Estates and Facilities Management ISSUE 3713, 16 SEPTEMBER 2013

Prosecutions

Hospital trust sentenced over fatal Legionnaires' disease and patient window fall

Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was, on 4 September 2013, ordered to pay a total of £350,000 in fines and costs for serious safety failings relating to two separate matters. The first concerns at least seven patients being infected with legionella, the bacteria that causes Legionnaires' Disease, from the hospital's water system. Fifty-four year-old Raymond Cackett died in March 2010 as a direct. It also contributed to the death of 74-year-old patient James Compton in June 2007. A further five patients were infected at the hospital between 2006 and 2010, as was a hospital visitor. The second incident involved a vulnerable 80 year-old patient falling almost five metres from an inadequately restricted window in June 2012. She suffered a broken back and ankle. Chelmsford Crown Court heard how an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified a catalogue of failures relating to both matters. In particular, the trust failed to monitor the hot and cold water systems adequately or ensure that key parts of the system, such as the shower heads and hoses, were kept clean. On 4 September, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust was fined £100,000 with costs of £162,000 after admitting breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for the period between 28 February 2004 and 31 December 2010 in relation to the legionella cases. The trust was also sentenced for separate proceedings relating to the window fall. The court was told that an elderly woman was found outside Basildon and Thurrock Hospital's Horndon ward by two security guards on the evening on 23 June 2012. The patient should have been in her room in the Marjorie Warren ward in the Jubilee wing. The woman, whose family has requested she is not named, had Alzheimer's disease and had been admitted to Basildon hospital for safeguarding. The incident was investigated by HSE, which identified failings relating to ineffective window restrictors.

HSE said the trust did not have a clear policy identifying the risks associated with windows and employees who were expected to undertake window safety checks had received no training or instruction on how to carry out their duties correctly.

As a result, the restrictor on the window in the elderly patient's room was inadequate and she was able to fall out. Since the fall she is barely able to walk, despite having been physically fit prior to the incident. Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for this incident. It was fined a further £75,000 with additional costs of £13,000.

HSE September 2013

South Yorkshire council in court over care home fall

Doncaster Borough Council has been prosecuted for neglecting safety precautions after an 82-year-old vulnerable woman was injured in a fall at one of their care homes.

The woman, who has dementia, suffered cuts and bruises when she fell nearly two metres into an unguarded open sewage drain at Oldfield House care home in Stainforth on 29 March 2012. The council appeared at Doncaster Magistrates' Court on 6 September 2013, charged with a breach of safety legislation after the incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Magistrates heard that a recently-qualified apprentice plumber was on site clearing a blockage in a live sewage drain via a manhole just outside a fire door at the end of a corridor. He had left the open hole exposed and the fire door open while he went back into the building to fetch water to flush the blockage. While the hole was unguarded, the elderly resident walked down the corridor and inadvertently through the open fire door and stumbled into the open hole. She needed an overnight stay in hospital and treatment for minor cuts and bruising. HSE told the court the council had failed to put simple measures in place to protect residents and staff while the work was being carried out. These could include placing temporary barriers around the hole, asking someone to keep watch on the open grate, or merely placing the cover back on the drain temporarily, and closing the fire door. Doncaster Borough Council was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £2,040 in costs after admitting breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. After the case, HSE inspector Tim Johnson said: "This is a residential care home that will be, by its very nature, occupied by vulnerable and possibly easily-confused elderly people. It is, therefore, particularly important that proper planning and the greatest vigilance are duly accorded. "It is fortunate this lady sustained only minor bruising but she was evidently badly distressed and did need an overnight stay in hospital. "Doncaster's risk assessment had outlined preventative measures to be taken but failed to follow that through. The inexperienced plumber was sent on his own, had not been trained in safe procedures and was not supplied with barriers - a failing that has since been rectified. "All employers must make sure they provide the necessary equipment and train their employees to carry out work in a safe manner. However short the duration of a job, they must take into account the risks presented by the environment they are working in." HSE September 2013

Former restaurant owner loses appeal against fire safety fine

The ex-owner of a 300-seat restaurant in Hounslow, London appealed a £10,800 fine given to him for eight counts of breaching fire regulations, but lost at the hearing on 29 August. Darshan Grewal and his partner Sirjit Dhaliwal, who used to own the Karahi Palace restaurant and banqueting suite, admitted that they had not complied with fire regulations on their hearing at Feltham Magistrates' court on 1 July. The restaurant was visited by fire safety inspectors in March 2010 who found that the fire exit route was not easily accessible because furniture was blocking the way, the floor was covered in oil and flammable materials were kept near a stairwell. In the event of a fire it would have been difficult for the 300 who could have been in the restaurant at the time to escape safely, potentially leaving them trapped. Mr Grewal had to pay £1,020 in costs to take the appeal to court and while his partner Mr Dhaliwal intended to appeal, he withdrew it on the day of the hearing. Isleworth Crown Court heard the appeal on 29 August and ruled that the £10,800 fine was just. Mr Grewal now has to pay that fine as well as £3,000 costs from the original case and the £1,020 for the appeal. His partner Mr Dhaliwal had a reduced fine of £9,750 from the original case because he paid for the problems to be rectified, but he also has to pay costs of £3,000. "This was a series of very serious repeated offences. If there had been a fire at the restaurant there could have been potentially fatal consequences for large numbers of people," said Steve Turek, London Fire Brigade assistant commissioner for fire safety regulation.

"The fines handed out send a clear message that we will not hesitate to prosecute if we believe that building owners are ignoring their responsibilities under fire safety laws. The fact that the judge dismissed this appeal to reduce Mr Grewal’s fine should also serve as a warning that the courts take these matters as seriously as we do."

In a bid to remove potential fire hazards, commercial buildings and non-domestic premises in England and Wales are already forced to undertake a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment carried out under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

While the overwhelming majority of premises do this, if the assessment is thought to have been carried out to an insufficient extent, the Responsible Person can face an unlimited fine or up to two years in prison.

Fire Industry Association September 2013

Kent company fined over worker death

A Kent aggregate company has been ordered to pay more than £180,000 in fines and costs after a worker was killed by dangerous lifting equipment on a tipper lorry.

Brian Peek, 57, from Ashford, sustained fatal injuries whilst unloading bags of hardcore and aggregate for Moores Turf & Top Soil Limited at a domestic address in Wittersham on 20 November 2006.

The lorry was fitted with a small crane and clam shell bucket, which he used to grab the bags and lower them to the ground. As Mr Peek unloaded the final bag, he leant over the back of the lorry and the crane slew around, trapping his neck between the bucket and the back of the lorry’s tipping body. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Canterbury Crown Court heard on 9 September that an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the equipment supplied to Mr Peek was in a poor state of repair and that the system of work employed to unload bulk bags of aggregate and hardcore was unsafe.

The incident could have been prevented had more suitable equipment been provided for the unloading task, such as a flatbed lorry and forklift truck. Moores had such equipment available for use, but chose to send the crane-mounted tipper instead.

