APRIL 2016RISK MATTERSA QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER FROM THE ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

NEW HEALTH & SAFETY SENTENCING GUIDELINES New sentencing guidelines published by the Sentencing Council towards the end of 2015 are applicable from 1st February 2016. They will apply to any case heard on or after that date, irrespective of when the offence occurred.

The intention of the guidelines is to increase the level of fines for serious offences, whilst reserving prison sentences for very serious offences. However, the fines are also more closely linked to the turnover of an organisation, with organisations having an annual turnover of less than £2M being exposed to lower fines than larger organisations with higher turnover.

The guidelines introduce a structured, step-by-step approach for courts to follow in determining sentences. Being designed to improve consistency, the guidelines involve inputting culpability, risk and harm factors into a series of tables in order to determine the recommended starting point for fines.

The first stage of the process is for the court to determine culpability on a scale from “low” to “very high”. Very High would involve a “deliberate breach of or flagrant disregard for the law”.

The second stage is for the court to consider the nature of what could have occurred. This is a shift in emphasis from “outcome” to “risk”. The new rationale to be adopted is that a breach that could have caused a serious injury should be treated in the same way as a breach that actually resulted in one.

The third stage is to designate the likelihood of harm as high, medium or low.

The culpability factor and harm category processes are also used

to produce a starting point punishment for individuals.

One positive aspect of the new guidelines is the guidance given to shift fines upward or downward from the starting point. Whilst “cost cutting at the expense of safety” or a “poor health & safety record” are likely to be punished, the courts are advised to reduce fines where there are “effective health & safety procedures in place”, “evidence of steps taken voluntarily to remedy the problem” or a “high level of co-operation with the investigation”.

Considerations for all organisations should be• To ensure that the senior management of the business are

aware of the changes.• To ensure that there are robust procedures in place to identify

and reduce risks to the health and safety of employees andothers that the business could affect.

• To ensure that there are clear and effective procedures in placeto investigate “near miss” and injury or property damageincidents in order to gather effective information and preventrecurrences.

Further information on the new sentencing guidelines can be found at www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

UPCOMING TRAINING DATESManaging Safely IOSH CourseIOSH-approved Managing Safely gives your managers, supervisors and staff the skills they need to understand the risks and run effective Health & Safety programmes. Running over three days, the course covers risk assessment, risk control, hazard identification, waste and pollution protection, accident and incident investigation – plus performance measurement.

Location Date

Leicester 8th - 10th March 2016Birmingham 19th - 21st April 2016Leicester 10th - 12th May 2016Wakefield 4th, 11th, 18th May 2016

Location Date

Walbrook Building 6th, 7th, 13th June 2016Nottingham 7th - 9th June 2016Birmingham 18th - 30th June 2016Walbrook Building 17th, 18th, 25th October 2016

APRIL 2016 RISK MATTERS

HSE FIVE YEAR STRATEGYIn December 2015 the Health and Safety Executive invited groups, including employers and employees, to have their say in the development of their new five-year strategy. In the first part of 2016 they are consulting with a wide range of stakeholders to help them formulate their strategy.

The new strategy will apply from 2016 to 2020 and cover six themes. The six themes are: • Promoting broader ownership of workplace safety and health;• Highlighting and tackling the burden of work-related ill health;• Supporting small firms;• Enabling productivity through proportionate risk management;• Anticipating and tackling the challenges of new technology and

ways of working;• Sharing the benefits of Great Britain’s approach.

The plans include events across the country, as well as digital discussion groups and a campaign hashtag.

Richard Jones, The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) Head of Policy and Public Affairs, said: “IOSH welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of Great Britain’s new five-year health and safety strategy. We also welcome the proposed focus on working together, tackling occupational ill health, supporting SMEs, keeping pace with change and sharing success. The IOSH profession has a leading and influential role to play in working with others and helping more organisations to deliver safe, healthy and sustainable working environments – this is good for individuals, good for employers and good for our economy.”

Judith Hackett, Chair of the Health and Safety Executive, in her blog said “You’ve read these words before but now it’s time for action from all of us. We’re getting ready for the launch of the new strategy for GB’s health and safety system which will take us through to 2020. The strategy has six key themes. But this is a strategy for the system not for HSE alone. We need to act together to gain much broader ownership and commitment and that means we need to talk, share ideas and find the courage to take some new directions.

In her Christmas 2015 Blog Judith Hackett challenged people to consider some questions:

• Does your personal contribution to health and safety really helpothers - or hinder?

