DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the 7 July Review Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

cover2.qxd 5/26/06 3:41 pm Page 1 Report of the 7 July Review Committee - Volume 2 Volume - Committee Report of the 7 July Review Report of the 7 July Review Committee Volume 2: Views and information from organisations Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 June 2006 Minicom 020 7983 4458 LA/May 06/SD D&P Volume 2: Views and information from organisations Contents Page Transcript of hearing on 3 November 2005 3 Transport for London, Metropolitan Police Service, City of London Police, British Transport Police, London Fire Brigade and London Ambulance Service Transcript of hearing on 1 December 2005 Telecommunications companies: BT, O2, Vodafone, Cable & Wireless 61 Communication with businesses: London Chamber of Commerce & Industry 90 and Metropolitan Police Service Transcript of hearing on 11 January 2006 Local authorities: Croydon Council (Local Authority Gold on 7 July), Camden 109 Council, Tower Hamlets Council and Westminster City Council Health Service: NHS London, Barts & the London NHS Trust, Great Ormond 122 Street Hospital, Royal London Hospital and Royal College of Nursing Media: Sky News, BBC News, BBC London, ITV News, LBC News & Heart 132 106.2, Capital Radio and London Media Emergency Forum, Evening Standard, The Times Transcript of hearing on 1 March 2006 147 Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Written submissions from organisations Metropolitan Police 167 City of London Police 175 London Fire Brigade 181 London Ambulance Service 199 London Underground 231 NHS Care Services Improvement Partnership/London Development Centre 241 7th July Assistance Centre 247 City of London 251 Westminster City Council 257 Croydon Council (Local Authority Gold on 7 July) 259 Health Protection Agency 261 British Red Cross 267 London Chamber of Commerce & Industry 269 Chrysalis News 270 Daily Mail 271 Home Office (Hazel Blears) 272 Disaster Action 276 1 7 July Review Committee – transcript of hearing on 3 November 2005 7 July Review Committee 3 November 2005 Transport for London: Tim O’Toole, Managing Director, London Underground Peter Hendy, Managing Director, Surface Transport Paul Mylrea, Director of Group Media Relations Chris Townsend, Director of Group Marketing Metropolitan Police Service Assistant Commissioner Alan Brown Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ron McPherson Dick Fedorcio, Director of Public Affairs Commander Chris Allison Detective Superintendent Rick Turner Superintendent Peter Smith; from the Metropolitan Police Service City of London Police Chief Superintendent Alex Robertson British Transport Police Deputy Chief Constable Andrew Trotter Chief Superintendent Peter Hilton London Fire Brigade Assistant Commissioner, Ron Dobson Rita Dexter, Director of Corporate Services James Flynn, Head of Communications London Ambulance Service Russell Smith, Deputy Director of Operations Angie Patton, Head of Communications Richard Barnes (Chair): Thank you all very much indeed for coming this morning. I particularly thank you all for the help, consideration, honesty and courtesy with which you have dealt with us over the last couple of months, as we have been doing the research to get the panel together and to identify the areas that we are going to be looking at. Your openness has been unbelievably refreshing and a total reassurance to Londoners. I also at this stage want to acknowledge the tremendous work put in by all those who were on the front line on 7 July. I think we must acknowledge London Underground (LUL) staff, who, certainly at three of the incidents were the first on the scene: the drivers, station staff and others who were there before everybody else endeavouring to give help and succour to the injured. Indeed, we have had a number of emails to our email address pointing out the sheer and total appreciation for the LUL staff. We are all 3 7 July Review Committee – transcript of hearing on 3 November 2005 aware of the tremendous work which the blue light services did. We owe you a debt of honour that you have repaid on a daily basis since 7 July. It has been incredibly impressive for all of us. The purpose of the Committee is to identify where things could have gone a little smoother and a little better, as well as the lessons that can be learnt so that should there be another incident we are more prepared and in a better position to help both the victims and the families of victims. There has been a lot of interest from up and down the country so the lessons that we learn will be applicable to Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Edinburgh. None of you are under oath, but we all have