Moores Turf & Top Soil Limited of Romney Marsh was fined a total of £85,000 and ordered to pay a further £97,791 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After sentencing, HSE principal inspector Mike Walters said: "Brian Peek’s tragic death could and should have been prevented. The lifting equipment on the lorry was badly maintained and simply wasn’t safe for use. It was also unnecessary because the firm had better equipment more suited to the job, which could have been used instead.

"Had Moores Turf & Top Soil taken time to properly assess the risks associated with the delivery of bulky bags of hardcore and aggregate, it would have become clear that a safer method of working was necessary and could be used.

"Employers must ensure that they properly maintain lifting equipment and that they provide their employees with the most suitable and appropriate equipment for the tasks they undertake. They must also ensure that safe systems of work are followed on site during the unloading of goods from vehicles."

HSE September 2013

Firm sentenced after worker crushed to death

An east London firm has been fined £125,000 after being found guilty of safety failings that led to the death of a worker who was crushed by a falling metal mast at its site in Cambridgeshire.

Construction engineer Nigel Sewell, 57, from Eaton Ford, St Neots, died as a result of his crush injuries following the incident at Universal Builders Supply Ltd, in Kneesworth on 19 September 2011.

The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which brought the prosecution for safety breaches against Mr Sewell's employer.

During a week-long trial at Peterborough Crown Court the jury was told Mr Sewell was part of a four man team assembling a tri-mast in the rear yard of the premises.

It consisted of three standard mast sections, in a triangular formation and each section was being lifted and then lowered vertically into a purpose-built jig using a telehandler and a four-leg chain sling.

Two sections had been lowered into the jig and bolted together, but the second section did not sit correctly so Mr Sewell and a colleague attempted to force it into the jig using a sledge hammer and crowbar.

The court heard that their attempts failed, so the driver of the telehandler was instructed to use the machine to push the mast section into the jig, which he did. He then positioned the telehandler ready to move the final section into place, but as he did so the two three-metres tall mast sections already in place, each weighing around one tonne, toppled onto Mr Sewell.

HSE found that there was inadequate planning and supervision of the work and there had been no separation of vehicles from the assembly process.

This meant that the telehandler, used to lift and lower the sections, inadvertently pushed over the two sections of the tri-mast onto Mr Sewell.

Universal Builders Supply Limited was fined a total of £125,000 and ordered to pay £40,000 costs after being found guilty at an earlier hearing of three offences of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, Regulation 8(1) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 and Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Graham Tompkins, said: "The loss of Mr Sewell was devastating for his family and friends and is made even more incomprehensible by the fact that it was completely avoidable.

"This tragic death could have been prevented had simple safety measures been thought through and put in place. Universal Builders Supply Ltd failed to plan the work properly, to provide appropriate instruction and to ensure there was competent supervision of the operation."

HSE September 2013

House builder and site manager prosecuted after bricklayer's fatal fall

A Lincolnshire house building company has been fined and a site manager sentenced to community service after a self-employed bricklayer fell to his death from dangerous scaffolding.

Justin Gillman, 26, died when he fell backwards almost two metres while working on a residential building site in Skegness on 26 February, 2010.

Chestnut Homes Ltd and their site manager, Peter Tute, were sentenced at Lincoln Crown Court on 5 September after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified serious safety failings.

They included allowing untrained people to build scaffolding, failing to check it was safe for use and for failing to ensure the safety of workers once it was in use.

The court was told that Mr Gillman and a colleague were told by Mr Tute to extend some scaffolding around the walls of a block of three terraced houses being built.

Neither was qualified or had any experience of erecting scaffolding, and as the site manager Mr Tute should not have entrusted them with the task. Mr Tute should have brought back a scaffold contractor to do the work.

HSE inspectors established that Mr Tute did not provide Mr Gillman or his colleague with any instructions in how to build the scaffolding and left them to improvise and get on with it.

They built a scaffolding platform that had no guard and the structure was a different height to existing scaffolding on the rest of the plots. As such, it was unsafe and posed a clear risk.

However, according to the Scaffold Inspection Record for the site, the whole scaffold was inspected on the day Mr Gillman died and was adjudged as being safe by Mr Tute.

On the day of the fatal fall, the weather was too poor for bricklaying so Mr Gillman and his colleague decided to load out the scaffolding with bricks for work the following Monday.

Having loaded out two sides of the scaffolding, Mr Gillman loaded a further band of 80 bricks on a trolley and pulled it backwards, past some guard rails that were raised out of the way, and up a makeshift ramp onto the scaffolding.

Mr Gillman fell backwards from the end of the unsafe scaffold where there was no guard rail to prevent him falling. The band of bricks he was pulling landed on him, and he died at the scene of his injuries.

Chestnut Homes Ltd of Wragby Road, Langworth, Lincoln were fined £40,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Mr Peter Tute, 50, was ordered to carry out 240 hours community service after pleading guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The court will determine the amount of costs to be paid at a later date.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Richard Lockwood said: "Before entrusting tasks to workers, principal contractors and site managers must ensure they are competent to do the task being given to them.

"There needs to be adequate control over scaffolding to ensure that it is and remains safe and fit for the purpose.

"Principal contractors must have robust systems that ensure that their policies and procedures are implemented properly on their sites."

Justin's father, Alan Gillman, added: "Justin was a very hardworking chap who enjoyed working in construction.

"He was building his own home for him and his girlfriend and he loved stock car racing. He'd been into racing cars since he was about eight-years-old.

"He generally enjoyed life and never had a bad word to say about anyone.

"If something positive can come from this case, and Justin's death, it's that I just hope people will be prepared to say 'no' to their employer if they're asked to do something they're not trained to do, or it wouldn't be safe for them to do."

HSE September 2013

Firm sentenced after worker crushed to death

An east London firm has been fined £125,000 after being found guilty of safety failings that led to the death of a worker who was crushed by a falling metal mast at its site in Cambridgeshire. Construction engineer Nigel Sewell, 57, from St Neots, died as a result of his crush injuries following the incident at Universal Builders Supply Ltd on 19 September 2011. The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which brought the prosecution for safety breaches against Mr Sewell's employer. During a week-long trial at Peterborough Crown Court the jury was told Mr Sewell was part of a four man team assembling a tri-mast in the rear yard of the premises. It consisted of three standard mast sections, in a triangular formation and each section was being lifted and then lowered vertically into a purpose built jig using a telehandler and a four-leg chain sling. Two sections had been lowered into the jig and bolted together, but the second section did not sit correctly so Mr Sewell and a colleague attempted to force it into the jig using a sledge hammer and crowbar. The court heard that their attempts failed, so the driver of the telehandler was instructed to use the machine to push the mast section into the jig, which he did. He then positioned the telehandler ready to move the final section into place, but as he did so the two three-metre tall mast sections already in place, each weighing around one tonne, toppled onto Mr Sewell. HSE found that there was inadequate planning and supervision of the work and there had been no separation of vehicles from the assembly process. This meant that the telehandler, used to lift and lower the sections, inadvertently pushed over the two sections of the tri-mast onto Mr Sewell. Universal Builders Supply Limited was fined a total of £125,000 and ordered to pay £40,000 costs after being

found guilty at an earlier hearing of three offences of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, Regulation 8(1) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 and Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Graham Tompkins, said: "The loss of Mr Sewell was devastating for his family and friends and is made even more incomprehensible by the fact that it was completely avoidable. "This tragic death could have been prevented had simple safety measures been thought through and put in place. Universal Builders Supply Ltd failed to plan the work properly, to provide appropriate instruction and to ensure there was competent supervision of the operation." HSE September 2013

Buckinghamshire man fined for breaching permit of vehicle scrapping business

A Buckinghamshire scrap car dealer who put the environment at risk has been ordered to pay £9,379 after a prosecution brought by the Environment Agency.

