Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
真的很勞氣，我原本每次都很平和的，主席不要"窒"我就可以了，我已做足功課。
I am really furious . I was originally very composed as long as the President did not make a dig at me . I have done my homework seriously
由於沒有法案委員會討論《條例草案》，於是我們不知道海事處在執行《條例草案》的更新修訂後，是否會管轄船上的貨櫃；業界亦有提出疑問：貨櫃碼頭附近的貨櫃是否由海事處管理？
As the Bill has not been discussed by a Bills Committee we do not know whether the Marine Department will inspect the containers on board vessels upon the enforcement of the updated amendments of the Bill . The industry has also raised the query of whether the containers near the container terminal will be under the purview of the Marine Department
我不是跟局長談政治，而是談運房局的職責真的不好意思，責任又歸於他們，今天陳帆又不在席，當然，陳帆要上京......
I am not talking politics with the Secretary but about the duties of THB―I am really sorry that the responsibility lies with THB . Frank CHAN is not present today; of course he has to go to Beijing
我聽到，主席，我只希望在此作一個小總結。
Got it . President I only want to draw a conclusion here
結果是，業界要自行處理，政府永遠"慢三拍"，有沒有搞錯？
As a result the industry has to handle the standardization itself because the Government is always reacting slowly
如果不是有一個機會讓我們在三讀時發言，市民根本不知始末，但原來是見微知著。
If we do not have the opportunity to speak at the Third Reading stage members of the public will not know the whole story
香港為何會"收檔"，便是因為施政完全離地，簡直"離晒譜"。
The reason for Hong Kong to degenerate is that the governance is totally detached from reality . This is simply outrageous
代理主席，《2019年運貨貨櫃條例草案》基本上是要實施一些技術性修訂，剛才很多議員已有提及。
Deputy President the Freight Containers Safety Amendment Bill 2019 the Bill basically seeks to implement some technical amendments . Just now many Members already mentioned this
這項有關貨櫃運作的條例只涵蓋海運的處理。
This ordinance concerning the operation of containers covers only the handling of maritime matters . Records show that many container - related industrial accidents happened recently
眾所周知，這些國際公約對於保障不同的政策有很大影響，亦因此我們很擔心會開了極壞的先例，便是一項原本於10年前在《公約》會議中已簽署、有關貨櫃安全的決議，我們要到這個時間才處理。
As everyone knows these international conventions have significant implications for protecting different policies . We are thus very worried that this may set a bad precedent . That is we have to wait till now to consider a resolution on container safety which was signed 10 years ago at the Convention conference
雖然根據《條例草案》需要標示這些貨櫃，但實際上，由於很多貨櫃在貨櫃場或在船上得不到足夠的保養，令這些標記形同虛設。
Although these containers are required under the Bill to be marked in reality these markings are rather useless because of inadequate maintenance of the containers in container yards or on the ships
第二，是關於獲批准打開或卸下一扇門營運的貨櫃的測試程序及規格。
Second it is about the testing procedures and specifications for containers approved for operation with one door open or removed
正如我剛才所說，對於這些詞彙和單位，我會留待全體委員會審議階段討論，我現在主要集中討論今次《公約》決議的要求，以及我們要如何恪守這些要求。
As I just said I will discuss the terms and units at the Committee stage and now I will focus on discussing the requirements in the resolutions on the Convention and how we are going to scrupulously comply with these requirements
《公約》第五條清楚說明，根據《公約》的條款，在某一締約國授權下的批准，均應被其他締約國在《公約》所包括的範圍內接受。
It is clearly stated under Article V of the Convention that approval under the authority of a Contracting Party granted under the terms of the present Convention shall be accepted by the other Contracting parties for all purposes covered by the present Convention
同時也應被認為與他們自己作出的批准同樣有效。
It shall be regarded by the other Contracting parties as having the same force as an approval issued by them