a duty to London and I know we will all fulfil it, not only at this hearing but the four more that we have in the future. Can I invite us just to remind ourselves of the events and the seriousness of the day? [Audio recording is played of a ‘999’ call on 7 July 2005, accompanied by film footage of actuality on the day]. Police: Police Emergency Caller: Hi, um, there’s a bus just exploded outside in Tavistock Square – just outside my window. Police: Tavistock Square? Caller: Yeah, in London. There’s people lying on the ground and everything. Police: Right, and it was an explosion on the bus, was it? Caller: Yeah, there’s people lying in the road, there’s a London bus, it’s a 30, I think? There’s people trying to get out. I think there’s ambulances on the way, but there’s people dead and everything by the looks of it. Police: okay… right the explosion happened a few minutes ago, yeah? Caller: Er, about two minutes ago…. Richard Barnes (Chair): Perhaps just a few seconds of personal individual reflection might be appropriate. [There is a pause for reflection] Richard Barnes (Chair): Thank you ladies and gentlemen. I believe Mr (Tim) O’Toole (Managing Director, LUL) wishes to address the Committee. Tim O’Toole (Managing Director, London Underground, Transport for London): Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for your kind words and what you said about everyone here. I think they were wholly appropriate and very much appreciated. Let me just introduce the other members of the Transport for London (TfL) team who are with me. Of course, Peter Hendy (Managing Director, Surface Transport) needs no introduction, since he runs just about everything other than the Underground in this 4 7 July Review Committee – transcript of hearing on 3 November 2005 city. Due to the events we are focused on, I think one item I would like to note in introducing Peter (Hendy), is that it was Peter who got the bus service back into London and got everyone home that night: a feat that I think is not remarked on enough. It was really London Buses that saw us through, along with the national rail service, on the evening of that awful day. Paul Mylrea is our director of Media Relations. I have said to him privately, and I welcome the chance to say publicly, what a great job I think he did working with the media representatives of the police and others. They worked seamlessly; there was no infighting or bickering, they got the messages out. He had a light enough hand to allow us to take care of operations, but also firm enough to make sure we met our responsibility of briefing the public and the press. Chris Townsend is the Director of Marketing. He has under his control many of the more 21st century ways of communicating: the web pages we use, the text messaging, and the emails we are able to send as a result of our Oyster database. I will be very brief in my remarks, because I know you have questions and I have had the opportunity before to make comments about that day, but I have to just note some points. Since this is an official hearing, I would not want them omitted. The first, of course, is that we always start with an expression of concern for those most affected: the victims that day. I think we were all struck at the memorial service the other day that this was not just some anonymous group of people to whom something bad happened, they are our passengers. These are people who rely on us for their safety and their care. We think about them every day. I also want to express my thanks to all the TfL staff. You have very eloquently cited them, and I will not repeat all that. I appreciate it, Chair. In addition, the people in the call centres; the people who were not at the sites, but who were de-training customers by themselves at small stations. Everyone pulled together on that day. I would also especially like to thank all the emergency services. We feel we were very well served that day. We feel they put in a remarkable effort. I do think it was testimony to the drills and the London Resilience preparations that we went through. At times, there was some cynicism and smirking at the boredom of some of those long meetings, but they certainly proved worthwhile. We have submitted to you a timeline of what took place that day, that I will just briefly note with our perceptions. I received first notice at 8.51am that there was an event on the Underground, which we thought was related to a bulk supply point that supplies our traction current power. We identified it as a power surge and put out that message, because loud bangs, explosions and the loss of power are something that we have run into before when we have lost power on the Underground.
Recommended publications
  • The Operator's Story Appendix