Reginald Hyde, who operates the facility on land, appeared before Aylesbury Magistrates’ Court on Monday 2 September 2013. Mr Hyde pleaded guilty to one offence of breaching the terms of an environmental permitting enforcement notice and was fined a total of £4,000, ordered to pay costs of £5,259 in addition to £120 victim surcharge.

The court heard that waste motor vehicles are brought onto the site by Mr Hyde and treated by being de-polluted and dismantled before being stored and then taken off site for disposal or to be sold on.

Mr Hyde has had an Environmental Permit to carry out these activities since July 2011, which sets out a number of conditions that must be complied with to ensure the environment is protected from potentially harmful fluids in the scrapped cars, such as oil or brake fluid. This is to protect the underlying groundwater and a stream next to the site.

Kelly Horsley, the environment officer leading on the case, said: “Scrap vehicles and engines pose a threat to the environment if not handled with great care. Despite numerous site visits and advice given to him, Mr Hyde failed to de-pollute vehicles correctly and then stored these vehicles on impermeable ground which has the potential to pollute the environment.

“This prosecution should act as a strong deterrent to anyone thinking about operating a similar site without complying with the terms of their environment permit or without the necessary environmental permit being in place. Environmental legislation seeks to ensure that waste is dealt with properly and does not pollute our environment."

Environment Agency September 2013

Jarrow firm sentenced after worker's hand severely injured

A Jarrow firm has been fined after a worker suffered serious injuries to his hand when it became caught in machinery at an engineering plant. Jack Ward, 19, was polishing a component on a manual lathe when the incident happened at Premier Precision Engineering Ltd on 12 July 2012.

He suffered a dislocated knuckle on his right hand and a broken index finger which required surgery to pin and wire back into position. Mr Ward has not regained full use of his hand and requires a further operation to repair the damage. Following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) the company was prosecuted, on 3 September 2013, for safety failings. South Tyneside Magistrates' Court heard that Mr Ward was wearing gloves, while he polished a component on the lathe using a strip of emery cloth looped around it. But as he worked, either the emery cloth or his gloves became entangled in the rotating parts and pulled his right hand into the machinery. HSE found Premier Precision Engineering Ltd had failed to adequately assess and control the risks associated with polishing on manual lathes and failed to provide a safe system of work. In addition, there was inadequate information and training for workers, who should have been advised not to wear gloves when working on machines with rotating parts. Premier Precision Engineering Ltd was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £3,875.10 costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. After the hearing HSE inspector Fiona McGarry, said: "Mr Ward's serious injuries should not and need not have happened. Premier Precision Engineering Ltd had not provided employees with a safe way of working for this polishing task. "Too many workers are injured getting tangled on manual lathes. Many of these incidents involve the use of emery cloth and employers must assess the need to use it on components on manual lathes and avoid it where possible. "If it is necessary it should be used with safety equipment, such as a backing board or tool post. Only where none of these methods are reasonably practicable should emery cloth be used. Gloves should not be worn when working on machines with rotating parts." HSE September 2013

News

Collaboration key to FM-client relations

Uninformed clients, inconsistent account managing and “rogue selling” are some of the factors to blame for the lack of loyalty in the FM sector, according to industry operators.

The need for clients to understand their requirements and for providers to deliver on promises, are some of the imperatives highlighted by FM providers and experts to improve industry relationships.

The comments come in response to a survey published earlier this week warning that FM providers are risking their contracts with clients because of poor relationship management.

It said that loyalty between service provider and client is lower than in any other sector, with only six per cent of clients surveyed considering their providers as “trusted advisors”.

Some FM providers have argued that the situation is more positive than the survey highlights, while other operators have acknowledged that issues do exist.

Norland group services director John Maidment said that “rogue selling”, where contracts are won at low margins, did not help client/provider relationships.

“Poor loyalty and high levels of churn are always going to be a characteristic of markets which use price as a differentiator,” he said. “It’s just a matter of time before the existing relationship is undercut by a new provider with deeper pockets.”

“The provider is working on the basis that the margin will be grown during the duration of the contract which leads to the antagonism described in the survey.

“Both sides of the industry must balance cost and value and find ways to ensure quality is being specified and delivered.”

FM consultant John Bowen argued that the client also has a responsibility to buy at the right price but can often be hampered by a lack of understanding about what they need.

“That contributes two factors,” he says. “Firstly if they didn’t know what they needed, their specification was almost certainly wrong and that alone will lead to dispute when the supplier tries to deliver to the contract. And secondly, if you don’t know what you need how can you judge what you should be paying?”

The survey also concluded that relationships and loyalty was better with smaller providers, defined as companies with a turnover of less than £250 million.

Bowen suggested that account managers in larger companies are often moved around and were not at any one account long enough to build relationships.

Several providers that FM World spoke to, including Norland and G4S, said that they invested heavily in monitoring and maintaining relationships, resulting in good levels of customer retention.

Emcor group executive director Christopher Kehoe said that its experience of client relations was more positive than the survey suggested. He pointed to the success of using BS11000 in Collaborative Business Relationships to provide a roadmap.

He said: “This research underlines the need for FM companies to work collaboratively with their customers, and with Emcor having now achieved BS 11000 accreditation with five customers, across both public and private sectors, we believe that the FM industry is beginning to recognise the importance of effective collaboration and the benefits it can bring.”

G4S said that relationship management was built in at a contractual level via established reporting mechanisms.

“We conduct annual surveys of our contracts and these are echoed at the local level with customer satisfaction monitoring of individual contracts which generate very high response rates from service users of around 90 per cent,” a spokesperson said. “Many of our clients are more than happy to provide positive public endorsement of our services, and have been extremely supportive in helping us to win industry awards.”

Norland’s Maidment said that it had customer retention levels of 90 per cent but and that loyalty came when providers delivered on promises and continued to add value year on year.

“Providers have to work really hard to be seen as trusted advisors by their clients,” he said. “It doesn’t just happen. It’s up to providers to ensure they are offering something different and then actually walk the talk.”

FM World September 2013

Capital’s fire service gears up for firefighter strike

London Fire Brigade said today it is ready and prepared to deal with a firefighter strike, following the announcement that 78 per cent of Fire Brigades’ Union (FBU) members who took part in the ballot have voted in favour of strike action.