今次政府拖延了8至10年才在立法會通過這些要求，正正違反了《公約》第五條，即"接受批准"這部分。
The Government has delayed seeking the passage of these requirements by the Legislative Council for some 8 to 10 years . This precisely violates Article V of the Convention on Acceptance of approval
這裏清楚指出，締約國家或地區不能夠妨礙這些國際協定的條款。
Article V clearly states that a contracting country or region is not allowed to preclude the application of provisions of international agreements
這真的很可笑，原本應該早於2012年1月已經在不同地區執行的國際協定，香港卻拖延了8年，如有任何意外或人命損失，正如我剛才所說，如果要就上水或流浮山意外造成的損失進行索償，我相信索償人應該視特區政府為公訴對象之一，因為政府未能恪守《公約》第五條。
It is ridiculous that our Government has delayed the adoption of these requirements in Hong Kong for eight years while different regions have adopted them long ago in January 2012 . If accidents have happened or casualties have been incurred during that period if the victims of the accidents in Sheung Shui or Lau Fau Shan which I just said lodge claims for damages in to the court I believe they should regard the Hong Kong SAR Government as one of the indictment targets because the Government has failed to comply with Article V of the Convention
《公約》第六條亦清楚說明，這些集裝箱應在締約國領土內受該締約國正式授權的官員管理。
Article VI of the Convention also clearly states that these containers shall be subject to control in the territory of the Contracting Parties by officers duly authorized by such Contracting Parties
這種管理僅限於證實集裝箱上裝有按《公約》要求的安全合格牌照，除非有重要證明該集裝箱的現狀對安全有明顯的危險，在這種情況下，執行管理工作的官員所採取的必要行動，也僅限於保證集裝箱在繼續投入營運之前恢復到安全狀態。
And this control shall be limited to verifying that the container carries a valid Safety Approval Plate as required by the present Convention unless there is significant evidence for believing that the condition of the container is such as to create an obvious risk to safety . In that case the officer carrying out the control shall only exercise it in so far as it may be necessary to ensure that the container is restored to a safe condition before it continues in service
大家試想想，這麼多年來有多少個貨櫃是基於政府未能根據《公約》盡快訂定所需的法律和安全標準，而導致工人在處理貨櫃時處於不安全的境況，甚至可能發生意外？
Can you imagine over the years how many workers have been working in an unsafe environment or exposed to accident risks because of the failure of the Government to expeditiously introduce the required laws and safety standards to the containers in accordance with the Convention?
《公約》第六條寫得很清楚，當集裝箱由於某種缺陷似乎危及安全，而這項缺陷在該集裝箱獲得批准時可能已存在，應由發現這種缺陷的締約國通知負責批准該集裝箱的主管機關。
It is clearly stated under Article VI of the Convention that where the container appears to have become unsafe as a result of a defect which may have existed when the container was approved the Administration responsible for that approval shall be informed by the Contracting Party which detected the defect
政府在這方面敷衍塞責，亦對不起由2012年1月至今，在香港處理數以百萬計貨櫃的工人。
The Government has worked half - heartedly in this respect . It has let down the workers who have handled millions of containers in Hong Kong since January 2012
大家可能聽過，處理貨櫃的工人需要坐上俗稱的"怪獸架"長達8小時，難聽點說，他們的大小二便，甚至進食，均要在"怪獸架"上進行，難道這是人道對待嗎？
Perhaps Members know that some workers who are responsible for handling containers have to sit in the gantry crane for as long as eight hours . To put it in rather unpleasant terms they have to eat and shit inside the crane control cabins
難道政府認為這是合理的做法嗎？
Is this humane? . Does the Government think that this is a reasonable arrangement?
這樣可以保障工業安全和職業健康嗎？
Can this arrangement safeguard industrial safety and occupational health?