    The Operator's Story Appendix

    Railway and Transport Strategy Centre The Operator’s Story Appendix: London’s Story © World Bank / Imperial College London Property of the World Bank and the RTSC at Imperial College London Community of Metros CoMET The Operator’s Story: Notes from London Case Study Interviews February 2017 Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide a permanent record for the researchers of what was said by people interviewed for ‘The Operator’s Story’ in London. These notes are based upon 14 meetings between 6th-9th October 2015, plus one further meeting in January 2016. This document will ultimately form an appendix to the final report for ‘The Operator’s Story’ piece Although the findings have been arranged and structured by Imperial College London, they remain a collation of thoughts and statements from interviewees, and continue to be the opinions of those interviewed, rather than of Imperial College London. Prefacing the notes is a summary of Imperial College’s key findings based on comments made, which will be drawn out further in the final report for ‘The Operator’s Story’. Method This content is a collation in note form of views expressed in the interviews that were conducted for this study. Comments are not attributed to specific individuals, as agreed with the interviewees and TfL. However, in some cases it is noted that a comment was made by an individual external not employed by TfL (‘external commentator’), where it is appropriate to draw a distinction between views expressed by TfL themselves and those expressed about their organisation.
  • Crawford Building, 112 Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate, London, London

    Crawford Building, 112 Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate, London, London

    Crawford Building, 112 Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate, London, London. E1 7AP 980,000 • 2 bedrooms • 2 bathrooms • Built-In Wardrobes • Large Balcony • Central Heating • Comfy Cooling • At Aldgate Tube Station • Close to all trendy amenities in The Square Mile Ref: PRA10137 Viewing Instructions: Strictly By Appointment Only General Description A luxury two bedroom, two bathroom apartment situated in The Crawford Building development, part of the Aldgate regeneration. This 977 Square Foot apartment is exquisitely decorated and features high specification throughout offering a fully fitted contemporary open plan kitchen, reception, floor to ceiling windows, fitted large 'his and hers' wardrobes in the master bedroom, a second large double bedroom, a long private balcony with access from both the reception and master bedroom and storage. The Crawford Building benefits from 24 hour concierge and is ideally built above Aldgate East tube station and is situated in the City of London, a superb location, in close proximity to a range of shops, bars and restaurants as well as to the trendy Brick Lane, Shoreditch and Tower Hill areas. Accommodation Services EPC Rating:87 Tenure We are informed that the tenure is Not Specified Council Tax Band Not Specified All measurements are approximate. The deeds have not been inspected. Please note that we have not tested the services of any of the equipment or appliances in this property. Stamp duty is not payable up to £125,000. From £125,001 to £250,000 - 2% of Purchase Price. From £250,001 to £925,000 - 5% of Purchase Price. From £925,001 to £1,500,000 - 10% of Purchase Price.
  • Shaken, Not Stunned

    Shaken, Not Stunned

    Shaken, not stunned: The London Bombings of July 2005 1 Work in progress – not for circulation or citation! Project leader: Dr. Eric K Stern Case researchers: Fredrik Fors Lindy M Newlove Edward Deverell 1 This research has been made possible by the support of the Swedish National Defence College, the Swedish Emergency Management Agency and the Critical Incident Analysis Group. 1 Executive summary - The bombings of July 2005 On July 7 th , the morning rush hours in London formed the backdrop for the first suicide bombings in Western Europe in modern times. Three different parts of the London subway system were attacked around 08.50: Aldgate, Edgware Road, and Russell Square. 2 The three Tube trains were all hit within 50 seconds time. A bomb on the upper floor of a double-decker bus at Tavistock Square was detonated at 09.47. In the terrorist attacks, four suicide bombers detonated one charge each, killing 52 people. Seven people were killed by the blasts at Aldgate, six at Edgware Road, 13 at Tavistock Square, and 26 at Russel Square – in addition to the suicide bombers themselves. More than 700 people were injured. Hundreds of rescue workers were engaged in coping with the aftermath. Over 200 staff from the London Fire Brigade, 450 staff and 186 vehicles from the London Ambulance Service, several hundred police officers from the Metropolitan Police and from the City of London Police, as well as over 130 staff from the British Transport Police were involved. Patients were sent to 7 area hospitals. 3 Crucial Decision Problems 1.
  • City Hall Rich List 2020

