Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error
HSE Corporate Plan
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
Admin  
#1 Posted : 12 May 2008 15:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Mitch
Has anyone seen this, particularly Table 2!!!!

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...ns/hseplans/plan0809.pdf

Mitch
Back to top
Admin  
#2 Posted : 12 May 2008 15:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Anthony Edwards
Mitch,

Am I reading it correctly, that it is acceptable to tolerate/plan for X amount of injuries within your organisation. I wonder what percentage this is of the workforce, or is the sun getting to me?

Nutty
Back to top
Admin  
#3 Posted : 12 May 2008 16:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Mtch

The total cynic in me says that this is because the HSE staff have so many accidents that they dare not attempt a higher target!!

Have not had a detailed look as yet but I trust that consultation was not on the list after the current F10 fiasco which I understand is rolling on and likely to becopme more confrontational in time.

Bob
Back to top
Admin  
#4 Posted : 12 May 2008 16:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Ian_P
I don't think that x amount of accidents is ever tolerable nutty but what's wrong with setting (SMART) targets and objectives? It would be a bit daft of them to set a "zero accident" target over the next couple of years that they haven't a chance in hell of reaching.

I know there's lies, damned lies, and the HSE....(sorry!) but you could argue (based on the minimal information given) that their plummeting accident statistics are quite enviable!
Back to top
Admin  
#5 Posted : 12 May 2008 16:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Jay Joshi
The figures relate to all incidents. (The RIDDOR reportable were only 9!) It depends upon the reporting system--you cannot make direct comparisions from this data.

Refer to:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...s/smt/020408/smt0804.pdf

for the latest performance in the April 2008 HSE Senior Manegement team meeting Minutes.
Back to top
Admin  
#6 Posted : 13 May 2008 09:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin
Posted By Anthony Edwards
Ian,

I understand the setting of SMART targets, but would it be acceptable to HSE for one of the big construction firms to say we aim to have no more than 3 fatalities, 6 serious injuries etc, etc, as last year we had 6 fatalities, 12 serious injuries. It would show an improvement but would still be unacceptable.

regards

Nutty
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2026, Yet Another Forum.NET