Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
然後到了12月6日及13日這兩個會期，所有政府的附屬法例也通過了，只餘下議員議案，只要政府將這項追加撥款條例草案交上來，絕對有切實可行範圍、空間、時間，在這兩個會期內處理這項條例草案，但政府沒有把握機會，善用時間將這項在法例上規定必須在切實可行範圍內盡快提交的追加撥款條例草案，交來立法會進行二讀及三讀。
Then at the two meetings on the 6 and 13 of December all the subsidiary legislation of the Government had been passed and there remained Members motions only . Had the Government tabled the Bill before this Council it would have been absolutely practicable and there would have been room and time for the Bill to be examined at these two meetings . But the Government did not seize the opportunity to introduce in a timely manner the Bill into the Legislative Council for it to be read the Second and Third times as soon as practicable as it is required to do in law
從我以上所說的背景，大家可以看到，在11月和12月多個大會上，撇除11月8日留作辯論施政報告致謝議案的大會之外，其實政府有很多機會可以盡快將這項沒有成立法案委員會審議的條例草案再提交立法會恢復二讀及三讀。
From the background as detailed by me Members can see that at the many meetings held in November and December apart from the meeting on 8 November which was scheduled for the debate on the Motion of Thanks actually the Government had plenty of opportunities to expeditiously table before the Legislative Council the Bill on which no Bills Committee was set up for resumption of the Second Reading debate and Third Reading
我要再一次強調，政府漠視《公共財政條例》第9條的要求，遲遲不將這條例草案盡快提交立法會恢復二讀及三讀，充分顯示政府處理這項追加撥款條例草案的方式，是罔顧《公共財政條例》第9條的規定。
Let me stress once again that the Government has turned a blind eye to the requirement under section 9 of PFO in delaying the introduction of the Bill into the Legislative Council for resumption of the Second Reading debate and Third Reading which should have been done as soon as possible . This fully shows that the Government has neglected the requirement in section 9 of PFO in the way it handled the Bill
但是，如果你沒有這麼"厚臉皮"，不敢這樣解說的話，那麼，"盡快提交"這4個字，請問你如何解釋？
But if you are not so shameless as to interpret it in such a way then how do you understand the requirement that the Bill should be introduced as soon as practicable?
是否規定只適用於首讀而不適用於其後的程序？
Does this requirement apply only to the First Reading but not the ensuing procedures?
張建宗曾說，如果在《議事規則》修訂之前提交條例草案，由於有議員表明會"拉 布"，故根本不會有果效。
Matthew CHEUNG said that as some Members had stated their intention to filibuster the introduction of the Bill before the amendment of RoP would not bear fruit
基於建制派佔過半數的情況，如果政府在11月2日至12月13日任何一個會議上將這法案交來立法會恢復二讀及三讀，這條例草案必定獲得通過。即使有中止待續、休會等情況出現，最後都會在2017年內獲得通過。
Given that the pro - establishment camp is in the majority had the Government tabled the Bill before the Legislative Council at any meeting between 2 November and 13 December for resumption of the Second Reading debate and the Third Reading the Bill would definitely have been passed and despite such situations as adjournment of debate or the Council it would have been passed in 2017 in the end
所以，張建宗說不會有任何果效，這說法並不成立。
Therefore the remark made by Matthew CHEUNG about not bearing fruit cannot hold water
說到底，政府押後將追加撥款條例草案提交立法會恢復二讀及三讀，根本的原因是與條例草案的內文無關，與條例草案的爭議性無關，亦不是因為沒有切實可行的範圍，因而不能夠盡快提交立法會恢復二讀及三讀，令政府不能遵守《公共財政條例》第9條。
In the final analysis the reason of the Government in deferring the introduction of the Bill into the Legislative Council for resumption of the Second Reading debate and Third Reading has nothing to do with the contents of the Bill; nor is there anything to do with the controversies over the Bill and it is not because it is impracticable to expeditiously introduce the Bill into the Legislative Council for resumption of the Second Reading debate and Third Reading which resulted in the Governments failure to act in compliance with section 9 of PFO
今天才提交立法會，原因是要配合建制派，我也不知道政府是要配合建制派，抑或是始作俑者，這項政治任務便是要修改《議事規則》，再通過"一地兩檢"，這些是重中之重，然後才做一些所謂"正經"事情......
