Home / Inquiries / Southport Inquiry / SP10
← SP9 SP11 →
SP10

Police-ambulance terminology interoperability

Southport Inquiry · The Southport Inquiry Report: Phase 1 · Issued 13 April 2026 · Addressed to: Merseyside Police

Government responseNHS England: Accepted (Jul 2026)

DeliveryNo statement from Merseyside Police found

Recommendation, verbatim from the inquiry

●Inquiry recommendation

Merseyside Police and North West Ambulance Service should review the terminology used in their systems and procedures to ensure shared understanding and interoperability. The College of Policing and the National Ambulance Resilience Unit should undertake a national review to ensure that police and ambulance services across the country operate with consistent terminology and mutual understanding.

Southport Inquiry, The Southport Inquiry Report: Phase 1 · 13 Apr 2026 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

AI-generated evidence summary

In July 2026, HM Government stated that this recommendation should sit with the Emergency Resilience Unit working alongside the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, the College of Policing, and other partners to review and standardise terminology across sectors (Home Office response, Jul 2026). It noted that while local services should review their own procedures, a nationally consistent approach is required so that terminology supports interoperability rather than creating local variation (Home Office response, Jul 2026). The record holds no update since the government's response of July 2026 (Home Office response, Jul 2026).

Sources

AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 26 Sep 2026.

Report-level response context

The government's response to Phase 1 (CP 1623, 2 July 2026) agreed with all 67 recommendations in one sentence, and names only 39 of them individually. Where a recommendation is not named, the response shown is the passage the response gives for the group it belongs to (the recommendations for organisations outside central government, or the recommendations to policing bodies), which is not a response to that recommendation alone; the response does not list the members of any group. The 10 recommendations for Phase 2 of the Inquiry to consider show no response: the response introduces them (paragraph 20) but answers none of them. The government accepts the recommendations that are for central government to deliver. Where a recommendation is for an organisation outside central government, the government's agreement is not that organisation's acceptance.

Government response

●NHS England · Accepted · 2 Jul 2026

Words of: HM Government, Government Response to Phase 1 of the Southport Inquiry (CP 1623), presented to Parliament by the Home Secretary, 2 July 2026

DHSC and NHS England support the issues that the recommendations for the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) are directed towards. However, while NHS England considers local review of procedures and terminology to be important and necessary, the greater opportunity is to ensure consistent national arrangements across all ambulance trusts in line with the principles of JESIP.
51. Therefore, there is opportunity to go further, in the spirit of recommendations 9 and 10, to deliver an improved national response;
- In line with our approach to consider emergency response nationally, the response to a major incident should not be determined by one ambulance trust in isolation and should not be treated as a matter for NWAS alone, in line with JESIP doctrine such as the 'Shared Situational Awareness' principle of JESIP. NHS England recognises the importance of clear procedures for declaring a Major Incident or Major Incident Standby, and for ensuring that declarations are communicated quickly and consistently within ambulance services and to emergency service partners.
- While NWAS should review its own systems and procedures, terminology used in major incident response must be consistent across all ambulance trusts and aligned with police, fire and wider emergency service partners, in line with the 'Communicate' principle of JESIP. The key risk is that local changes made by one trust could create further variation unless they are aligned to a national standard. The priority should be a nationally consistent approach across ambulance services and emergency service partners, so that terminology supports interoperability rather than creating local variation.
- Therefore, recommendations 9 and 10 should also sit with the Emergency Resilience Unit working with Association of Ambulance Chief Executives and ambulance trusts, and where relevant, the College of Policing, the national JESIP Team and other relevant partners to review and standardise across sectors.

Response document: Government Response to Phase 1 of the Southport Inquiry

Delivery

No statement on delivery from Merseyside Police has been found in the sources searched. This is separate from the response above.

How this page is built

The recommendation and the government responses are verbatim from primary documents. Delivery statements and other bodies' findings are shown in their own words, each with its source. The summary is written by this site and labelled as such. The Index does not paraphrase sources or characterise intent; it records what has been published.