這些要求正正顯示、反映政府官員的敷衍塞責。
These requirements precisely reflect the sloppiness of government officials
作為主權政府，特區政府不應輕易採用這種立法方式，令議員或政府官員在制定法例過程中不能互動，這是第一點。
As a sovereign government the SAR Government should not lightly adopt this legislative approach which prevents interaction by Members or government officials in the enactment process . This is the first point
大家也明白，有關工作由海事處或運房局負責，我們不會責怪他們，因為海事處負責監察海上安全，看看船隻出入有否問題，運房局則應負責審視香港的貨櫃發展......政府經常說香港是貨運或航運中心，但政府很多時候着重租船、買賣等服務業，而不是貨櫃安全，這令我感到失望。
We all understand that the relevant work is carried out by the Marine Department or THB . We will not blame them because the Marine Department is responsible for monitoring maritime safety and finding out if there are problems with vessels entering and exiting Hong Kong while THB should be responsible for reviewing container development in Hong Kong The Government often says that Hong Kong is a freight or shipping centre but very often it attaches importance to chartering trading and other service industries rather than container safety; I am thus greatly disappointed
政府"發大財"或容許商家在航運中心"發大財"並無問題，但最低限度要密切關注從事貨櫃處理作業人員的安危。
There is no problem for the Government to make a fortune or to allow merchants to make a fortune in the shipping centre but it must at least pay close attention to the safety of container handling workers
明白、知道，主席，我不再重複，我返回這項議題。
I understand that I know President I will not repeat and I will return to this subject
航運交通界的易志明議員不會反對我們加入中文，現在是甚麼年代？
Mr Frankie YICK of the Transport Functional Constituency will not oppose our proposal of including the Chinese language . Are we living in modern times?
我覺得做所有事情都要公道，我們能否找到方法令涉及或關心這條約和政策的持份者有機會參與？
I think we must act in a fair manner . Can we find a way so that stakeholders involved in or concerned about the Convention and policy can have the opportunity to get involved?
當局以為這些只是技術性修訂，但我認為不是，每個地區或地方有自己的局限性。
The authorities think that these are only technical amendments but I do not think so as each region or place has its own limitations
舉例來說，香港處理空貨櫃的做法與全世界不同......
For example the way in which empty containers are handled in Hong Kong is different from that in the rest of the world
但是，法案的制定關乎每一個程序是否公義。
However the formulation of a bill involves procedural justice
我反對《條例草案》三讀，希望日後運房局及其他政策局都緊記這次我們討論過的一些原則性問題。
I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill and I hope that in future THB and other Policy Bureaux will bear in mind the issues on principles that we discussed today
我謹此陳辭，反對三讀。
With these remarks I oppose the Third Reading
現時有多位議員輪候在三讀辯論發言，我會在下午5時請局長發言，然後將三讀議案付諸表決。
There are a number of Members waiting to speak in the Third Reading debate . I will call upon the Secretary to speak at 5col00 pm and the motion on the Third Reading shall then be voted on
主席，我留意到現在仍有6位議員在輪候發言。
President as I noticed six Members are still waiting for their turn to speak
主席，你這樣做......
President what you have done Though you have the power what you have done is undermining the powers conferred to our legislature by the Basic Law
楊岳橋議員，你是否想發言？
Mr Alvin YEUNG do you wish to speak?
《條例草案》第10條是修訂現時《運貨貨櫃條例》的第271條，訂明："為全面或局部實施以下國際協議而訂立規例︰國際海事組織通過的、關於運貨貨櫃安全的國際協議，而凡不時有對該協議作出任何修改或修訂，而該等修改或修訂適用於香港，則以該協議經該等修改或修訂的版本為準。
Clause 10 of the Bill is to amend section 271 of the Freight Containers Safety Ordinance and it provides that to an international agreement relating to the safety of freight containers adopted by the International Maritime Organization as from time to time revised or amended by any revision or amendment that applies to Hong Kong
如果是局部實施時，這樣又會與局長剛才說的話相衝突，那麼局部實施會否違反協議的內容呢？
In case it is a partial implementation this will be contradictory to the Secretarys explanation earlier . Then will the partial implementation go against the content of the Convention?