It is tabled before the Legislative Council only today because the Government wanted to work in unison with the pro - establishment camp . I am not sure whether the Government wanted to work in unison with the pro - establishment camp or the Government actually started it all in order to accomplish the political mission of amending RoP and then getting the co - location arrangement passed tasks which are of the utmost importance before proceeding to the so - called proper business
陳志全議員，我提醒你，根據《議事規則》，在這項辯論中，議員應集中討論《條例草案》的整體優劣。
Mr CHAN Chi - chuen let me remind you that under RoP in this debate Members should focus on the overall merits of the Bill in their discussion
因此，我今天不能支持這項追加撥款條例草案。
Therefore I cannot support the Bill today
最後，我只會多說數句，在恢復二讀這個時候，我必須指出，政府這次是前言不對後語，說不會"助攻"，說保持中立，其實是為了騰出時間處理有關"一地兩檢"的無約束力議案，處理修改《議事規則》。
To end let me just say a few words . At this time when the Second Reading debate is resumed I must point out that the Government has made contradictory remarks . While it said that it would not play assists and that it would remain neutral actually its intention is to give time to the non - binding motion on co - location arrangement and the amendment of RoP
我要在這裏說得清清楚楚，立此存照。
I must make this point here most clearly for the record
《2017年稅務條例草案》 《2017年稅務條例草案》。
Inland Revenue Amendment No . 6 Bill 2017 . Inland Revenue Amendment No
本會現在成為全體委員會，繼續審議《2017年印花稅條例草案》。
Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to continue the consideration of the Stamp Duty Amendment Bill 2017 the Bill
主席，正如你剛才提醒議員，這項《追加撥款條例草案》的主要內容，與公務員加薪及公務員薪酬問題有關，我也會就着這一點發言。
President rightly as you reminded Members just now the Supplementary Appropriation 2016 - 2017 Bill the Bill mainly deals with the civil service pay and pay increase . I will also speak on this point
主席，在很多重大的公共議題和法案工作上，很多社會人士都認為由於立法會議員"拉布"，以致立法和施政步伐被拖慢。
President insofar as numerous major public issues and processing Bills are concerned many members of the community think that the pace of enacting legislation and administration has been slowed down due to filibustering by some Members of this Council
但是，正如我在其他場合指出，過去一屆立法會期間，政府提交了89項法案，我們通過了83項，這是第五屆立法會的成績。
However as I pointed out on other occasions within the term of the previous Legislative Council 83 of the 89 Bills tabled by the Government were passed . That was the achievement of the fifth Legislative Council
此外，還有超過數百項附屬條例提交立法會，全部均獲通過。
Furthermore more than several hundred pieces of subsidiary legislation tabled before the Legislative Council were passed too
我記得花了大部分議政時間，不斷催促政府官員和公務員盡快把一些條例草案或政策提交立法會。
I recall Members spent most of their time on repeatedly urging government officials and civil servants to introduce Bills or policies into the Legislative Council expeditiously instead of deliberating on political affairs
我想指出的是，如果連議員都能提交法案，為甚麼政府有這麼多人手，也未能完成有關工作，要拖延這麼長時間呢？
If even Members are capable of introducing Bills why can the Government given its abundant manpower not complete the relevant task after such a long delay?
又像我們關心的特殊教育工作及政策，為甚麼問題這麼迫切，而且這麼多小朋友需要幫助，但仍然照樣拖延，看不到政府盡快立法保障兒童的權利。
Although the special education initiative and policy which are a concern to us are very urgent and many children are in need of assistance why does the Government continue to procrastinate and fail to enact legislation expeditiously to protect childrens rights?