A strike, which would be the first national firefighter strike in over a decade, is over a dispute between the FBU and government over the government’s reforms to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme.

London fire commissioner, Ron Dobson, said: “It’s a pity that we are in this position, but we are prepared and our contingency fire service is ready to operate during a strike. Last month we temporarily removed 27 fire engines from stations across London and these will be used by contingency crews to provide a level of fire cover for the capital.

“During a strike, my advice to the public would be to take even greater care to prevent fires from breaking out at home. Simple steps like keeping a really close eye on cooking and making sure cigarettes are disposed of properly can make all the difference.”

The brigade said it will be issuing further fire safety advice in the lead up to any potential strike date.

LFB August 2013

Summertime, and the living is easier

The summer often creates a lull in corporate news, except for trading statements and updates.

This year’s welcome sunny weather has been matched by a generally sunny ‘results season’ for many of the bigger UK FM players.

The traditional deluge of half-year results, published through late July and early August, allows an insight into how the major players are shaping up. In most cases, the signs are pretty encouraging.

Results from the likes of Carillion and Mears Group in the UK and Danish giant ISS group all showed improving profits.

Trading statements from players like Mitie continued the theme of growing order books. There was a counterbalance from Interserve, showing a slightly weaker results sheet, as well as disappointing figures from Balfour Beatty – although these were skewed by problems in Balfour’s UK construction business.

In most cases, improved performance was driven primarily by better margins rather than a surge in revenues. After all, markets generally are hardly booming with government contracts still slow to pick up.

This trend for margin improvement is an important factor in assessing the health of the sector in general. It appears in many cases that companies have successfully navigated the tough period from 2008 onwards. They are now emerging as leaner and stronger organisations that are likely to see profits continue to improve as revenues pick up.

There are also suggestions that relationships between clients and providers have reached a solid equilibrium. Clients have realised that they can’t continually squeeze providers and still expect the same level of service.

Indeed, this more mature relationship between supplier and client can benefit both sides. The supplier is able to maintain a reasonable level of service. With many of the costs attached to third party products the two sides can work together to achieve savings on supplies. There is no need to squeeze the first-tier provider too hard for savings, an action that could adversely affect the services they deliver.

But it is by no means a given that profits will continue to grow as revenues pick up. Healthy margins for the biggest providers may not necessarily be replicated by smaller players and those second and third-tier companies – the subcontractors – supplying services to the big players.

But with the UK economy showing signs of picking up and even the moribund European economies also eliciting signs of life, prospects look to be on the up for the large players. This is especially, and hopefully, true if many government construction projects kick in over the next couple of years, bringing with them associated FM business.

Order books are never guaranteed but they are a good indicator of future prospects. For companies such as Mears, whose order book has risen from £2.7 billion to £3.8 billion, these prospects look increasingly healthy. Elsewhere, Carillion booked £2.9 billion of new orders in the first half of the year and boasted of a confirmed and probable pipeline worth a hefty £18.4 billion.

The overall evidence points to increasing corporate health at the top end of the FM sector. We wait for the mid and small-cap companies to report in the coming weeks to see if this is being replicated throughout the industry. If the smaller companies show similarly healthy margins, then the forthcoming economic recovery, if it takes root, could bring a period of sustained growth for the sector. FM World September 2013

BSIA welcomes results of government consultation on future of security regulation

The British Security Industry Association (BSIA) has welcomed the publication of the results of the government’s consultation on the future of the regulatory regime for the private security industry.

Published on 5 September, the results reveal that the majority of respondents are in favour of the Government’s proposals, which include the introduction of business licensing and the transfer of the current Approved Contractors Scheme (ACS) to industry.

Support for the licensing of in-house security personnel was also expressed by the majority of respondents.

James Kelly, chief executive of the BSIA, who also acts as chair of The Security Regulation Alliance – a single-issue body established in 2010 to coordinate an industry-wide response to the issue of regulatory change, comments: “The BSIA welcomes the publication of the results of the government’s consultation into the future of the regulatory regime for the private security industry. We are pleased to see that the views of our members and the results of the BSIA’s own survey were carefully considered by the Home Office, and that the overall findings of the consultation largely reflect our members’ opinions.

“Moving on from here, our industry urgently requires clarification from government on the cost and timing of regulatory change. Despite the unprecedented consensus among industry, Home Office ministers, the Security Industry Authority and other key stakeholders, the government’s original implementation target of 2014 is in real jeopardy since there is still no definitive legislative vehicle identified by government through which the proposed changes can be enacted.

“Given the level of joint working and co-operation from all sides since 2010, it would be such a missed opportunity to let this important programme fail at this stage, and a travesty if public and business safety were compromised for the want of a few clauses in a Bill. As such, the BSIA will be taking this message forward at both Conservative and Labour party conferences later this month, with a view to seeking clarity on behalf of the industry.”

British Security Industry Association September 2013

ISO 7240 targets developing regions

The new addition to the ISO 7240 series of international product standards (part 14) has been released, bringing together various fire detection and alarm systems into one standard for their design, installation, commissioning, and maintenance that can be easily adopted internationally.

The product of many years of revision and consultation with experts worldwide, ISO 7240-14 focuses on the earliest possible fire detection in and around buildings, for the protection of life, property, and the environment. It closely follows the European series of standards, EN54.

Fire detection and alarm systems have often been plagued by poor system design, installation, and maintenance, leading to loss of performance and reliability. The new standard should go some way towards ensuring these tasks are properly performed by experienced, qualified personnel.

Peter Parsons, chairman of ISO technical committee ISO/TC 21, subcommittee SC 3, which developed the standard, said part 14 was the missing piece of the puzzle.

“For the first time, we have a series of standards dealing with both the equipment and its configuration and installation. This will help ensure that fire detection and alarm systems give building occupants early warning of fire. The earlier we can detect a fire, the more chance we have of reducing human and material losses. This standard will help save the lives of building occupants.”

Parsons added the new standard will provide a "life-safety system solution that can be widely adopted," as it is particularly suited to emerging economies, many of which lack standards for fire detection systems and continue to suffer an unacceptably high death toll from building fires.

IFSEC Global September 2013

First aid guidance published ahead of regulation changes

A month ahead of changes to first aid regulations, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published guidance to help businesses put in place appropriate arrangements for the provision of first aid. From 1 October 2013, the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 will be amended, to remove the requirement for HSE to approve first aid training and qualifications. The changes are part of HSE's work to make it easier for businesses and other users to understand how to comply with health and safety law, whilst maintaining standards. They apply to businesses of all sizes and from all sectors. Andy McGrory, HSE's policy lead for First Aid, said: "From October, HSE will no longer approve first-aid training and qualifications. The guidance documents clarify what the law requires and provide practical help to businesses in assessing and understanding their first aid needs. Where a first aider is required, the guidance documents make it clear that the employer is free to select a training provider who is best suited to those needs. "We have taken onboard comments and suggestions that we have received through our public consultations on the changes and from extended stakeholder discussions and business input to ensure the guidance provides everything an employer will need to manage their first aid requirements." Advance copies of 'The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981', 'Regulations and Guidance (L74)' and 'Selecting a first-aid training provider (GEIS3)' are now available on the HSE website.