• Is ownership and responsibility for health and safety in the rightplace in your organisation?

• Is it on the right things?• What could you personally do differently in 2016 that will really

help us to create an even better health and safety system in GB?• Are you prepared to make a resolution to do something different

in 2016?

For further information on the strategy and the process in formulating it visit the HSE Strategy page on its website www.hse.gov.uk/strategy

The HSE also has presence on various social media sites including Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn and are encouraging people to join in the debate on the strategy using the hashtag #HelpGBWorkWell.

APRIL 2016 RISK MATTERS

NEW REGULATIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS IN THE WORKPLACE The EU has been working on introducing Europe-wide legislation on controlling the risks from electromagnetic fields (EMF) and the health and safety directive on EMF should finally be implemented by 1 July 2016.

In the UK, the HSE has produced draft regulations and guidance and embarked on a consultation on the proposals. The consultation ended in December 2015 and the results should be published shortly following the consultation.

Health and Safety EffectsThe directive is concerned with the protection of workers health and safety from exposure to magnetic fields. The emphasis is on the short term effects of exposure including:

• Sensory effects like nausea, vertigo• Nerve stimulation and effects like tingling, muscle

contraction and heart arrhythmia• Interference with implanted medical devices• Sparks caused by induced fields where flammable vapours

may be present• Heating effects

The long-term effects from electromagnetic fields are specifically excluded as these types of effects have not been established scientifically.

RequirementsEmployers will need to assess or measure the levels of EMF their workers may be exposed to against a set of specific thresholds. If Action Levels (ALs) are exceeded then measures like technical measures (e.g. changing equipment) or procedural measures (like changing work routines) should be introduced. If Action Limit Values (ALVs) are exceeded then the employer must take action to immediately reduce exposure to below this level. This approach fits in with the approach taken in the Management Regulations and seen in the way in which thresholds are used in controlling noise and vibration risks.

The measurement of EMF is complex and the ALs and ALVs vary by frequency. There are also a series of exemptions proposed.

ImpactSome of the main industries where the regulations are likely to have an impact are listed in the consultation document, including:

• Health care (particularly MRI scanners)• Electromagnetic processes such as electrolysis

The use of:• Spectrometers• Electro-magnetic cranes• Electric arc furnaces• Induction heaters• Radio transmission• Dielectric heating (e.g. plastic welding, vulcanising or

microwave drying)

There is also a list of workplaces and equipment where there is unlikely to be a risk, so most employers can simply conclude there is no significant risk to them.

Further information on this topic can be found in

The HSE website www.hse.gov.uk/ in the sections on non-ionising radiation and also in the following two publications:-

Consultation on the implementation of Directive 2013/35/EU on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks from physical agents- electromagnetic fields (EMF).

EU Non-binding guide to good practice for implementing Directive 2013/35/EU Electromagnetic Fields. (2 volumes, volume 1 gives advice on risk assessment and preventive measures and volume 2 gives case studies showing how organisations approached the process).

APRIL 2016 RISK MATTERS

Nottinghamshire pub landlady has received a suspended jail sentence for Breaches of Fire Safety legislationCarmel Heathcote, licensee of The Harrow Inn in Boughton, was handed a prison sentence of eight months – suspended for two years – and ordered to pay more than £11,622 on 13 August. She hadpleaded guilty to six counts of breaching fire safety regulations afterproviding sleeping accommodation for up to 16 people.

Nottingham Crown Court heard that, although a fire risk assessment had been carried out, the first floor of the pub was unsafely being used as sleeping accommodation for between 13 and 16 workers. Officers from Nottingham Fire and Rescue Service had inspected the public house in September 2014, following a complaint by a member of the public. They found evidence of people sleeping on the first floor, yet no means of fire detection or raising the alarm in the event of an emergency, no emergency lighting and that the means of escape was inadequately protected from fire or smoke.

Head of fire protection at Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service, John Mills, said: ‘What is key in this case is that the defendant was in possession of a fire risk assessment which specifically identified that the premises were not suitable for sleeping accommodation. Unfortunately this had not been updated to reflect the high risks associated with allowing people to sleep there.

Judge Andrew Hamilton said when passing sentence that if the period of time during which persons were sleeping at the premises had been longer, he would have sent Ms Heathcote to prison immediately. He added that the sentence should stand as a warning to others making a profit – however small – from committing such offences, that they face immediate prison sentences.