過去數年來，雖然我看到公務員架構確實有很多人手，但不代表速度和效率必定提升。
Over the past couple of years although we have seen that the civil service structure has abundant manpower it does not necessarily guarantee enhanced speed and efficiency of the civil service
我本人關心很多跟法律政策有關的議題，我們也等了很長時間，例如仲裁和第三方資助仲裁條例......
Personally I am concerned about subjects related to policies of law . Moreover we have waited for a very long time . For instance ordinances concerning arbitration and third party funding for arbitration
為何我們看到有些政策明顯對香港有利，以及一些必須進行的法律改革工作，卻往往一拖再拖，再三拖延，得不到正視呢？
We have seen some policies though being obviously conducive to Hong Kong as well as essential legal reform work are delayed repeatedly instead of being addressed squarely?
特區政府若再批評立法會議員，指施政步伐被拖慢是由於議員"拉布"，這是轉移視線的伎倆。
The Special Administrative Region Government is seeking to divert attention should it criticize Legislative Council Members again saying the filibusters staged by Members are to blame for delays in the pace of administration
政府很多應做的工作，其實有足夠公務員人手可以提供協助。
Actually there is adequate civil service manpower to assist the Government in doing what it is supposed to do
如果有這麼多人手，有這麼龐大的公共財政在背後"撐腰"，仍然未能提升效率的話，對於再追加撥款、提高公務員日後的薪酬或擴大公務員體制，我極有保留。
Should the Government fail to enhance its efficiency even though it has abundant manpower and is backed by strong public finance I will have strong reservations about giving approval to another supplementary provision increasing the future pay of civil servants or expanding the civil service system
這些全都是納稅人辛苦賺來的血汗錢，如果花了錢卻仍然看不到顯著成效的話，我認為一是這些錢花得不到位，一是公務員的工作或架構有問題。
If the money made by taxpayers with their blood and sweat is used without producing any obvious results I would say that the money is not well spent because it shows that the work or structure of the civil service is problematic
政府現在把很多工作外判，或由非合約員工處理。
Much of the work of the Government has now been outsourced or dealt with by non - contract staff
這個做法我申報，我是房委會委員導致最近發生了一些工潮事件，我們也看到工人的利益不受保障。
This practice―I declare that I am a member of the Housing Authority―has led to the recent occurrence of some industrial actions . We have also seen the interest of workers not being protected
議員助理辛勤工作，協助議員工作、議政、翻查條例，這都是非常重要的工作。
The work of the assistants is very important as they have to work hard to assist Members in performing their duties discussing politics and looking up ordinances
主席，抱歉我可能有些離題，但我很快說完這一點便會收口。
President sorry I might have strayed from the subject but I will soon finish this point and stop
如果議員助理的質素不斷提升，我相信議員議政的質素也會不斷提升。
Should the quality of the assistants continue to be upgraded I believe the quality of policy deliberations by Members will continue to be upgraded as well
所以，我希望政府能夠正視議員助理的重要性，他們在整個憲制架構下擔當非常重要的角色，與公務員一樣。
This is why I hope the Government can address squarely the significance of the assistants for like civil servants they play a very important role in the constitutional framework as a whole
我也希望議員助理能夠得到公平的薪酬，並且得到尊重，在工作上得到絕對認可。
I also hope they can get fair pay and respect as well as absolute recognition for their work
主席，我最後想談一談《公共財政條例》，因為我們今天討論的議題，跟《公共財政條例》息息相關。
Lastly President I would like to say a few words about the Public Finance Ordinance PFO because the question under discussion today is inextricably linked with PFO
為何我要提及《公共財政條例》呢？
Why must PFO be mentioned?
主席，我們今天的辯論，其實是一個良好示範。
President our debate today is actually a good demonstration
為甚麼《公共財政條例》賦予立法會的權力，根據《基本法》賦予立法會審議財政預算案或撥款的能力，肯定跟我們的辯論和發言權息息相關呢？
Why are the powers conferred on the Legislative Council under PFO and the powers conferred on the Legislative Council under the Basic Law to scrutinize budgets or appropriations are definitely inextricably linked with our right to speak and debate?