    City Hall Rich List 2020

    City Hall Rich List 2020 Darwin Friend June 2020 Introduction Scrutinising staffing costs at local and national level is a hallmark of our mission to make government more accountable to taxpayers. This principle underpins our annual Town Hall Rich List, which details remuneration of the highest paid people across local government.1 It should also apply to municipal government. The Greater London Authority (GLA) is one of the biggest local authorities in the UK; it includes a number of well-known bodies and a powerful mayor. Sadiq Khan, the current mayor of London, has complained about financial woes, while the staffing costs of City Hall employees have risen by 82 per cent, from £36 million in 2016-17 to £65.5 million in the 2020-21 proposed budget.2 Meanwhile, the mayor has increased the band D council tax precept by just under nine per cent in 2019-20, and London taxpayers have gone from paying £295 in 2015-16 to £332 in 2020-21 for the GLA.3,4 The City Hall Rich List details the employees working for the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, London Fire Brigade and Metropolitan Police whose total remuneration exceeds £100,000. Key findings ▪ There were at least 654 people employed by the GLA and its subsidiary bodies in 2018-19 who received more than £100,000. Of these, 154 received over £150,000 in total remuneration. In 2015-16, 653 received more than £100,000 and 147 employees collected over £150,000. ▪ In 2018-19 the body with the highest number of employees with remuneration in excess of £100,000 was Transport for London, with 518 employees.
  • Hacking Affair Is Not Over – but What Would a Second Leveson Inquiry Achieve?

    Hacking Affair Is Not Over – but What Would a Second Leveson Inquiry Achieve?

    7/10/2019 Hacking affair is not over – but what would a second Leveson inquiry achieve? Academic rigour, journalistic flair Hacking affair is not over – but what would a second Leveson inquiry achieve? July 25, 2014 3.57pm BST Author John Jewell Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University On we go. Ian Nicholson/PA In the latest episode in the long-running saga that is the phone hacking affair, Dan Evans, a former journalist at the News of the World and Sunday Mirror, has received a 10 month suspended sentence after being convicted of two counts of phone hacking, one of making illegal payments to officials, and one of perverting the course of justice. Coming so soon after the conviction of Andy Coulson and the acquittal of Rebekah Brooks and others, one could be forgiven for assuming that the whole phone hacking business is now done and dusted. Not a bit of it. As Julian Petley has written: “Eleven more trials are due to take place involving 20 current or former Sun and News of the World journalists, who are accused variously of making illegal payments to public officials, conspiring to intercept voicemail and accessing data on stolen mobile phones.” We also learned in June that Scotland Yard had officially told Rupert Murdoch of their intention to interview him as part of their inquiry into allegations of crime at his British newspapers. The Guardian revealed that Murdoch was first contacted in 2013, but the police ceded to his lawyers’ request that any interrogation should wait until the Coulson–Brooks trial had finished.
  • Consultation Report 793 795 London Road

    Consultation Report 793 795 London Road

    793-795 London Road - proposed red route restrictions Consultation summary July 2016 Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 1 Background ................................................................................................................ 2 2 Scheme description .................................................................................................... 2 3 The consultation ......................................................................................................... 4 4 Overview of consultation responses ............................................................................ 5 5 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ........................................... 7 6 Conclusion and next steps .......................................................................................... 7 Appendix A – Response to issues raised .............................................................................. 8 Appendix B – Consultation Materials ..................................................................................... 9 Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ....................................................................... 13 Executive Summary Between 5 February and 17 March 2017, we consulted on proposed changes to parking restrictions at the area in front of 793-795 London Road, Croydon. The consultation received 11 responses, with 7 responses supporting or partially supporting
  • Unauthorised Tapping Into Or Hacking of Mobile Communications