Further information on this prosecution can be found at http://www.notts-fire.gov.uk/

Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service (DFRS) brings two successful prosecutions for breaches of fire safety legislation Firstly on 30 July 2015, the owner of The Cedars Guest House in Belper, Neil Wayne, pleaded guilty at Derby Magistrates’ Court to four offences, following a scheduled fire safety audit carried out in March 2014. The breaches, which resulted in an enforcement notice, were:

• the fire alarm system was not adequately tested or maintained• emergency lighting was not adequately tested or maintained• the fire risk assessment was inadequate• escape routes from the upper floor were inadequate

Despite numerous visits and correspondence, work was not carried out to address the breaches until the week of the court appearance, some 16 months after the enforcement notice was issued.

Mr Wayne was fined £5,000 for each offence and ordered to pay £3,954 costs, plus a victim surcharge of £120. He had to pay a total of £24,074.

Secondly father-and-son duo Jason and James Hill admitted ‘serious’ health and safety breaches that put the lives of nightclub Havana Whites’ staff and customers at risk. Jason was the director of the Chesterfield club, while his son James was an employee who exercised ‘significant control over the premises’.

During a night out at the nightclub last January, a member of the public suffered serious burns to their back as a result of their clothing catching fire from a tealight on the bar. Tea lights had also been randomly placed along the frame of an external smoking shelter.

Following early guilty pleas entered last February, on 3 August Jason Hill was fined £3,000 for each of three FSO offences, reduced to £2,000. Each fine was further reduced to £750 due to his financial circumstances, and he was ordered to pay £2,766 in costs to DFRS (reduced by a third) and £5,126 to Chesterfield Borough Council (also reduced by a third).

‘Had the blaze occurred when the premises were busier or involved a customer wearing more combustible clothing, such as a light

dress, the consequences may have been far worse’, said DFRS group manager Phil Mitchell. ‘The fire exit from the rear yard was insufficient, the escape lighting and fire alarm were not being maintained, the premises fire risk assessment had not been reviewed and was inadequate and some staff were not suitably trained in fire safety.’

He said the failures were shocking, ‘especially after they were told not to leave naked flames out in the bar area following a previous visit by the council’s health and safety officer.’

Further information on both prosecutions can be found at www.derbys-fire.gov.uk

Further information on dermatitis in the workplace can be found on the HSE website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/skin/employ/dermatitis.htm

APRIL 2016 RISK MATTERS

6 men in the dock over ‘flagrant’ breach of rulesThe bosses of a shisha bar in Manchester have been jailed for a number of offences in what has been described as ‘one of the most complex fire safety prosecutions ever held in the UK’.

The court heard how diesel and combustible bin liners were found near fire exits, which didn’t open properly, and the installed fire alarm was not switched on. There was also a flammable fabric marquee, which despite orders from the council to take down remained erected for a month, and fire safety notices had been torn down.

Mr Wali Yaqub, the owner of the premises, was found guilty of several fire safety offences and sentenced to 19 months in jail.

The other defendants included;

• Mr Tajamul Khan, who was jailed for 14 months.• Mr Ishtiaq Ahmed, who was sentenced to 34 weeks in prison.• Mr Salma Jangeer, who was sentenced to 38 weeks, suspended for

12 months, with 200 hours of unpaid work.• Mr Adeel Bhatti, who was given a 12-month community order

with 80 hours of unpaid work and a two month curfew.• Mr Bushra Javed, who was ordered to complete 100 hours of

unpaid work.

In sentencing, Judge Michael Leeming, said: “Those people who invested money in this enterprise put profit before the safety of the paying public. “It was good fortune rather than good management that no fire took place. Had there been a fire the risk to life would have been catastrophic, with hundreds of panicking people heading to one or two exits in an unfamiliar building.”

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service’s County Fire Officer, Peter O’Reilly added: “We are delighted that the sentences reflect the seriousness of this flagrant disregard for public safety. These sentences are the culmination of hundreds of hours of work by our officers, partners and legal team. This is one of the most complex fire safety prosecutions ever held in the UK. The defendants showed a blatant disregard for fire safety. They blocked fire exits with barrels of red diesel, tore down our notices warning the public how dangerous the building was and continued to trade for six weeks after we issued a prohibition notice.

Further information can be found on this case at www.fia.uk.com

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/fire-chief-welcomes-sentences-handed-9515907

HSE Consults on Freight Containers (Safety Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2016The HSE has issued a Consultative Document CD278 that sets out proposals from HSE to amend the Freight Containers (Safety Convention) Regulations 1984 to give effect to amendments made to the International Convention for Safe Containers 1972. In 1978 the UK ratified the Convention and by ratifying agreed to be bound by the treaty and its terms in accordance with international law.