我不認同一些說法，指議員提出的修正案大大扼殺立法會尤其是財委會的辯論空間。
I disagree with the allegation that the amendments proposed by Members seriously stifle the room for debate in the Legislative Council especially the Finance Committee
不過，我今天不會在這場辯論中冗長地討論這一點，因為今天討論的是追加撥款。
Nevertheless I will not discuss this point at length in this debate today because the theme of our discussion now is the supplementary appropriation
搜尋"引稱"的結果，全部均是政府的法例條文。
The search results of 引稱 are all legislative provisions
所以，我當時問政府可否檢討一下，究竟"引稱"一詞是否特區政府自創的呢？
Back then I did ask the Government whether it would review if the word 引稱 was its own creation
法律草擬是一直承襲下來的，我並非說這是習非成是，我只想與局長交流。
Law drafting always inherits past practices . I am not saying that this is taking a wrongdoing to be correct . I just wish to exchange views with the Secretary
如大家之前沒有思考過這個問題，根據《漢語大詞典》及其他數部大辭典，"稱引"會否更適合呢？
If Members have not given any thoughts to this question before should 稱引 be more appropriate according to the Hanyu Da Cidian and several other dictionaries?
主席，接下來我會就《追加撥款條例草案》的第2條發言。第2條表示，今次追加撥款的金額是82億6,000萬元，尾數就不讀出來了。
Chairman next I will speak on clause 2 of the Supplementary Appropriation 2016 - 2017 Bill the Bill which stated that the supplementary appropriation amounted to some 8.26 billion
根據立法會參考資料摘要，政府表示追加撥款主要用以應付政府人員加薪，以及綜援的1個月額外援助金。
According to the relevant Legislative Council Brief the Government stated that the supplementary appropriation mainly serves to meet additional expenses arising from civil service pay adjustment and provision of one additional month of payment to Comprehensive Social Security Assistance CSSA recipients
若把此項開支加上政府向財委會申請增加薪酬的89億元，總數應該是117億元，但追加撥款聲稱涉及公務員加薪及綜援和"生果金"1個月額外援助金的金額卻是82億元，相差35億元。
The total amount of this expenditure in addition to the 8.9 billion that the Government sought the Finance Committees approval for pay adjustment purpose should be 11.7 billion . However the amount incurred for civil service pay adjustment and provision of one additional month of payment to CSSA and fruit grant recipients as stated in the supplementary appropriation was 8.9 billion hence a difference of 3.5 billion
我相信當中有些技術性問題可能是我忽略了，於是我再看看整份文件不同的追加撥款項目有甚麼線索。
I believed there must be some technical issues that I might have neglected so I went through all the items in the supplementary appropriation for some clues
我再看看2016年4月向財委會申請1個月的額外撥款金額，同樣是28億1,000萬元。
When I looked at the application for additional funding submitted to the Finance Committee in April 2016 for providing one additional month of CSSA payment the amount was also 2.81 billion
問題就出現了：如果追加撥款的28億元全都用於綜援1個月額外援助金的開支，社署的政府官員是否沒有增加薪酬呢？
Here a question arises if the 2.8 billion in the supplementary appropriation was all spent on providing one additional month of payment to CSSA recipients does that mean public officers of the Social Welfare Department did not receive any pay adjustment?
但是，如果追加撥款的28億元有部分是屬於增加薪酬開支，即代表用於綜援1個月額外援助金的開支不足28億元。
If on the contrary a portion of the 2.8 billion in the supplementary appropriation was spent on pay adjustment then that means the expenditure on providing one additional month of payment to CSSA recipients was less than 2.8 billion
政府向財委會提交的文件開支預算是怎樣的呢？
So actually what was the expenditure estimated in the document submitted by the Government to the Finance Committee?