Legislative changes have been approved by the HSE Board and by Parliament.

The legal requirement for employers to ensure they make adequate provision for first aid, in accordance with their first aid needs assessment, will remain unchanged. HSE September 2013

Hoax London fire calls fall as mobile ownership grows

The number of hoax 999 phone calls made to the London Fire Brigade has been falling in recent years, which has been attributed to more and more children owning mobile phones. Making a prank call from a mobile phone is traceable and the fear that the perpetrator may get caught is a big deterrent for any would-be hoaxers. At the same time, the phone box is becoming redundant on Britain's streets with the growth of mobile phones, and these largely anonymous devices were once an ideal conduit for making such calls. Over the last seven year the London Fire Brigade has seen prank calls to its control centre fall 48 per cent. Nevertheless, there was still an astonishing 7,013 hoaxes made to the fire service in 2012/13, and it mobilised crews for 1,727 of them, which cost taxpayers over £500,000. This does compare drastically to 2006/07 when 13,169 prank calls were made, with engines mobilised for 3,403 of them.

It is not just the cost of hoax calls that it is the problem. They can potentially have disastrous ramifications if it means that resources are diverted from a genuine emergency. Control officers are, however, now trained to deal with potential prank calls, probing those they believe are suspicious. Furthermore, fire engines are no longer mobilised when a call is abandoned from a phone box.

"Hoax calls were easier when kids could just pop into a phone box, but now everyone has mobile phones and the numbers are traceable. It’s a little less tempting when you know that the people you’re hoaxing have your number," said assistant commissioner Richard Chandler, who is responsible for mobilising. "Repeat offenders can have their phones cut off entirely, and our control officers are specially trained to challenge suspicious callers to check that they’re genuine." He added that it is "amazing" to have seen such a drop in hoax calls over the years, but he also suggests that parents teach their children the importance of not carrying out such a prank, telling them they are "pointless and dangerous". In a bid to remove potential fire hazards, commercial buildings and non-domestic premises in England and Wales are already forced to undertake a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment carried out under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

While the overwhelming majority of premises do this, if the assessment is thought to have been carried out to an insufficient extent, the Responsible Person can face an unlimited fine or up to two years in prison.

Fire Industry Association September 2013

Farm safety partners to launch new PTO awareness week

[Northern Ireland] The Farm Safety Partnership, in association with local farm machinery dealers, is launching Northern Ireland’s first ‘PTO Safety Week’ on Monday 23 September. Accidents involving equipment such as PTOs is one of four areas targeted by the Farm Safety Partnership’s new farm safety campaign, ‘Stop and Think SAFE’. The aim of the new initiative is to encourage farmers to ‘stop and think’ about the dangers of unguarded or poorly guarded PTOs and to remind them to protect themselves and others from serious or even fatal injury. To support this latest farm safety drive, participating dealers will offer a discount on new PTO shaft guards purchased during the week from 23 to 28 September. HSENI officers will also embark on a programme of visits to farms across Northern Ireland to encourage famers to check their guards. Looking forward to a successful first PTO week, chairman of the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) George Lucas said: “On behalf of the Farm Safety Partnership I’d like to thank the participating dealers for their generosity and support for this potentially life-saving initiative. “PTO shafts are dangerous and can rip off a limb or kill in seconds. However, HSENI officers continue to find many unguarded PTO shafts when visiting local farms - this is not acceptable. It’s important that farmers stop and think - ‘Is the PTO guard there and is it in good condition?’ before that hitch up.” To find out more about the ‘Stop and Think SAFE’ campaign, or for advice about working safely with livestock visit the Farm Safe website. HSENI September 2013

Reports

GRESB publishes 2013 report and survey results

GRESB today announced the release of its 2013 Report, which is based on sustainability data gathered from 543 property companies and funds, providing aggregate information on 49,000 properties across the globe.

The report shows that the real estate sector is significantly reducing its environmental impact, decreasing energy consumption by 4.8 per cent over the 2011-2012 period – equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of 163,000 homes. Over the same period, greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2.5 percent, and water consumption decreased by 1.2 percent.

Importantly, there are strong regional differences in energy reductions. Despite the continued focus of EU regulators on the built environment, Europe lags behind other regions, with only a small decrease in energy consumption (0.7 percent). In North America, reductions in energy consumption are the largest globally, with a decrease of 6.6 percent in energy consumption (1,235 GWh) and 4.8 percent for greenhouse gas emissions (317,600 metric tonnes).

The GRESB report demonstrates a clear and upward trend in sustainability performance of the global real estate industry. In 2013, 119 property companies and funds achieved ‘green star’ status, recognition for outstanding management and implementation of key sustainability issues. Australia continues to demonstrate global leadership in sustainability performance as the top-performing region in the GRESB survey, whereas performance differences between Asia, Europe, and North America are becoming smaller.

Sustainability is increasingly integrated into day-to-day business decision-making, with over 80 percent of participants involving senior management in the reviewing and monitoring of sustainability processes. The adoption of risk management strategies related to sustainability is widespread: all participants now perform sustainability risk assessments, both for standing investments and for new acquisitions. This sharply contrasts with results for 2012, when only 60 percent of participants performed sustainability risk assessments.

A leading global source of comprehensive portfolio level sustainability data for the real estate industry, GRESB’s market coverage has grown substantially in 2013. The number of companies and funds disclosing information on sustainability performance has increased by nearly a quarter as compared to 2012. Much of this increase can be attributed to Asia and the United States. GRESB now covers 46 countries in six continents and is the leading and largest source of comprehensive portfolio level sustainability data, representing USD 1.6 trillion of gross asset value.

Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark September 2013

Eight companies win gold awards in EPRA annual report survey

The annual reports of the 80 members of the FTSE European Public Real Estate Association (EPRA) Developed Europe Index were reviewed by Deloitte, the business advisory firm. They were appraised for compliance with the EPRA Best Practices Recommendations (BPR) which aim to promote consistency and transparency in reporting in real estate companies across Europe.

Based on the results of this analysis, awards were reviewed and confirmed by the EPRA BPR jury.

Companies in ten out of the 12 countries represented by members of the Index received an award, with British property companies dominating, winning five out of the eight gold awards presented.

French real estate company Klépierre has been presented with the award for ‘Most Improved Annual Report’.

Claire Faulkner, real estate audit partner at Deloitte, commented: “The results of the 2009/10 annual report survey demonstrate the success EPRA has had in raising the bar of real estate financial reporting across Europe and that foundations are there for future development.”

Philip Charls, chief executive of EPRA, added: "It is clear from the performance identified in this year’s Annual Report Awards that EPRA’s Best Practices Recommendations are really developing momentum and having an impact on the ground, where it counts, with listed property companies. I strongly encourage EPRA members to now focus on those areas identified as needing more work, as this is the best way of attracting investment into the industry.”