In the main, the amendments introduce significant physical changes to the Safety Approval Plates on freight containers and additional safety tests.

The proposed amendments will be of particular interest to container manufacturers and shipping operators who work with Approved Continuous Examination Programmes.

Consultation closes on 26 February 2016

For further information visit www.hse.gov.uk where you can also download a copy of CD278

HSE publishes web pages dedicated to CDM 2015 and its application to the entertainment industryThe HSE has launched a page on its website www.hse.gov.uk designed to provide guidance to help those in the entertainment industry understand what they need to do to comply with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015).

CDM 2015 is not about creating unnecessary bureaucracy. It is about securing the health, safety and welfare of those carrying out construction work and protecting others who the work may affect, from harm. With this principle in mind, this guidance illustrates how CDM roles and duties can be applied to existing common management arrangements and processes in the four main industry sub-sectors:

• TV/ film and broadcasting• Theatre and performing arts• Live events (festivals, music, sport and cultural events)• Exhibition / trade fairs and conferences

The guidance is also designed to help others in the industry, with different management arrangements, to determine what they need to do to comply with CDM.

There are a number of worked examples for typical construction projects in the event/production industry included, to show what proportionate compliance with CDM 2015 might look like in practice.

For further guidance visit the pages http://www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/cdm-2015/

For further guidance on CDM and health and safety in construction visit the HSE website to purchase or download the HSE publication L153: Managing Health and Safety in Construction

APRIL 2016 RISK MATTERS

Major construction firm fined £1million after death of workerConstruction firm Balfour Beatty has been fined after a worker lost his life whilst repairing a central reservation barrier damaged in a road traffic collision.

Canterbury Crown Court heard how, on 1 October 2012, a team was sent out by Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited, a subsidiary of Balfour Beatty PLC, to install temporary traffic management in order to repair barriers on the A2 at the location of a collision site.

The crew were trying to remove the footings of a post that had snapped off, using a lorry mounted crane. The lorry mounted crane slipped from the concrete footing, and swung back towards the barrier, hitting the worker on the head. Larry Newman, aged 37, sustained severe head injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited, of Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, was fined a total of £1million, and ordered to pay £14,977 in costs after pleading guilty to offences under Section 2(1) and Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Cousins said: “This was an entirely preventable incident that could have been averted by simply creating and implementing a safe system of work. If a suitably sized excavator had been used to remove the footing mechanically it would have prevented this tragic loss of life completely.

“Employers have a responsibility to create safe systems of work for hazardous activities that their workers may be undertaking. The workers should be trained in safe systems of working and adequately supervised. Safety needs to be proactively managed and not just left to chance”.

For more information about work equipment machinery visit HSE’s website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/planning-organising-lifting-operations.htm

Power Company fined £1m after runner electrocutedA company which maintains the power distribution supplies to London, the South East and East of England has been fined £1million after a runner was electrocuted by a low-hanging high voltage power cable.

Dr James Kew was running on land in Newport, Saffron Walden, Essex, when he came into contact with a cable which should have been 5.5 metres above ground.

Chelmsford Crown Court heard the high voltage cable was only 1.5m above ground (at its lowest point), straddling a well-used footpath, after parts of a porcelain insulator disintegrated on a wooden pole supporting the power cable.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated the circumstances and prosecuted UK Power Networks (Operations) Ltd (UKPN).

HSE found that, on 24 July 2012, an insulator on a pole mounted overhead high voltage power line had failed. This resulted in a conductor falling to 1.5 metres above a cornfield. The conductor was still connected to the power supply, energised at 11KV and was now suspended across the public footpath.

The situation was reported to National Grid by members of the public, which in turn passed the information to UKPN. UKPN spoke with the members of the public who raised the alarm and were told of the conductor’s location and the danger it posed.

UKPN could have immediately ‘de-energised’ that part of the network, but did not do so. Instead, it dispatched a technician to the scene. Twenty minutes before the technician arrived (less than half an hour after the incident was reported), Dr James Kew ran into the live conductor and was electrocuted.

The HSE investigation found that the UKPN failed to fully assess the risk posed to members of the public, nor did it immediately de-energise the powerline and control the risk.