我再看看立法會參考資料摘要的附件B，但越來越感到困惑。
I then looked at Annex B of the Legislative Council Brief which made me even more confused
我再舉另一個例子。
Let me cite another example
"總目190 ― 大學教育資助委員會"，該總目的追加金額為6億4,400萬元，立法會參考資料摘要的附件B顯示，這是用於2016-2017年度公務員薪酬調整。
Under Head 190―University Grants Committee the supplementary appropriation was 644 million which as indicated in Annex B of the Legislative Council Brief was for the 2016 - 2017 civil service pay adjustment
然而，我再看財政預算，此總目的個人薪酬調整開支是5,000萬元。
However I noticed that the estimate for personal emoluments under this head in the Budget was 50 million
因此，這6億4,400萬元不可能只用於大學教育資助委員會的職員加薪。
Hence the sum of 644 million could not have been spent solely on pay adjustment for University Grants Committee staff
眾所周知，大學資助教育委員會其中一大筆款項是用於支付教授的薪金，而教授的薪金是按公務員薪酬調整幅度調整的。
As we all know a large portion of the funding allocated to the University Grants Committee is for paying salaries to professors which are adjusted according to civil service pay adjustment rates
因此， 6億4,400萬元大部分是用於教職員的薪金開支，但究竟有多少屬於這個部分？
Therefore a majority of the 644 million was spent on paying the salaries of teaching staff but how much was it exactly?
無論是向財委會的撥款申請，以至《條例草案》的立法會參考資料摘要，均沒有提供清楚的數字。
A detailed breakdown was neither provided in the funding application to the Finance Committee nor in the Legislative Council Brief on the Bill
這項開支是否應該以調整公務員薪酬來描述呢？
Should this expenditure be described as civil service pay adjustment then?
我是有所保留的。
I have reservation about that
如果局長稍後可以釋除我的疑團，我便會支持把第2條納入《條例草案》。
If the Secretary can address my doubts later I will support incorporating clause 2 into the Bill
我不再談如此技術性的數學問題。
I will stop talking about such technical mathematical problems
我覺得一些技術性的入數問題可能一直存在。
I hold that some technical accounting issues might have always existed
其實，過去我們審議追加撥款條例草案，一向都是行禮如儀，大家都未必看清楚文件。
In fact our scrutiny of the Supplementary Appropriation Bill has always been a mere ritual and we might not read the papers carefully
但是，我想帶出的是，過去我們比較信任政府，行政立法關係較良好，因此沒有仔細過問，有些人可能"隻眼開，隻眼閉"，但是，當我們仔細研究及核對數目，這82億元是如何計算出來呢？
The point I wish to strike home is that in the past we had relatively greater trust in the Government and the relationship between the executive and the legislature was better . Therefore we did not pose detailed questions and some people might turn a blind eye to it . Now that we carefully study and tally the figures we may wonder how the Government came up with the sum 8.2 billion?
這82億元當然是附表內所有數目加起來，所以稍後討論附表時，我會再詳細發言。
It is of course the total of all the figures in the Schedule . Hence I will speak again in detail during the debate on the Schedule later
所以，我建議未來應該內務委員會主席在席真好要成立法案委員會，因為既然當局可以擱置《條例草案》3個月不恢復二讀，若成立法案委員會，我便可以逐項提問。
Therefore I suggest that in the future―it is great that the Chairman of the House Committee is present―a Bills Committee should be formed . Since the Administration could shelve the Bill for three months before resuming its Second Reading I will be able to ask questions item by item if a Bills Committee is formed
其實，真的有很多問題需要討論。
There are indeed a lot of issues that warrant discussion
不過，代理主席，最後我想在這次發言中提出一個最關鍵的問題。
Deputy Chairman lastly I would like to raise one most crucial issue in this speech
今天是修改《議事規則》後第一次舉行全體委員會，剛才朱凱廸議員也實驗過，全委會的法定人數與大會不同，大會的法定人數是根據《基本法》規定，全委會的法定人數則是建制派決定的20人，而不是《基本法》規定的35人。
This is the first meeting of a committee of the whole Council after the amendments to the Rules of Procedure RoP . As tested by Mr CHU Hoi - dick just now the quorum of the committee is different from that of the Council as stipulated in the Basic Law . The quorum of the committee is 20 Members as decided by the pro - establishment camp instead of 35 Members as stipulated in the Basic Law
如果建制派真的想透過這份報告來區分全委會和大會，令公眾相信他們，誤以為全委會和大會不同，全委會是另一個會議，便請官員、建制派議員及主席"做戲做全套"，全委會完成審議後，請他們撰寫報告，不要只報告全委會的投票結果，亦要報告我剛才的意見，報告官員對我剛才的意見的回應。
If the pro - establishment camp really wants to differentiate the committee from the Council through this report and to make the public believe that the committee is separated from the Council then public officers pro - establishment Members and the President should complete the show by writing a report upon the conclusion of the proceedings in the committee
他們通過修改《議事規則》時並無考慮整個程序，所以我事先聲明，即使這份報告包括我剛才的發言，也包括局長的回應，我也不承認這份報告的合法性。
They had not given any consideration to the whole procedure when they passed the amendments to RoP . I have to state at the outset that even if this report covers my speech and the Secretarys reply I will not acknowledge its legitimacy
我堅持全委會是大會不可分割的一部分，如果連我的發言內容也不收納於報告，局長的回應也不收納報告，這是甚麼報告？
I insist that the committee is an integral part of the Council . What kind of report is it if the content of my speech and the Secretarys reply are all not included?