    Unauthorised Tapping Into Or Hacking of Mobile Communications

    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications Thirteenth Report of Session 2010–12 1. This report is strictly embargoed and is not for broadcast or publication, in any form, before 05.00hrs, Wednesday 20 July 2011. 2. This report is issued under the condition that it should not be forwarded or copied to anyone else. 3. Under no circumstances should you distribute copies to anyone else or speak to the media before the publication time about the content of this report. 4. The report is subject to parliamentary copyright and you are not permitted to distribute, replicate, or publish further copies either in hard copy or on the internet either before or after publication. 5. If these instructions are unclear in any way please contact Alex Paterson on 020 7219 1589 or email [email protected] HC 907 Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications 3 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications Thirteenth Report of Session 2010–12 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 19 July 2011 HC 907 Published on 20 July 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West
  • Aftermath of the Anti-Terrorism Police Raids in Forest Gate on 2 June 2006

    Aftermath of the Anti-Terrorism Police Raids in Forest Gate on 2 June 2006

    Scrutiny by the Metropolitan Police Authority of communication and media at the Metropolitan Police Service with particular reference to the handling of media and communications during the Forest Gate incident of June 2006 Aftermath of the Anti-Terrorism Police Raids in Forest Gate on 2 June 2006 Submission of Newham Monitoring Project 27 September 2006 Aftermath of the Police Raids in Forest Gate on 2 June 2006 1. Terms of Reference 1.1. On Friday 2 June, 2006 police carried out raids on 46 and 48 Lansdown Road, Forest Gate, London. In the weeks following these raids the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) amended its existing scrutiny programme of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for 2006/7 to include the media and communications strategy of the MPS. 1.2. The stated objectives of this amendment to the MPA’s scrutiny programme is to : a) Assess the extent to which the MPS has the strategies, policies, protocols and processes in place to ensure efficient and effective communication, media and reputation management, particularly in the context of the 24 hour news environment. b) Undertake a detailed analysis of the handling of the media and communication during the Forest Gate incident in June 2006. c) Assess how effectively the MPS engages internally to manage communication to the media, Londoners and stakeholders, particularly during sensitive operations. d) Understand the culture of the MPS towards communication and media management and the impact this has on the delivery of an effective service. e) Evaluate the use of resources available to the MPS to deliver this key function, including understanding the division of resources and lines of accountability between central and local directorates.
  • Reuters Institute: the Future of Voice and the Implications for News

    Reuters Institute: the Future of Voice and the Implications for News

    DIGITAL NEWS PROJECT NOVEMBER 2018 The Future of Voice and the Implications for News Nic Newman Contents About the Author 4 Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 1. Methodology and Approach 8 2. What is Voice? 10 3. How Voice is Being Used Today 14 4. News Usage in Detail 23 5. Publisher Strategies and Monetisation 32 6. Future Developments and Conclusions 40 References 43 Appendix: List of Interviewees 44 THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM About the Author Nic Newman is Senior Research Associate at the Reuters Institute and lead author of the Digital News Report, as well as an annual study looking at trends in technology and journalism. He is also a consultant on digital media, working actively with news companies on product, audience, and business strategies for digital transition. Acknowledgements The author is particularly grateful to media companies and experts for giving their time to share insights for this report in such an enthusiastic and open way. Particular thanks, also, to Peter Stewart for his early encouragement and for his extremely informative daily Alexa ‘flash briefings’ on the ever changing voice scene. The author is also grateful to Differentology andY ouGov for the professionalism with which they carried out the qualitative and quantitative research respectively and for the flexibility in accommodating our complex and often changing requirements. The research team at the Reuters Institute provided valuable advice on methodology and content and the author is grateful to Lucas Graves and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen for their constructive and thoughtful comments on the manuscript. Also thanks to Alex Reid at the Reuters Institute for keeping the publication on track at all times.
  • 7 Acre 454,700 1,000