On Tuesday 26 January 2016, UK Power Networks (Operations) Limited, of Southwark Bridge Road, London, was fined £1million, and ordered to pay full prosecution costs of £153,459 after pleading guilty to a breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Paul Carter said: “Dr Kew’s family remains completely devastated by their loss and witnesses to this incident have suffered severe trauma and stress-related illness. The incident was entirely preventable’.

“Distribution network operators have an absolute duty to ensure that they do everything reasonably practicable to ensure the health and safety of members of the public who may be put at risk by the operation of their undertakings.

For further information visit:http://www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/information/overhead.htm

APRIL 2016 RISK MATTERS

Council sentenced after legionella death at care homeReading Borough Council (RBC) has been fined following an investigation into the death of a pensioner who died from exposure to legionella.

During the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecution, Reading Magistrates’ Court heard how Mr Lewis Payne, a 95-year-old vulnerable gentleman, arrived at RBC operated care facility, The Willows, on 24 September 2012.

He had previously been in hospital having suffered a broken leg and was attending The Willows to receive intermediate care before returning to his own home.

However, during his stay he began feeling unwell, complaining of aches and pains including tightness of the chest, shortness of breath and difficulty in breathing. He was also suffering from nausea.

On 16 October 2012 he was re-admitted to hospital and a sample proved positive for the presence of Legionella. He underwent treatment for Legionnaire’s disease, but died on 1 November 2012 from pneumonia related to legionella.

The prosecution said the control and management arrangements needed to ensure the risk from legionella is minimised, need to be robust. The court was told, prior to November 2012, RBC’s arrangements were not robust enough in a number of areas.

The Legionella training for the key personnel at The Willows was significantly below the standard required. There were inadequate temperature checks and some of those done with respect to Thermostatic Mixer Valves (TMVs) were done incorrectly.

Showers were not descaled and disinfected quarterly as required; flushing of little used outlets was reliant on one member of staff and there was no procedure for this to be done in the absence of that member of staff.

HSE said the failings were systemic and continued over a period of time. There was a history of legionella problems at the home which

was formerly known as Tanfield Care Home. The monitoring, checking and flushing tasks were given to the home’s handyman who was inadequately trained and supervised. There was no system in place to cover for him when he was away so that the requisite checks were not done.

Reading Borough Council, Civic Offices, Bridge Street, Reading admitted breaching Section 3(1) of Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £100,000 with £20,000 costs in Reading Crown Court.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Kelly Nichols said: “Mr Payne’s family has lost a loving father, grandfather, great grandfather and just before his death he had become a great, great grandfather. His family expected him to return home from the hospital to resume his normal active life, he never did.

“Reading Borough Council could and should have controlled the risk of exposure to legionella to the elderly and infirm as well as those receiving immediate care prior to returning home.

“RBC’s failings were systemic and continued over a period of time. There was a history of legionella problems at the home. The control and management arrangements were not robust and the legionella training of key personnel fell significantly below the required standard.

“The risks from legionella in nursing and care homes and the required control measures to manage those risks have been know and publicised in HSE publications since May 2000. It is really disappointing to find a local authority not managing those risks. It is important for all care providers to ensure they are managing the risks from hot and cold water systems with respect to both legionella and scalding risks especially due to likely exposure of more vulnerable people.”

For more information on Legionella and how to control the risks from exposure to it visit http://www.hse.gov.uk/legionnaires/

Housing trust in court after mower mangles worker’s handA Tameside housing trust has been fined after a worker suffered severe injuries to his left hand when it was struck by a metal blade on a ride-on mower.

The 24-year-old from Stockport, who has asked not to be named, sustained several broken bones and had to have his thumb and forefinger amputated following the incident on Hitchen Drive in Dukinfield on 28 March 2014. A hospital x-ray has been released showing the extent of his injuries.

New Charter Housing Trust was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found the organisation had failed to consider the risks from the work, provide professional training or to give clear instructions on what to do if the mowers became blocked.

Manchester Crown Court heard the worker was using a ride-on mower for the first cut of the season, with a grass box attached. The chute to the grass box often became blocked, as the grass was long and wet.

On one occasion, the employee reached into the chute to clear a blockage when his hand came into contact with a metal fan, which

was still rotating. He suffered serious injuries as a result, and is now unable to grip with his left hand or use his remaining fingers.

The court was told the worker had not received training on how to use the mower, and did not know that the fan continued to rotate for around 30 seconds after the engine was switched off.