The Deloitte survey also conducted an initial review of sustainability reporting in the sector. Claire Faulkner commented: “Only 36 per cent of all companies referred to carbon reduction targets in their annual reports. However, this does not necessarily imply that the companies are not focused on sustainability as many prepare separate reports. The potential role of the annual report to connect sustainability and climate change impacts to the core business is often under-utilised and we anticipate significant changes in this respect going forward.”

A new approach was taken to the awards this year to provide better recognition for companies complying with the EPRA BPR alongside the many other challenges associated with the delivery of relevant and useful annual reports. The annual reports for each company were reviewed by a team of experts from the Deloitte real estate audit practice, led by Claire Faulkner. They were judged and awarded a score based on compliance with the BPR. The minimum criteria for any annual report being accredited was the inclusion of at least one of the three key EPRA metrics – EPS, NAV and NNNAV.

About the Awards

Now in its ninth year, the purpose of the EPRA Annual Report survey is to promote awareness of the EPRA Best Practices Recommendations (BPR) and to encourage and reward compliance with the BPR. The BPR aim to raise the standard of financial reporting through improving clarity, transparency and consistency in financial reporting. Eighty companies from a total of 12 countries across Europe were represented in the Survey.

Deloitte September 2013

Guidance

Clients’ responsibilities regarding the management of asbestos projects

The Asbestos Removal Contractors Association has produced and information leaflet for clients outlining their responsibilities regarding the management of asbestos projects on their premises.

Introduction

All clients who are running a business or other undertaking, have a duty under Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 19741, to ensure so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of those persons who work on, or visit their premises.

As a result clients should ensure that all their actions, requirements and decisions, regarding any works are in accordance with their responsibilities under this Act.

Meeting these requirements

Scope of work

In preparing the scope of work clients should consider why they are having the job done, what will follow on from the asbestos removal, and therefore what asbestos material needs to be removed. It is essential for a cost effective asbestos removal project that the client provides information based on a suitable and sufficient asbestos survey.

Asbestos surveys

Workplaces and other non-domestic premises will normally have a written plan for managing asbestos, if asbestos materials have been identified, or are liable to be present, this will typically be on the basis of a ‘management survey’ (paragraphs 43- 50 of HSG 264 Asbestos: The Survey Guide2).

Where the client has commissioned work requiring refurbishment or demolition work that will disturb the fabric of the building a ‘refurbishment and demolition’ survey will normally be required (paragraphs 51-54 of HSG 264 Asbestos: The Survey Guide2) to fulfil the client’s duty to provide pre-construction health and safety information (regulation 10 CDM Regulations 20073). If it is not possible to access all areas when the survey is carried out, for example because part of the building is occupied, the client will need to ensure that any gaps in survey information are filled by commissioning additional surveys, or by making other reasonable enquiries to assist the refurbishment or demolition contractor, well before construction work starts, or presume asbestos is present (see paragraph 57 of the Approved Code of Practice supporting the CDM Regulations 20073)

In the past some clients have specified ‘all risk contracts’ for refurbishment or demolition work, in these cases it is highly unlikely that they will be complying with their legal duties under regulation 10 of The CDM Regulations 20073 and section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Selection of competent contractor

See ARCA Guidance Note 20 The selection and Monitoring of Asbestos Removal Contractors4

Information to be supplied by the client

It makes sense for the client to discuss, with the contractor and surveyor what type of survey would be appropriate for the intended work, and to make sure the asbestos contractor is clearly advised about the scope of the work required.

Asbestos contractors will need appropriate information to prepare a suitable plan of work, as required by their licence, and to ensure the work can be carried out efficiently, they will need time to assess the premises properly and discuss key site information with the client, such as:

access: including transit routes, waste routes, location of decontamination unit and asbestos waste skip, including any segregation of these areas which may be necessary

services: including location of water supply, well earthed electrical supplies and drains for decontamination unit waste water discharge

site hazards: including known non-asbestos hazards particular to the site. The Client should provide the contractor with details of all hazards on site and the risks which may affect the safety of those carrying out the work

occupancy: other contractor and staff activity on the site that may be need to be considered as part of the plan of work

site restrictions and security: any security or access restrictions which may be applicable to the site

isolations: the relevant electrical, gas, and water isolations that have been carried out to ensure the work can be completed safely [and live steam/hot water systems have been shut down as ‘hot work’ with asbestos is to be avoided wherever possible]. ‘Hot work’ will only be permitted in exceptional and fully justifiable circumstances, and, as it must be identified on the notification to the enforcing authority, it is likely to be challenged. HSE guidance states that hot working and asbestos removal are almost incompatible activities and therefore all avenues should be explored to remove the heat source. Wherever possible hot plant should be turned off and allowed to cool before asbestos removal work begins. Turning plant off may not always be possible, and therefore asbestos removal should be programmed for times when the plant will be cool i.e. summer months or other planned downtime

existing emergency arrangements: the emergency arrangements particular to the site such as fire and evacuation procedures. Clients shall liaise with the contractor to establish the client’s point of contact in case of an emergency particularly with regards to week end working and out of hours working

welfare facilities: whether the clients existing welfare facilities are available for use by the contractor

client’s requirements: including whether the client requires to witness the smoke test or requires additional reassurance air monitoring once the work is complete

sufficient time and space

Clients should plan sufficient time to allow asbestos surveys to be carried out. Clients should be aware that an effective Refurbishment and Demolition survey cannot be carried out in an occupied building. Also, the contractor needs time to prepare the plan of work which has to be done prior to the work being notified to the enforcing agency, at least 14 days prior to the work commencing.

The work of other contractors (eg IT, M&E and building contractors) needs to be coordinated to ensure that asbestos contractors can carry out their work safely. If the asbestos removal work is associated with a construction project, the principal contractor will need to satisfy the client that effective management arrangements have been made to coordinate the work so that transit and waste routes are not obstructed and the asbestos contractor has the time and space to carry out their work safely.

Asbestos Removal Contractors Association September 2013

Restriction on hazardous substances regulations

As part of the policy ‘Improving the health and safety system’, guidance on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS) Regulations 2012 has been produced.

Detail

The guidance explains the requirements of the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012 (the RoHS 2 Regulations).

It is intended for businesses and individuals placing or making electrical and electronic equipment available on the UK market from 2 January 2013.

It explains the requirements on business, how to comply with the law and provides sources of further information.

Department for Business Innovation & Skills September 2013

Consultations

Clean Air Act 1993 Review

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has published this Call for Evidence to support a policy review of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 1993 in England. The purpose is to seek views on the current evidence base and proposals to scrap or amend CAA as part of a drive to cut red tape. It will be of interest to the public, local authorities (LAs) and businesses affected such as boiler manufacturers, developers and the food industry. Background The CAA gives powers to local councils to control domestic and industrial smoke to improve local air quality and meet EU air quality standards for sulphur dioxide and particulate matter. The CAA is almost 60 years old and have around 40 associated regulations. There are three main objectives of the review:

reducing burdens on business and local authorities

making environmental rules and regulations more user friendly

maintaining the quality of environmental regulations.

