believe that to allow this would suggest to third countries that the UK did not itself have confidence in the BN(0) passport and it could therefore put at risk their acceptance of it. The Hong Kong Government shares this view. We are confident that the BN (0) status and the passport which records it will be recognised by third countries. As indicated in the course of my speech in the debate already there have been helpful indications supporting this and as soon as the Order is in place we intend to explain the significance of the passport around the world.
As for your second point, I can assure you that there is no question of barring anyone from holding a BDTC passport rather than a BN(0) passport if that is what he wants. For the reasons explained above we simply propose to bar anyone from holding concurrently both BN (0) and BDTC passports.
Turning to your final question, I can say that it will be possible for a BN(0) passport holder before July 1997 to exchange a BN (0) for a BDTC passport valid until 30 June 1997. You will appreciate, however, that we would not wish such a practice to develop. The Hong Kong authorities already face a tremendous administrative task in coping with a potential 34 million applications for BN (0) passports and they would not welcome additional work which could be avoided. Since our aim is to ensure that BN(0) passport holders will have the same rights of entry to other countries as BDTC passport holders now enjoy, there would be no advantage in anyone making this exchange.
I hope what I have said satisfactorily answers your questions. If I can be of any further help in this matter, please do not hesitate to write to me again.
You
fiman
mewar
(THE LORD GLENARTHUR)