TNAG-1331-FCO40-1758-Future-of-Hong-Kong-test-of-the-acceptability-of-the-Joint-D-1984 — Page 284

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