但是，按照局長剛才的邏輯，這項修訂的內容本身就會出現一種不確定性因素。
However under the logic just explained by the Secretary this amendment itself contains some uncertainties
我想指出的第二點是，《條例草案》第7條提出，在展示安全合格牌照的規定上，"如該貨櫃於2014年7月1日之前完成建造而又未曾經過結構性的改裝"，便可以根據今次《條例草案》生效前的附表2的規定來展示牌照，而無需根據新法例附表2的規定，例如《條例草案》附表2第21b條訂明，"推拉值少於150千牛頓"的貨櫃的牌照須有額外標記等規定。
My second point is related to clause 7 of the Bill . Concerning the requirement on the display of the safety approval plate it prescribes that if the construction of the container was completed before 1 July 2014 and no structural modification has ever been made to the container the plate can be displayed in accordance with the regulations stated in Schedule 2 before this Bill comes into effect and does not need to follow the requirement in Schedule 2 of the new law such as the requirement stipulated in section 21b of Schedule 2 in the Bill that a container with a racking value of less than 150 kN should have additional markings on its plate
我的問題是，政府當局就這項條文以2014年7月1日作為劃線的基礎在哪呢？
My question is What is the basis on which the line of 1 July 2014 is drawn by the Administration?
那麼為何政府在修訂條例過程中卻可以自把自為加入豁免條款，讓在2014年7月1日前建造的貨櫃不用受若干約束呢？
Then why did the Government on its own accord incorporate this exemption clause in the course of amending the Ordinance so that the containers constructed before 1 July 2014 are not subject to certain restrictions?
這是令我們感到很奇怪的一種處理方法，而且這亦與執行有關。
We find this approach very weird . Besides law enforcement is also involved
如果我們希望讓所有應用者查閱法律時能夠容易和清晰理解的話，便應該將清楚的用字放在法律內容中，而不是要人翻尋很多不同的附註、引證，還要搜尋究竟Annex II有甚麼內容後，才能進一步理解有關條文。
If we wish that all users can understand the provisions easily and clearly when reading the law the wording in the law should be very clear . People should not be required to read many different footnotes and citations and go through the content of Annex II before they can further understand the provisions
現在這樣對整套法例沒有任何好處，特別令從業人員更難以適應。
While the present approach is not conducive to the entire law at all practitioners in particular find it even more difficult to adapt
我想指出的另一點是，政府在這次修訂中沒有提供Annex II的中文版，但事實上，澳門已在2014年提供中文版，這個版本除了最後一節提到單門營運的部分，那是《條例草案》新增的一段外，其他部分真的正是如我剛才所說般，只是統一度量衡用詞和單位而已。
Another point that I would like to highlight is that in this amendment exercise the Government has not provided a Chinese version for Annex II . But in fact Macao provided a Chinese version in 2014 . In this version apart from the last section which mentions single - door operation the section newly added to the Bill the other parts are really simply alignment of terms and units of measurement as I just mentioned
正正因為這個原因，固然令受法律約束的使用者有運作上的困難，而當局根據這項法例在執法上也有具體的難度。
Precisely owing to this reason not only will users bound by the law face operational difficulties but the authorities will also encounter substantial difficulties in the enforcement of this law
最後，我想指出的是在執法方面，政府十分強調海事處現在若要執法，便須在船上運用權力。
Finally I would like to point out that in respect of law enforcement the Government strongly emphasizes that the law enforcement power of the Marine Department MD has to be exercised on board vessels
然而眾所周知，不論貨櫃放在哪一個位置，也會衍生安全問題。
Nevertheless we are all cognizant that there may be safety issues for containers stored in any location
既然如此，那便不單是船上的情況，即使在 陸地上例如貨櫃堆場，同樣會衍生安全問題。
In the light of this there may be safety issues for containers not only on board vessels but also on land such as container yards
主席，其實這項《2019年運貨貨櫃條例草案》最重要的邏輯，是依據已通過的《國際集裝箱安全公約》，就測試及檢查貨櫃的要求，制訂劃一標準，並訂明貨櫃的保養、檢驗及管制程序，以保障運輸安全。
