Posted By David MacFarlane Hello All, Can anyone clarify the CDM 07 regs in terms of drinking water being supplied on construction sites. We are a sub-contractor for a national builder and the PC is refusing to supply drinking water on site - they say they don't have to! Is it just "good practice" or is there an obligation to supply? Thanks D

Posted By David MacFarlane Thanks Mitch, I thought I was missing something there, that confirms it. Cheers again. D

Posted By Mike Craven Mitch Your info is accurate and no doubt helpful to David but, you are in fact quoting the ACOP rather than the Regulations. David Regulation 9(1)(b) refers to Client’s duties in relation to managing projects and states that; Every client shall take reasonable steps to ensure the arrangements made for managing the project (including the allocation of sufficient time and other resources) by persons with a duty under these Regulations (including the client himself) are suitable to ensure that the requirements of SCHEDULE 2 are complied with in respect of any person carrying out construction work. Similarly, Regulation 13(7) refers to Contractor duties and states that; Every contractor shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the requirements of SCHEDULE 2 are complied with throughout the construction phase in respect of any person at work who is under his control. Likewise, Regulation 22(19 (c.) refers to duties of the Principal Contractor and states that; The principal contractor for a project shall ensure that welfare facilities SCHEDULE 2 are provided throughout the construction phase. Schedule 2 (as mentioned in the above Regulations) refers to welfare facilities and covers sanitary conveniences, washing facilities, DRINKING WATER, changing rooms and lockers and facilities for rest; as far as drinking water is concerned, it states that; An adequate supply of wholesome drinking water shall be provided or made available at readily accessible and suitable places. Every supply of drinking water shall be conspicuously marked by an appropriate sign where necessary for reasons of health and safety. Where a supply of drinking water is provided, there shall also be provided a sufficient number of suitable cups or other drinking vessels unless the supply of drinking water is in a jet from which persons can drink easily. Regards, Mike

Posted By Mitch I stand corrected, I was too busy reading and typing, theough ACoP's do have a legal status I understand.

Posted By Mitch And I quote 'ACOP has legal status' from L22 'Safe Use of Work Equipment'. 'If you are prosecuted for a breach of health and safety law and it is proved that you did not follow the relevant provisions of the ACOP, you will need to show that you have complied with the law in some other way or the court will find you at fault' That is my understanding. Mitch It's Friday, time for a Peddie when they,ve finished testing the fire alarm this afternoon!

Posted By CFT Which is why the ACoP gets a quasi legal rating and HSG's etc none, the latter having no legal status (until certain wording in the CM&CH made me re-think legal status of ‘guidance’ material somewhat, [they so should have used another word]) CFT

Posted By IOSH Moderator Please note that quoting from the ACOP or HSE Guidance is a breach of copyright, unless prior written permission has been sought, and a suitable statement is made. The Moderators will hide messages that appear to be a breach of copyright. It is permitted to quote legislation - see the copyright guidance on the OPSI site: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/a...right-guidance/index.htm Regards Jane

Posted By CFT Good point Phillipe, ACoP's are issued by the Health and Safety Commission under Section 16 of HSWA, and will be clearly identified as such. Section 17 of HSWA states that failure to comply with the letter of an ACOP is not in itself an offence; however, in any criminal proceedings the court will take a failure to comply with an ACoP as part proof that an offence has (or may have been) committed unless the defence can prove that compliance was achieved in some other way; it is therefore not possible to be prosecuted for a breach of an ACoP, but the content of same will become evidence for any possible prosecution & a failure to adopt the ‘advice/recommendation’ set out in ‘the’ ACoP will be regarded as having failed to comply with the law and ‘may’ ultimately lead to action being taken against the organisation. The question on drinking water does in fact appear in the regulations; the ACoP merely offers additional explanation, or as some would say a further explanation/ interpretation of a ‘prescriptive’ requirement. Chow fer now. CFT

Posted By Jay Joshi There is absolutely no doubt that a range of welfare facilities have to be provided, and that the duty holders include the client and both the pricipal contractor and contractos. The client has to make sure that the construction phase (whether notifiable or not) does not start unless there are welfare facilities. The Principal Contractor has to ensure that welfare facilities as per the schedule are provided for notifiable projects and the contractor for all projects. I thought that we as health and safety professionals would support the use of ACoPs ( has a legal status in that in a prosecution, the defendent has to prove/demonstrate that an equivalent level of compliancce has been provided etc--and the onus of demonstrating falls opon the defendent. The prosecution have only to demonstrate that the ACoP was not complied with). In case of HSE HSE Guidance, the prosecution can use it that it is best practice! Let us as Safety professionals stop using semantics. There are regulations that are not prescrptive and as a profession, we need to support the HSE ACoPs & Guidance--a lot to do with reasonably practicable and that is where we can provide safety solutions.

Posted By CFT It was Phillipe, it certainly was;-) Have a nice weekend CFT