74
IPCO Annual Report 2017
10.28
In its judgment59 and specifically with regards to the complaint that ISComm did not have a
team of inspectors considering this area and failed to obtain independent technical advice,
the IPT set out:
“There is no doubt that he (Sir Mark Waller) did carry out supervision, with diligence and
regularity, and it can be seen by simply reading his reports how detailed he was in his
consideration, and how many detailed and technical points he explored with the Agencies.
His aim, as he explained it to Parliament, was to make sure that he had personal oversight,
which was not delegated to others, and it is plain that he frequently required and received
regular explanations. Another Commissioner might have taken a different view as to the
appropriateness of technical assistance, but the perceptive nature of his comments in his
reports, and the fact that he often required changes and improvements, show that he had,
and was able to have, a hands-on approach.”
10.29
The IPT judged that while the new regime might be better, that does not mean the old
regime was inadequate:
“In our judgment the fact that the new supervision regime now has the benefit of a team of
experts, as a result of the statutory provision under the new Act, may be an improvement,
though it is not yet tested, but it does not, in our judgment, evidence prior inadequacy.”
59 https://www.ipt-uk.com/judgments.asp