President actually the ultimate logic underlying the Freight Containers Safety Amendment Bill 2019 the Bill is to standardize the requirements for testing and inspecting containers as well as to prescribe the procedures of their maintenance examination and control for safe transportation in accordance with the ratified International Convention for Safe Containers
其實各國須就《公約》盡責，共同承擔責任，以確保國際間運輸的所有安全準則一致，亦因如此，可確保達致整個海上安全的基本要求，但當然，我們看到政府當局在有關《公約》的決議於2010年及2012年通過後，經過這麼長時間才來到今天的立法程序，箇中因由亦值得我們探討。
All countries should in truth fulfil their joint responsibilities under the Convention to ensure consistency of all safety standards for international transport thereby also ensuring that the basic requirements for maritime safety are met as a whole . However as we see that it has taken so long for the Administration to get to todays legislative process since the adoption of the resolutions on the Convention in 2010 and 2012 it is certainly worth exploring the underlying causes
易志明議員昨天亦提到，此情況反映出政府在處理一些國際公約中須履行的規定的過程中，甚至對於運輸業界很多問題，往往呈現滯後的現象。
As Mr Frankie YICK also mentioned yesterday this situation reflects that the Government often finds itself behind the curve when dealing with some provisions of international conventions that require our implementation and even in dealing with many issues of the transport industry
其實這個邏輯有很大問題，因為我們若要履行國際公約，當然越快越好，否則為何我們要成為其中一個締約城市呢？
This logic is highly problematic indeed because if we are to implement an international convention of course the sooner the better otherwise why should we be one of the signatory cities?
如果從這個角度而言，難道我們要說澳門政府比香港政府更有工作效率、更具成效嗎？
From this perspective can we say that the Macao Government works more efficiently and effectively than the Hong Kong Government?
我們亦不要忘記，運輸及房屋局在2014年已成立專責小組處理海事法例，在2014年至2019年間開設了副首席政府律師的編外職位以領導相關工作。
We should not forget either that the Transport and Housing Bureau THB set up a task force to deal with marine legislation back in 2014 and one supernumerary post of Deputy Principal Government Counsel was created to steer the work from 2014 to 2019
不過，海事法例方面積壓的問題仍未解決我很希望局長在此聆聽議員意見時，要認真思考究竟發生了甚麼事根本性的問題會否是運輸及房屋局本身已有十分龐大的工作需求，以致儘管這是局方的職責，但局方在處理有關問題時仍把它放在較低的層次，所以容許有關問題滯後處理，經過了8年，甚至10年時間，至今仍未解決？
However the problem of backlog in maritime legislation remains unresolved . I very much hope that the Secretary while listening to Members views here contemplates what has really happened . Would the fundamental problem be that THB already has an enormous workload itself so much so that even though this is its duty it still accords a lower priority to dealing with the problem thus allowing the problem to drag on for 8 or even 10 years and still remain unresolved?
有關《公約》在2002年已作修訂，但直至明年才會處理，這是否明顯反映了當局在處理有關問題時失責和沒有盡責？
The relevant convention was amended back in 2002 but it will not be dealt with until next year . Does this clearly reflect a default in obligations and a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in dealing with the relevant issues?
政府應該認真檢討，究竟將海事法例全歸運輸及房屋局處理是否最佳做法？
The Government should seriously review whether it is best to place all maritime legislation under the purview of THB
如果將這些問題全部交給運輸及房屋局，而局方用掉以輕心的態度處理，便會對香港整個社會的未來和經濟有影響，對航運政策的推展也有影響。
If all these issues are left to THB and the Bureau takes them half - heartedly it will have an impact on the future and economy of the whole society of Hong Kong and for that matter the advancement of shipping policy
因此，政府是否應該撥亂反正，交給商務及經濟發展局處理？
Therefore should the Government right wrongs by entrusting them to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau CEDB?
