13. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE WAS A BODY WITHOUT PRECEDENT.
WHILE MAINTAINING OUR INDEPENDENCE, WE HAVE CLOSELY OBSERVED IT
AT WORK, WATCHING AND LISTENING TO ITS MEMBERS AS THEY DISCHARGED
THEIR FUNCTIONS. WE HAVE ALSO SHARED IN THEIR EXPERIENCE OF THE
PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AGREEMENT, AND OF THE LOCAL
REACTIONS TO THE CONSULTATION AND ASSESSMENT TASKS. WE PRESENT
IN OUR CONCLUSIONS OUR CONSIDERED JUDGMENT ON THE WAY IN WHICH THE
ASSESSMENT OFFICE HAS DISCHARGED ITS TERMS OF REFERENCE: BUT WE WOULD
LIKE TO PAY TRIBUTE HERE TO THE QUALITY OF THE STAFF OF THE OFFICE,
AND TO THE INTEGRITY AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS WITH WHICH THE
COMMISSIONER AND ALL HIS COLLEAGUES HAVE DONE THEIR JOB.
CONCLUSIONS
14. WE WISH TO RECORD FIRST THAT WE ARE FULLY SATISFIED THAT THE
ASSESSMENT OFFICE HAS PERFORMED ITS DUTIES IMPARTIALLY IN THE
MANNER IN WHICH IT HAD DISCHARGED ITS TERMS OF REFERENCE AS A
WHOLE, AND IN THE BALANCED WAY IN WHICH IT HAS ASSESSED THE
VIEWS OF THOSE WHO ARE UNWILLING, AS WELL AS OF THOSE WHO ARE WILLING, TO ACCEPT THE DRAFT AGREEMENT.
15. PARAGRAPH 5(A) EXPLAINED THAT THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF THE
ASSESSMENT OFFICE'S DUTIES MUST LARGELY DEPEND UPON FOLLOWING
FAITHFULLY THE PROCEDURES PRESENTED IN ITS TERMS OF REFERENCE.
IN THE LIGHT OF OUR AUDIT FUNCTIONS, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 9,
WE JUDGE THAT THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE HAS FAITHFULLY FOLLOWED THE
PRESCRIBED PRODEDURES, AND THAT EFFICIENT PRACTICAL ARRANGEMENTS
WERE MADE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
16. BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF JUDGING THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF THE
ASSESSMENT OFFICE'S DUTIES WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF
CONFIDENTIALITY WHICH IS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPHS 1.9 AND 2.22
OF THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE REPORT.
1
17. THAT ISSUE RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE LOCAL PUBLICITY: IT NEEDS
TO BE SEEN IN PERSPECTIVE. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE
RECEIVED FROM THE OUTSET LETTERS OF CRITICISM AND REJECTION OF
THE DRAFT AGREEMENT, IN WHICH THE WRITERS DISCLOSED THEIR NAMES
AND ADDRESSES. WE ACCEPT, MOREOVER, THE ASSESSMENT OFFICE'S STATEMENT, IN PARAGRAPH 2.22 OF ITS REPORT, THAT THE VOLUME
AND CONTENT OF RESPONSE FROM INDIVIDUALS BEFORE AND AFTER THE
GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS 'SHOWED
NO CHANGE''. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE TO JUDGE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE FEAR OF EVENTUAL
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THEIR NAMES MAY HAVE DETERRED THOSE WHO WOULD
OTHERWISE HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR VIEWS. FURTHERMORE, WHATEVER THE
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ISSUE, THE DISQUIET VENTILATED IN
SECRET-5.
THE