The consultation comes as part of this review, which aims to “reduce burdens” on business and LAs; make environmental rules and regulations more user friendly; and maintain the quality of environmental regulations.

The CAA is a Great Britain Act, but the Red Tape Challenge review is an England-only exercise. The devolved administrations remain key stakeholders and are working together to ensure harmonised approaches are adopted where possible. Proposals This Call for Evidence presents the evidence to date on the importance of the Act for air quality management and the burdens that the Act places on LAs and business. It also outlines selected stakeholders’ views for improving the Act. Further evidence is now invited to help understand how the CAA affects LAs and business. A robust evidence

base is an important input for the review to ensure understanding of the Act and its burdens on industry is correct and to inform the scope and nature of future policy development. Evidence has been gathered on:

the importance of measures in the Act for control of emissions and ambient air quality

the burden of measures in the Act on industry and LAs

ideas for improving the Act to meet the policy objectives.

Two studies for Defra and the Scottish Government have been used as inputs to the analysis:

2010 Support to the Scottish Government on the Clean Air Act

2012 Assessment of effectiveness of measures under the Clean Air Act 1993.

Additional evidence gathering has taken place between 2011 and 2013 and included; a questionnaire issued to LAs and industry, direct follow up consultation with LAs and a focus group session with LAs and industrial and trade representatives. Responses are preferred via an online survey by 29 October 2013; details of the consultation are available on the Barbour service here. Defra September 2013

Consultation on draft regulations to implement Article 30 of Council Directive 2012/18/EU on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending Council Directive 96/82/EC

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is proposing to amend the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (COMAH) to implement Article 30 of Council Directive 2012/18/EU to categorise heavy fuel oils (HFO) as ‘petroleum products’. This will have the effect of changing HFO categorisation from its current status of ‘dangerous for the environment (DFE)’ to ‘petroleum products’, thereby increasing significantly the qualifying threshold inventories before the requirements of COMAH become applicable. The inventories for lower tier and top tier sites will increase from 100t to 2,500t and from 200t to 25,000t respectively. This amendment is effectively an interim measure until the changed requirements of HFO are captured in COMAH 2015 which will be introduced on 1 June 2015 to implement Seveso III in full. A result of the proposed amendment to COMAH is that an amendment to the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992 will be made, increasing the controlled quantity of HFO for which the planning requirements become applicable from 100 tonnes to 2,500 tonnes. This consultation document seeks views on:

whether the proposed regulatory amendment enables businesses to identify what they need to do

whether stakeholders are content with the proposed approach for handling Article 30 of Seveso III (ie by the proposed regulatory amendment to COMAH)

the initial assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed change as set out in the Impact Assessment

This consultation relates to regulations that will apply in England, Scotland and Wales. Governments in Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will prepare proposals for implementing the directive in their respective administrations.

HSE September 2013

Legislation Diary

Legislation Diary 2013

CIF Title Region

07/06/2013 Energy supply company administration Rules 2013 E/W

07/06/2013 Energy supply company administration, Scotland Rules 2013 S

10/06/2013 Water resources, Scotland Act 2013, commencement no 1, order 2013 S

10/06/2013 Solid fuel carbon tax Regulations 2013 I

10/06/2013 Misuse of drugs, temporary class drug Act 1971, order 2013 NI/S/W/E

15/06/2013 Galloper wind farm Order 2013 E

17/06/2013 Gas and petroleum, consents, charges Regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S

17/06/2013 Forestry, felling of trees, calculation of the area of land, Northern Ireland Regulations

2013 NI

17/06/2013 Forestry, felling of trees, Northern Ireland Regulations 2013 NI

17/06/2013 Forestry, Northern Ireland 2010 act, commencement no 3, order 2013 NI

18/06/2013 European Communities, transport of dangerous goods by rail Amendment, regulations

2013 I

19/06/2013 Aquaculture and fisheries, Scotland Act 2013 S

20/06/2013 Pollution prevention and control, industrial emissions, Northern Ireland Regulations

2013 NI

24/06/2013 Planning and development Amendment, regulations 2013 I

24/06/2013 Animal health, Scotland Miscellaneous fees and amendments, regulations 2013 S

25/06/2013 Enterprise and regulatory reform Act, commencement no 1, transitional provisions and

savings, order 2013 E/W/NI/S

25/06/2013 Domestic waste water treatment systems, financial assistance Regulations 2013 I

25/06/2013 Planning, listed buildings and conservation areas, England Amendment, regulations

2013 E

25/06/2013 Town and country planning, development management procedure, England

Amendment, order 2013 E

26/06/2013 Quality of bathing water, Northern Ireland Amendment, regulations 2013 NI

28/06/2013 Water industry, specified infrastructure projects, English undertakers Regulations 2013 E/W

29/06/2013 National Trust for Scotland, governance etc Act 2013 S

29/06/2013 Plant health, Scotland Amendment, no 2, order 2013 S

29/06/2013 Electricity and gas, market integrity and transparency, enforcement etc Regulations

2013 E/W/S

30/06/2013 Town and country planning, development management procedure, Scotland

Regulations 2013 S

30/06/2013 Detergents Amendment, regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S

30/06/2013 Hydrocarbons, temporary management scheme Regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S

01/07/2013 To include imidacloprid as an active substance in annex I thereto. 1 Jul 11. Amending

Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council EU

01/07/2013 European Communities, construction products Regulations 2013 I

01/07/2013 Building regulations Part D amendment, regulations 2013 I

01/07/2013 Renewables obligation, Northern Ireland Amendment no 2, order 2013 NI

01/07/2013 Denatured alcohol Amendment, regulations 2013 W/E/S/NI

01/07/2013 Feed-in tariffs Amendment, order 2013 S/W/E

01/07/2013 Home energy assistance scheme, Scotland Regulations 2013 S

01/07/2013 Waste management, landfill levy Amendment, regulations 2013 I

01/07/2013 Water environment, controlled activities, Scotland Amendment regulations 2013 S

01/07/2013 Building Regulations, part A amendment, regulations 2012 I

01/07/2013 Construction products Regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S

04/07/2013 European Communities, carriage of dangerous goods by road and use transportable

pressure equipment Amendment, regulations 2013 I

04/07/2013 Landfill, Northern Ireland Amendment, regulations 2013 NI

06/07/2013 Sports grounds and sporting events, designation, Scotland Amendment, no 2, order

2013 S

08/07/2013 Assured and protected tenancies, lettings to students, England Amendment, no 2,

regulations 2013 E

10/07/2013 Housing and regeneration, Wales Act 2008, consequential amendments to 'Mobile

homes act 1983', order 2013 W

10/07/2013 Mobile homes, Wales Act 1983, amendment of schedule 1 and consequential

amendments, order 2013 W

11/07/2013 Cosmetic products Enforcement regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S

12/07/2013 Triton Knoll offshore wind farm Order 2013 E

12/07/2013 Merchant shipping and fishing vessels, health and safety at work, asbestos Amendment,

regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S

13/07/2013 Producer responsibility obligations, packaging waste Amendment, regulations - draft