    7 Acre 454,700 1,000

    Location The transformation of an old postal sorting office into one of London’s most vibrant LONDON 2012 OLYMPIC PARK urban quarters is almost complete. This prime location in the heart of the City, offers a haven of luxury living and unrivalled amenities set amid seven acres of landscaped ad KINGS CROSS o R k spaces still steeped in history. ar P ia WESTFIELD r to ic V 06 1 A CAMDEN STRAFFORD CITY TOWN d a o R k ar P a ri o t ic V 6 0 1 * † A Walking from Goodman’s Fields Underground from Aldgate/Aldgate East Crossrail from Liverpool Street B ** l a Aldgate East Underground Station 4 mins Whitechapel 2 mins Whitechapel 2 mins c k w a l l U Tower Gateway DLR Station 8 mins St. Pancras International 12 mins Tottenham Court Road 4 mins T p u p n e DALSTON n r e PUDDING l MORNINGTON CRESCENT S Aldgate Underground Station 9 mins Bond Street 19 mins Canary Wharf 6 mins N MILL LANE t o r e r t e K h t e r i ** n n A Tower Hill Underground Station 10 mins Green Park Bond Street 7 mins 20 mins g p p s r l o a a H c n h N d a A m e Fenchurch Street Station 13 mins Covent Garden 22 mins Paddington 10 mins 1 R 2 w p o s N a t e d o ** a r ANGEL ISLINGTON Whitechapel Crossrail Station 14 mins Stratford International 24 mins Heathrow Central 35 mins t d h A R R o 1 a 0 ST PANCRAS o CAMBRIDGE HEATH d a Liverpool Street Station 17 mins Heathrow Airport (from Paddington) 50 mins Heathrow T4 41 mins d INTERNATIONAL A 1 2 A 0 4 0 01 00 5 A A3211 d oa es Street R pper Tham ille U onv HOXTON Pent S t 8 20 1 A J IGS CROSS t o ee ad h r o St R n t G ST PANCRASt
  • 'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of

    'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of

    Governing the ‘ungovernable’? Financialisation and the governance of transport infrastructure in the London ‘global city-region’ February 2018 Peter O’Briena* Andy Pikea and John Tomaneyb aCentre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU. Email: peter.o’[email protected]; [email protected] bBartlett School of Planning, University College London, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, 620 Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, UK WC1H 0NN. Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author 1 Abstract The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, oovercoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial and managerialist governance imperatives.
  • UK Ambulance Service Pre-Registration Programmes 64677 Ambulance Trust Reportv3:63630 Annualmon 27/1/11 16:34 Page B

    UK Ambulance Service Pre-Registration Programmes 64677 Ambulance Trust Reportv3:63630 Annualmon 27/1/11 16:34 Page B

    64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page A Review of approval and monitoring 2007–10 UK ambulance service pre-registration programmes 64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page B Contents Introduction 2 About us (the Health Professions Council) 2 Our main functions 2 Brief overview of the approval and monitoring processes 2 About this document 3 Review of approval activities 5 Background to the programme of visits 5 Preparation for the programme of visits 6 Outcomes of visits 6 The evidence base 6 The impact on resources and timeframes for the approval process 7 Feedback from ambulance services 10 Time taken to complete approval process 11 Communication and information 11 Pre-visit stage 12 The visit 14 The post-visit stage 14 Education provider feedback conclusions 15 Standards of education and training 15 Standards of proficiency 19 Standards of proficiency: further analysis 21 Conclusions on SOPs data 24 Conclusions from the review of visits 24 IHCD as a curriculum-setting body 25 64677 Ambulance Trust ReportV3:63630 AnnualMon 27/1/11 16:34 Page 1 Review of annual monitoring activities 26 The history leading to the annual monitoring of pre-registration education and training delivered by UK ambulance services 26 Brief overview of the annual monitoring process 26 Outcomes from the UK ambulance service annual monitoring process 27 Evidence base 27 The impact on resources and timeframes for the annual monitoring process 27 Standards of education and training 29 Analysis of Visitor comments