久性的安排，也是一件好事。
It would be good to provide them with a permanent arrangement if possible
當然，我們留意到在這階段，律政司還是決定採用現時的安排，即資深大律師的頭銜在有關人士離任後便會收回。
Of course we note that at this stage DoJ has decided to adopt the present arrangement that is the title of SC will be withdrawn after the person concerned leaves office . Certainly from the perspective of retaining talents this is understandable . We will take this step first and proceed with the development in the future
藉着今天的機會，我想說的是，這次修例，我認為是公平、公道的安排。
I would like to take the opportunity today to say that I regard this amendment as a fair and impartial arrangement