多謝局長剛才解答了我的疑團。
I thank the Secretary for clearing my doubts just now
在《條例草案》的附表，大家只看到"撥款編號"、"開支總目"及"撥款額"3個欄目，"撥款額"一欄的款項就是追加款額。
In the Schedule to the Bill there are only three columns Number of Vote Head of Expenditure and Amount of Vote . The Amount of Vote column contains the supplementary appropriations
但是，看回立法會參考資料摘要的附件B，便知道追加撥款的原因。
But the reasons for the supplementary appropriations can be found in Annex B to the Legislative Council Brief
首先，涉及薪酬調整的描述有兩種不同的寫法，第一種就是"2016-2017年度公務員薪酬調整"，即見於審計署、建築署、政府統計處、民航處等的總目。
First there are two kinds of wording for the description of pay adjustment . The first one is 2016 - 2017 civil service pay adjustment as seen in the heads of the Audit Commission Architectural Services Department Census and Statistics Department Civil Aviation Department etc
另一種描述方法就是"2016-2017年度薪酬調整"，這項原因範圍闊一點，包括一些法定機構，例如申訴專員公署、獨立監察警方處理投訴委員會和立法會行政管理委員會等。
Another way of description is 2016 - 2017 pay adjustment which is a reason of broader coverage including some statutory bodies such as the Office of The Ombudsman Independent Police Complaints Council and the Legislative Council Secretariat
但是，一些機構的薪酬調整雖然大部分不適用於公務員，但形容成公務員薪酬調整，就是我所謂的誤導，或者不夠精準的地方。
However the pay adjustment of some organizations is mostly not applicable to civil servants but is described as such . It is the misleading or inaccurate part that I am referring to
我們首先討論總目156教育局。
Let us first discuss Head 156 Education Bureau
教育局追加撥款約16億元。
Its supplementary appropriation amounts to around 1.6 billion
教育局的個人薪酬開支約為30億元，應該包括官校教師薪金。
The expenditure on personal emoluments of the Education Bureau is about 3 billion which should include salaries of teachers of government schools
這16億元的追加撥款應該不只是用於官校以公務員條款聘請的教師的薪酬調整，應該還包括資助學校教師的薪酬調整。
This 1.6 billion supplementary appropriation is likely not only for the pay adjustment of teachers employed by government schools on civil service contracts but also for the pay adjustment of teachers of aided schools
大家都知道，資助學校的教師不是公務員，但薪金和調整幅度和公務員一致。
It is common knowledge that teachers of aided schools are not civil servants but receive salaries and pay increments in accordance with the civil service rates
所以，他們的薪金調整應否描述為公務員的薪酬調整，這點值得留意。
Therefore it is noteworthy whether their pay adjustment should be described as civil service pay adjustment
我相信這16億元裏面，大部分涉及資助學校以非公務員合約聘請的教職員的薪酬調整。
I believe most of this sum of 1.6 billion is for the pay adjustment of teaching staff employed by aided schools on non - civil service contracts
所以，以"公務員薪酬調整"來形容這筆追加撥款，便有點以偏概全。
Therefore it is a bit of a one - sided generalization to describe such a supplementary appropriation as civil service pay adjustment
教資會的追加撥款是約6億4,000萬元，而政府同樣把這項追加撥款的原因形容為"2016-2017年度公務員薪酬調整"。
The supplementary appropriation for UGC is about 640 million the reason for which the Government also describes as 2016 - 2017 civil service pay adjustment