New Charter Housing Trust, of Cavendish Street in Ashton-under-Lyne, was fined £140,000 and ordered to pay £70,000 in prosecution costs after being found guilty of a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sarah Taylor said: “A young worker has suffered injuries that will affect him for the rest of his life but they could easily have been avoided. New Charter Housing Trust should have planned the work properly and provided appropriate training, so workers knew to wait for the fan to stop.”

More information on the safe use of workplace equipment is available at www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery

APRIL 2016 RISK MATTERS

BCI publishes findings of survey on boards of directors understanding of the cyber riskThe Business Continuity Institute has recently published the findings of a study undertaken by Harvey Nash and PGI Cyber on directors understanding of cyber risk.

45% of cyber security professionals believe their board of directors has a major gap in its understanding of cyber risk, or simply don’t understand the risk at all. This is despite over half (54%) of boards being ultimately accountable for the cyber strategy, according to a new study by Harvey Nash and PGI Cyber

The Cyber Security Survey also revealed that one third of cyber professionals (33%) believe their CEO has major knowledge gaps and almost half (49%) believe the same for their Chief Finance Officer. Chief Marketing Officers, many of whom have increasing responsibility for customer data and driving customer facing digital strategies, were also rated poorly, with 43% of cyber professionals believing they had major knowledge gaps, and one in ten (11%) believing they had no cyber risk awareness at all.

Whilst most cyber professionals feel their organisations have the basics covered, 85% still think there is more to do, and one quarter (26%) believe there is significantly more work to do.

Unsurprisingly it is lack of finance that is holding cyber security back with 57% of respondents citing this as a reason for any gaps, while lack of security aware culture (49%) and a lack of understandings of the real threat (43%) were also highlighted.

Understanding of the threat is very high among business continuity professionals according to the latest Horizon Scan Report published by the BCI. 82% of respondents to a global survey expressed concern about the possibility of a cyber attack and 74% expressed concern about a data breach occurring.

Brian Lord, Managing Director, PGI Cyber commented: “Cyber security is as much about people as it is about technology. Whilst there is no doubt many boards are asking more questions about cyber security than they did five years ago, it is clear that there is much more to do to make organisations fully aware and prepared for the challenges of an increasingly global and digital world.”

For further information visit the Business Continuity Institute’s website at www.thebci.org

Harvey Nash at http://www.harveynash.com/

PGI Cyber at https://pgicyber.com/

Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS)FORS is a voluntary accreditation scheme for vehicle fleet operators with the aim of raising standards. A “fleet operator” is any organisation which operates one or more motor vehicles commercially in the UK.

The FORS logo is now a common sight on our roads, particularly on haulage vehicles as an increasing number of buyers now insist that their contractors are FORS accredited. Bronze, Silver and Gold standards are set, covering general management, vehicles, drivers, and operations. Performance in all areas is measured by independent initial and annually audits.

Key accreditation requirements are in the area of Health and safety, where road driving risks and workplace transport safety must be controlled via a working health and safety policy, vehicle specific health and safety advice is given to drivers, and written risk assessments are present for all vehicle related issues. Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Services can assist in these areas by either vetting your existing safety systems

and documents or developing new ones with you in advance of the FORS audit process. Please let us know if this help is of interest.

For more information see website www.fors-online.org.uk

About Arthur J. GallagherFounded in 1927, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. has become one of the largest, most successful insurance brokerage and risk management companies in the world. With extraordinary reach internationally, our parent group employs over 20,000 people and provides service in more than 140 countries.

Outside the US we are known as Arthur J. Gallagher, and wherever and whenever there is an issue of risk we’re there for our clients. We are a business without barriers – working together to create solutions that drive value and competitive advantage. Whether you are an individual, small business or international conglomerate, our people, their depth of technical knowledge and our global reach will deliver unrivalled advice and coverage expertise.

Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered Office: Spectrum Building, 7th Floor, 55, Blythswood Street, Glasgow, G2 7AT. Registered in Scotland. Company Number: SC108909.

www.ajginternational.com

CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS This newsletter is not intended to give legal advice, and, accordingly, it should not be relied upon. It should not be regarded as a comprehensive statement of the law and/or market practice in this area. In preparing this newsletter we have relied on information sourced from third parties and we make no claims as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained. You should not act upon (or should refrain from acting upon) information in this newsletter without first seeking specific legal and/or specialist advice. Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers or any member of the Arthur J. Gallagher & co group accept no liability for any inaccuracy, omission or mistake in this bulletin, nor will we be responsible for any loss which may be suffered as a result of any person relying on the information contained herein.

FP82/2016