因為有關決策的過程在2008年前也是由商務及經濟發展局負責......
It is because CEDB was also responsible for the decision - making process in this respect before 2008
我剛才提到政策局的自身問題，現在說回《條例草案》實際操作上遇到的具體情況。
I have just mentioned the Bureaus own problems . Now I come back to the specific circumstances that will be encountered when the Bill is put into practice
換言之，正如很多其他海事法例一樣，香港可能有很大部分的貨櫃已符合本港新法例的要求，其實新法例對業界的影響可能不大，這亦正是政府當局一直認為不處理也沒有大問題的原因，但我們不知道實際上會否有貨櫃在香港建造，所以香港每年也要檢驗這一類貨櫃，又或者因為某些原因，有貨櫃原先獲得外國發給批准，因經過改裝而需要在香港重新進行安全檢驗。
In other words just as in the case of many other maritime laws a large proportion of containers in Hong Kong may already meet the requirements of the new local legislation so the impact of the new legislation on the industry may not be significant . This is also exactly why the Administration has always considered that there is no big problem doing nothing about it . However we do not know if any containers will actually be manufactured in Hong Kong and thus need to be examined locally every year or if some containers with respect to which approvals have originally been issued in foreign countries have been modified for certain reasons and thus need to be re - examined for safety in Hong Kong
現時海事處根據條例委託了法國驗船協會、中國船級社、韓國船級社及意大利船級社合共4間機構為獲授權人，執行就個別貨櫃發給批准的職能。
In accordance with the Ordinance the Marine Department MD has currently appointed a total of four organizations ie . Bureau Veritas China Classification Society Korean Register of Shipping and RINA Services SpA as authorized persons to perform the function of issuing approvals in respect of individual containers
所以，假如《條例草案》獲通過，政府預計每年有多少貨櫃需要在香港進行檢驗？
So if the Bill is passed how many containers does the Government anticipate to be examined in Hong Kong each year?
海事處委託驗船機構的能力又是否符合新法例的要求，以致服務衍生額外的工作量？
Does the capacity of the ship survey organizations commissioned by MD meet the requirements of the new legislation? . Will additional workload be generated from the service as a result?
第二個我認為要處理的問題，就是《條例草案》中關於展示合格牌照的問題。
The second issue that I think needs addressing is the display of safety approval plates SAPs as required by the Bill
除了安全問題外，《條例草案》亦就展示安全合格牌照 制訂新規定，要求安全合格牌照須按《公約》規定的方式標記。
Apart from safety issues the Bill also provides for new requirements in relation to the display of SAPs requiring that the SAP must be marked in accordance with the requirements set out in the Convention
《條例草案》亦要求堆碼或推拉能力有限的貨櫃需要以特定方式展示額外的標記。
The Bill also provides for additional requirements requiring SAPs of containers with limited stacking or racking capacity to be marked in a specific manner
不過，《條例草案》第7條就上述展示牌照新規定提供類似豁免的情況，即修訂第102ai條，訂明如某貨櫃於2014年7月1日之前完成建造而又未曾經過結構性的改裝，就該貨櫃便不需要履行上述的新要求，但仍須滿足《條例草案》生效之前的附表2的要求。
However clause 7 of the Bill provides a quasi - exemption from the new requirements for the display of SAPs namely by amending section 102ai to provide that if the construction of a container was completed before 1 July 2014 and no structural modification has ever been made to the container it is not subject to the aforesaid new requirements but must still meet the requirements in Schedule 2 as in force immediately before the commencement date of the Ordinance
《條例草案》的篇幅不太長，而附表2"安全合格牌照"佔《條例草案》8頁的其中一頁，即附表2也佔很重要的篇幅，但為何政府又會提出豁免呢？
The Bill is not very long and Schedule 2 Safety Approval Plate occupies one of the eight pages of the Bill which means that Schedule 2 is also a very important part of the context but then why has the Government proposed an exemption
大家看到外面的貨櫃一般是20呎貨櫃、40呎貨櫃；顏色、外表也差不多。
In our eyes the containers out there are generally 20 - foot or 40 - foot containers similar in both colour and appearance
然而，在檢查過程中又設有豁免機制的話，如何令到受該機制豁免的貨櫃仍然能夠有清晰的標示，以顯示它符合規定呢？
However if an exemption mechanism is in place during the inspection how can we ensure that a container exempted under the mechanism still has clear markings to show its compliance?
