664
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL · --20 January 1988
person. Neither has the Joint Declaration made reference to the Block Crown Lease, nor has the Government in the past publicly recognised indigenous villagers for its various purposes on the basis of the Block Crown Lease.
The Administration claims that it has checked the record of the Block Lease of 1905 and is satisfied that it has included all the pre-1898 villages, and that the survey based upon which the Block Lease was prepared and was so detailed that no village would be left out. However, some New Territories villagers have disputed the completeness and accuracy of the Block Lease and are prepared to take up with the Administration their claims that they were descended from residents of pre-1898 villages which were not recorded in the Block Crown Lease.
By making the Block Crown Lease the only evidence of the status of pre-1898 villages, the Bill leaves no opportunity for those villagers who wish to establish their indigenous status on the evidence other than the Block Lease, for example, evidence such as ancestral graves, clansman records, or any other documents verified by the Secretary for District Administration. We believe that the Block Lease may be a reliable evidence, but it is by no means the only evidence. Therefore we have suggested that this definition of ‘established village' should be reviewed and amended. However our request has not been accepted.
In view of the fact that resumption of the Second Reading of the Bill has been delayed for a long time and further delay may hold up the Administration's action in processing New Territories leases for various purposes, we have agreed to support resumption of Second Reading on condition that the Administration will continue to pursue our request, and take all necessary action to review and amend the definition of ‘established village'. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary for Lands and Works that this will be done.
Subject to the foregoing remarks, Sir, I support the Bill.
MR. LAU (in Cantonese): Sir, the main purpose of the New Territories Leases (Extension) Bill 1987 is to enable, through legislation, the extension of all New Territories leases after 30 June 1997 for a period of 50 years to 2047 without requiring each of the leases to be renewed individually. The Bill is a recom- mendable one in that it avoids the complicated procedures and also saves public expenses involved in the administrative and staffing costs for such renewals.
I would like to take this opportunity to explain briefly why land held by indigenous villagers of the New Territories is allowed to enjoy rent concession after 1997. The major reason is that the form of land ownership in the New Territories is very different from that in the land south of Boundary Street. Before the New Territories was leased to the British Government in 1898, all private land in the New Territories was held as freehold estate with no expiry date on its tenure. However, after the lease of the New Territories to the British Government in 1898 the tenure of these pieces of land would expire before 30