Expedite disciplinary proceedings for child abuse, independent of police investigations
Waterhouse Inquiry · Waterhouse Inquiry — Final Report · Issued 16 February 2000
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
Any disciplinary proceedings that are necessary following a complaint of abuse to a child should be conducted with the greatest possible expedition and should not automatically await the outcome of parallel investigations by the police or the report on any other investigation. In this context it should be emphasised to personnel departments and other persons responsible for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings within local authorities that: 21, 39, 62(v) (a) police or any other independent investigation does not determine disciplinary issues; (b) disciplinary proceedings may well involve wider issues than whether a crime has been committed; (c) the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is different from that in criminal proceedings; and (d) statements made to the police by potential witnesses in disciplinary proceedings, including statements by a complainant, can and should be made available to local authorities for use in such proceedings, if consent to this is given by the maker of the statement.
Waterhouse Inquiry, Waterhouse Inquiry — Final Report · 16 Feb 2000 Source PDF →
Response — verbatim from government
●No formal government response recorded
The Index has not yet recorded a verbatim government response to this recommendation.
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
No published activity has been recorded against this recommendation yet.
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.