這亦牽涉到另一個很大的問題，政府究竟根據甚麼決定於2014年7月之前建成使用的貨櫃可以獲得豁免呢？
This raises yet another big question . On what basis exactly has the Government decided that containers completed before July 2014 can be exempted?
《條例草案》亦有針對貨櫃安全的問題，而根據國際組織決議的要求，需要在貨櫃貼上符合規定的標籤，令人容易識別，以便把貨櫃置放在頂層。
The Bill also addresses the issue of container safety by requiring containers to be affixed with compliant markings as required by the international organizations resolutions so that they can be easily identified and arranged at the top of a stack of containers
政府提供的參考資料提到，海事處處長獲賦權委任認可機構檢驗貨櫃這是剛才已經提及的而海事處透過包括檢查船上貨櫃，負責監察整體合規的情況。
The reference material provided by the Government mentions that the Director of Marine DM is empowered to appoint recognized organizations to examine containers―this has been mentioned just now―while MD monitors compliance in general including by conducting inspections of containers on board vessels
然而，由於沒有成立法案委員會討論《條例草案》，我們不知道海事處是否只會檢查船上的貨櫃。
Nevertheless since no Bills Committee has been formed to discuss the Bill we do not know whether MD inspects only containers on board vessels
在貨櫃碼頭或鄰近貨場、堆場的貨櫃，究竟如何擺放？
How exactly should containers be placed at a container terminal or the cargo yards and container depots in its vicinity?
這是否海事處的工作責任及範圍？
Is this MDs responsibility and scope of work?
若然，在安全問題上會否衍生一些流弊呢？
If so would it give rise to some problems in terms of safety?
更令公眾關心的問題是，現時新界有很多棕地放置了很多貨櫃，究竟是否由海事處執法呢？
An issue of greater public concern is that there are many brownfields stuffed with containers in the New Territories is MD responsible for law enforcement in this area?
參考資料提到，海事處處長若認為有貨櫃未能符合條例內任何規定，可以書面宣布有關批准作廢，但是條例又訂明可以賦權以船上作為檢驗的地方，在船上檢查貨櫃，那麼對於棕地上的貨櫃，如何可以書面宣布有關批准作廢呢？
According to the reference material DM could declare in writing that an approval is no longer valid if the container does not comply with any of the requirements of the Ordinance but the Ordinance provides for the power to inspect containers on board vessels . Then in the case of containers on brownfields how can DM declare that an approval is no longer valid?
政府當局就此尚欠一個交代，有關的職安問題亦令到大家有所擔心。
The Administration has yet to give an explanation in this regard . Besides the issue of occupational safety is also a cause for public concern
我最後想指出的是，《條例草案》亦牽涉到一個很重要的法律草擬過程，就是政府當局以直接提述的方式，用附則取代現時的附表。
Lastly I would like to point out that the Bill also involves a very important law drafting process in which the Administration has adopted a direct reference approach to replace the current Schedule with the Annex
除了新增的數個部分，例如單門營運貨櫃測試之外，附表與《公約》的分別不太大，同樣列出了不同測試的準則，大部分要修訂的也是用詞及度量衡的細節，但為何不可以用修訂附表的形式來履行《公約》呢？
Except for a few new elements such as the testing of containers approved for operation with one door open or removed there is not much difference between the Schedule and the Convention . While both set out the criteria for different tests and most of the amendments are made to the details of wording and measurements why is it impossible to amend the Schedule to implement an international convention?