2013 E/W/S

15/07/2013 Mental health, discrimination Act 2013, commencement, order 2013 E/W

15/07/2013 Plant health, England Amendment, no 2, order 2013 E

16/07/2013 European Communities, energy labelling Amendment, regulations 2013 I

18/07/2013 Gas and electricity, internal markets, Northern Ireland Amendment, regulations 2013 NI

18/07/2013 Natural resources body for Wales Consequential provision, order - draft 2013 W

19/07/2013 Water services Prescribed persons, order 2013 I

19/07/2013 Finance Act 2013 E/W/NI/S

20/07/2013 European Communities, safety of toys Regulations 2013 I

22/07/2013 Football spectators, seating Order 2013 E/W

23/07/2013 European Union, conservation of wild birds, Horn Head to Fanad Head special

protection area 004194 Regulations 2013 I

24/07/2013 Environmental Protection Agency, licensing fees Regulations 2013 I

24/07/2013 Environmental Protection Agency, integrated pollution control, licensing Regulations

2013 I

24/07/2013 Producer responsibility obligations, packaging waste Amendment, regulations 2013 E/W/S

26/07/2013 Mobile homes, pitch fees, prescribed form, England Regulations 2013 E

28/07/2013 Reservoirs, exemptions, appeals and inspections, England Act 1975, regulations 2013 E

29/07/2013 Enterprise and regulatory reform Commencement no 2, order 2013 E/W/NI/S

30/07/2013 Flood and water management, England Act 2010, commencement no. 2, transitional

and savings provisions, order 2013 E

30/07/2013 European Communities, habitats and birds, sea-fisheries Regulations 2013 I

30/07/2013 Reservoirs, capacity, registration, prescribed forms, etc Act 1975, regulations 2013 E

30/07/2013 Reservoirs, referees, appointment, procedure and costs, England Act 1975, rules 2013 E

31/07/2013 European Union, microbiological criteria for foodstuffs Amendment, regulations 2013 I

31/07/2013 Bathing water Regulations 2013 E/W

31/07/2013 Electricity generating stations, variation of consents, England and Wales Regulations

2013 E/W

31/07/2013 East Northamptonshire resource management facility Order 2013 E

01/08/2013 Safety, health and welfare at work, construction Regulations 2013 I

01/08/2013 Houses in multiple occupation, specified educational establishments, England

Regulations 2013 E

01/08/2013 Landfill, Scotland Amendment regulations 2013 S

01/08/2013 Motor vehicles, driving licences, Northern Ireland Amendment, regulations 2013 NI

01/08/2013 Climate change levy, general Amendment no 2, regulations 2013 S/NI/W/E

02/08/2013 Sports grounds and sporting events, designation Amendment, order 2013 E/W

02/08/2013 Plant health, fees, Wales Regulations 2013 W

12/08/2013 Gas, onshore gas Act 1986, exemption, order 2013 E/W/S

15/08/2013 North Blyth biomass power station Order 2013 E

15/08/2013 Goods vehicles, licensing of operators Amendment, regulations 2013 E/W/S

20/08/2013 European Union, conservation of wild birds, Ballymacoda Bay special protection area

004023 Regulations 2013 I

20/08/2013 Human medicines Amendment, regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S

21/08/2013 Town and country planning, general permitted development, England Amendment, no 2,

order 2013 E

22/08/2013 Nuclear Decommissioning and waste handling, finance and fees Amendment,

regulations E/W/NI/S

22/08/2013 Radiological protection Act 1991, responsible and safe management of radioactive

waste, order 2013 I

22/08/2013 Employers liability, compulsory insurance, Northern Ireland Amendment, regulations

2013 NI

23/08/2013 Smoke control areas, exempted fireplaces, Northern Ireland Regulations 2013 NI

27/08/2013 Road vehicles, registration and licensing Amendment, regulations 2013 I

28/08/2013 European Union, security of natural gas supply Regulations 2013 I

30/08/2013 Pyrotechnic articles, safety Amendment, regulations 2013

30/08/2013 Planning, general development, Northern Ireland Amendment no 2, order 2013 NI

30/08/2013 Building regulations & c Amendment, no 2, regulations 2013 E/W

30/08/2013 Enterprise and regulatory reform, employment Act 2013, consequential amendments,

order 2013 S/NI/W/E

31/08/2013 European Union End-of-life vehicles, amendment, regulations 2013 I

31/08/2013 Smoke control areas, authorised fuels, Northern Ireland Regulations 2013 NI

31/08/2013 Electricity and gas, market integrity and transparency, enforcement etc, Northern Ireland

Regulations 2013 NI

01/09/2013 Biocidal products and chemicals, appointment of authorities and enforcement

Regulations 2013 E/W/NI/S

01/09/2013 Biocidal products, fees and charges Regulations 2013 E/W/S/NI

01/09/2013 Mobile homes, Scotland Act 1983, amendment of schedule 1, order 2013 S

01/09/2013 Scrap metal dealers Act 2013 E/W

01/09/2013 Scrap metal dealers Act 2013, commencement and transitional provisions, order 2013 E/W

01/09/2013 Biocidal products, fees and charges, Northern Ireland Regulations 2013 NI

01/09/2013 Mobile homes, written statement, Scotland Regulations 2013 S

01/09/2013 Ecodesign for energy-related products and energy information Amendment, regulations

2013 E/W/NI/S

10/09/2013 Mumbles oyster fishery Order 2013 W

16/09/2013 Aquaculture and fisheries, Scotland Act 2013, commencement and transitional

provisions, order 2013 S

21/09/2013 Water environment and water services, Scotland Act 2003, commencement no 9, order

2013 S

01/10/2013 Town and country planning, fees for applications, deemed applications, requests for site

visits, England Amendment, regulations 2013 E

01/10/2013 Electricity, necessary wayleaves and felling and Lopping of trees, hearing procedures,

England and Wales Rules 2013 W/E

01/10/2013 Electricity, necessary wayleaves and felling and lopping of trees, charges , England and

Wales Regulations 2013 E/W

01/10/2013 Working time, England Amendment, regulations 2013 E

01/10/2013 Regulatory enforcement and sanctions Act 2008, amendment of schedule 3, order 2013 E/W

01/10/2013 Health and safety Miscellaneous revocations and amendments, regulations 2013 E/W/S

01/10/2013 Property misdescriptions Act 1991, repeal, order 2013 E/W/NI/S

01/10/2013 Renewable heat incentive scheme Amendment, no 2, regulations - draft 2013 E/W/NI/S

Published by: Barbour, UBM Live, 1st Floor, Ludgate House, 245 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 9UY tel: +44 (0) 845 7114111 e-mail: editorial@barbour.info Parliamentary copyright material reproduced under licence from the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. The Briefing is published weekly via e-mail. All reasonable care is taken in the preparation of each edition from reliable sources of information, but no guarantee is expressed or implied as to its accuracy. © copyright UBM Information LTD – company number 370721 Registered office: Ludgate House, 245 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 9UY You are receiving the Briefing as part of your subscription to the Barbour web service.