同樣，根據我剛才已提出的道理，教資會的個人薪酬支出只是5,000萬元，因此，6億4,000萬元中大部分很可能是用於大學教職員的薪酬調整。
Likewise applying the same rationale I have just presented the personal emoluments of UGC are only 50 million and so a large part of the 640 million is probably used for the pay adjustment of staff of universities
而大學教職員甚少按公務員合約聘請，而是按照大學自訂的合約來聘請。
Universities seldom employ staff on civil service contracts but on their own specific contracts
當然，這些教職員的薪酬均按照公務員薪酬調整幅度來調整。
Of course such staff receive a pay adjustment in line with that of the civil service
但是，他們本身不是公務員，因此，他們的薪酬調整不應該形容為"公務員薪酬調整"。
Nevertheless they are not civil servants and so their pay adjustment should not be described as civil service pay adjustment
另一個追加撥款金額最大的總目就是食物及衞生局，涉及18億1,000萬元。
Another head with the largest supplementary appropriation is the Food and Health Bureau and it amounts to 1.81 billion
這筆開支的原因同樣形容為"2016-2017年度公務員薪酬調整"。
Such an appropriation is also described as 2016 - 2017 civil service pay adjustment
但是，究竟食物及衞生局裏面，有多少名公務員呢？
Yet exactly how many civil servants are there in the Food and Health Bureau ?
這個科只有128名員工，如果18億1,000萬元全用在128名員工的薪酬調整，他們平均加薪141萬元，當然不會這樣，究竟是怎樣呢？
The Branch has only 128 staff members . If this 1.81 billion is used entirely for the pay adjustment of 128 staff members each of them will receive an average increment of 1,410,000 . Of course it can never be the case then what is it about?
我估計這筆款項絕大部分用於醫院管理局的醫護人員薪酬調整。
I surmise that the amount is mostly used for the pay adjustment of health care workers of the Hospital Authority HA
但是，醫管局的醫護人員又是否以公務員合約聘請呢？
But are HA health care workers employed on civil service contracts?
所以，如果以"公務員薪酬調整"來形容這群非公務員人員的薪酬調整，是有點不準確。
Therefore it is somewhat inaccurate to use civil service pay adjustment to describe the pay adjustment of such non - civil service staff
綜合上述3個例子，似乎在80多億元的追加撥款裏面，近40億元形容為"公務員薪酬調整"的款項，其實與公務員無關。
In a comprehensive analysis the aforementioned three examples illustrate that out of the over 8 billion supplementary appropriation on the whole an amount of 4 billion described as civil service pay adjustment seems to bear no relevance to the civil service
我們應該如何描述有關的原因呢？
How should the reasons be described?
我們可以翻看以前的文件。
We can refer to previous documents
其實自2010-2011年度開始，政府就追加撥款條例草案向立法會提交參考資料摘要，列明追加撥款的原因，便是希望增加透明度，協助議員了解各項追加撥款的用途。
In fact since 2010 - 2011 the Government has been providing Legislative Council Briefs on supplementary appropriation Bills to set out the reasons for the supplementary appropriations in order to increase transparency and facilitate Members understanding of the purposes of various supplementary appropriations
但是，要是政府文件對追加撥款的原因描述得不準確或有所誤導，便可能會影響議員對條例草案的分析這環節討論的是附表因而作出錯誤的判斷。
However inaccurate or misleading reasons for the supplementary appropriations given in government documents may affect Members analysis of the Bills―we are discussing the Schedule in this session―and lead them to make incorrect judgments