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 has 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 procedures, 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.
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 the Legislative Council and elsewhere in Hong Kong may have weakened public confidence in the assessment task at a time when it was already exposed to critical comment.
18. We do not believe that there is any evidence to show that the confidentiality factor had a damaging effect on the assessment task as a whole; but we also take the view that the public concern about confidentiality could have been avoided, and that the assurances and safeguards announced in mid-October should have been publicly conveyed at an earlier stage through the Assessment Office advertisement and in other ways.
19. To judge how accurately the Assessment Office discharged its duties has been the most important part of our task. As the letters and submissions were received, we were able to satisfy ourselves that they were accurately analysed and assessed by the Assessment Office. We have now considered the overall assessment of the extent of acceptance set out in Chapter 3 of the Assessment Office report, and we unreservedly endorse the conclusion in paragraph 3.1 that "most of the people of Hong Kong find the draft agreement acceptable ".
81
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.