I think this will get complicated, if you try and resolve it by statutory minimum requirements rather than by negotiatitig a reasonable compromise, and depends on whether the staff's breaks are greater than the statutory minimum.

I don't think there’s an explicit requirement that the statutory 20 minute break needs to happen in a place that has all the statutory welfare facilities immediately to hand.  That is, you need to have a 20 minute break, and you need to have access to toilets, washing facilities, drinking water etc. but I don't think it necessarily follows that you need to have the facilities, drinking water etc at the place you take the break.

I suspect the staff in question could play merry hell with a work-to-rule campaign and decide they need to use the toilet facilities (say) 45 minutes before their break, so they drive 20 minutes to the toilet, use it, drive back to work, then five minutes later take their statutory break…

I think water bottles are fine as a drinking water supply – it doesn’t need to be mains water, it needs to be drinking water.

You need to be able to take your break away from where you are working, but you are not obliged to take your break away from where you are working.

The argument that travelling to and from where the employee wants to take their break comes out of their own time is not completely unreasonable. If it were an office, for example, and a worker wants to get lunch in a restaurant in the next town (as some of the people in this office do) they don’t get to count driving to and fro (which takes them 20 minutes each way, I guess) as working time and only count their break as the minutes when they are in the restaurant.  We let them do that (we have flexible hours for nearly all staff - most can arrange their day to give anything up to a 90-minute lunch break) but that obviosuly doesn't work for all workplaces.

I agree in oart with achrn that it wiould be unreasonable to allow an office worker to travel to the next town to get lunch, however thats not really reflective of the scenario.  The office worker has a host of benefits above those of the OP's workers as alternatives to going to the next town. I also agree that using the statutory times is not helpful to either side of the debate.  Perhaps the question posed to the managers / HS team is to ask how the welfare question can be resolved, let them decide where and how the workers can have access to relevant facilities during the shift.   For example, toilets / place to eat may be available in close proximity but its at a competitors premises or a high profile place that would be adverse to the employers for their staff to be seen at (So many media pics of police / ambo at various burger sites suggesting its 'wrong').    Let the manager suggest where facilities are available and suitable to be used but do not impinge or only lightly impinge on the days activities.  

Surely its the task of the managers to solve rather than the employees!  

This has always been an issue for which I have agrued in favor of the mobile workers. Seriosly a portaloo and hand washing facilities are really cheap to hire from the plethera of hire firms out there. Also you can hire welfare vans with microwaves and kettles/ eating areas etc. Really annoys the hell out of me when people/companies want to scrimp and cost save on the most basic of human amenities. Come on we are Health and Safety proffesionals who the "&)$"* cares about the few extra hundred pounds it may cost to sort this out properly over having potentially a woman have no place to use facilites. Why are these mobile workers being treated as slaves? Come on man this is rediclous. 

If you get in to the realms of trying to use break time as travel time you run the risk that employees calculated pay rates drop below the national minimum wage which is not a good situation for a business reliant upon either council or major client contracts particularly those clients with reporting duties under Modern Slavery.

The directive sets a minimum 20 minute break for every eight hours scheduled work (and not to be taken at the start or end) please explain how you take a 40 minute round trip from a 20 minute break whilst still providing the legal minimum break?

There appear to be serious omissions in the competency of the management advice to this business.

The key point is what is "reasonable".

Is it "reasonable" to expect workers to eat their lunch with dirty hands? no.

Is it "reasonable" to allow them 20mins to wash up before eating? i think so. 

Many thanks for your replies.  I tend to agree that in this day and age to expect anyone, and bear in mind this a worforce of men and women, to sit in a dirty van, cold and wet with no facilities to wash in hot water, go to a toilet and eat food in a clean envirnoment i think Health and Safety is going backwards.

Also if you want these facilities you have to drive in your own time to get their or be penalised.  this means in some cases travelling 15 minutes to a welfare facility, drive back from a welfare facilitry and then have no time to eat or rest.

As a safety professional I think these type of workplaces who impose these draconian restrictions should have their heating turned off, welfare facilities removed etc.  who wants to bet the decision would be loked at differently.  apolgies for rant !!

This will be post No 13 and still no reasonable solution other than portaloos and welfare vans. Really? For mobile workers?

OK, lets think of an actual example. Three workers with litter pickers are tasked with clearing  2 miles of roadside verges on a dual carraigeway. They are dropped off so have no access to a van. They carry water/food in theor own personal back pack

This is a common site btween sprink & autumn. So what about their welfare facilities???

Even if you drop off a portaloo half way, its going to be a long trek

Three phone calls:

1) HMRC national minimum wage enforcement

2) LA Environmental Health - breach of HASAW

3) LA Highways / Highways Authority as they will be amongst the clients issuing contracts and supposedly vetting providers through PQQ

I saw this on the weekly buletin and thought I'd bring it to your attention.  An HSE prosecution regarding a lack of welfare.  https://press.hse.gov.uk/2020/01/06/contractor-fined-for-failing-to-provide-minimum-welfare-facilities/

Not really applicable to mobile workers - this is a property refurbishment

Reported.