Nonsense. You will note that I HAVE NOT suggested that the employee buys safety boots instead of the employer providing them. You will see that (over and again, multiple times, despite repeated misrepresentation of what I have said) I have set out a scenario in which the employer provides free issue compliant safety boots. There is then nothing in law to stop the employee ADDITIONALLY buying his own safety boots.

This is what we do.. We provide the employees with Redwing shoes, if the employee is not comfortable with the Redwing shoes, he goes back to supplier..look for the required one, exchage on his cost, provided the Safety shoes complies with the company's PPE requirement. Cheers, Jesu. Dxb

achrn I thought that the thread was staking a rather confrontational turn and was suggesting that people take a step back and have a little think about it. I actually find excessive use of the quote button, is in many cases confrontational, and often intended to be so. We all have different opinions. I suggest that the key is in the interpretation. My interpretation (which clearly differs from yours) is that if an employer is providing PPE to meet the requirements of the risks, job, person etc BUT an employee asks if they can pay extra for something more 'fashionable' etc then I fail to see how this can be construed as a breach of S9. I would argue that fashion etc is not “..specific requirement..” of any “..relevant statutory provisions.”. I note your post #38. Interestingly, the ‘top up’ is an approach ‘suggested’ by the HSE in their guidance L26 for VDU specs, i.e. the employee is free to have designer frames, lenses or optional treatments but the employer is not obliged to pay for them. Of course guidance cannot override or supersede statute (i.e. S9). I suggest that the guidance offers something of an insight into the HSE interpretation of S9 and I suggest that a similar ‘top up’ approach to the provision of PPE would be similarly permissible. As always I am more than happy to be wrong. In fairness the consensus of the thread does appear to support ‘top up’ as an option. I will bow out gracefully.

The interesting thing there is that I read the opposite implication in - that is, it seems to me that you're saying something like 'the HSE suggests top-ups are OK with respect to glasses, so they are obviously happy with the idea of top-ups for premium PPE'. I would read the same scenario as being a case of 'the HSE suggests top-ups for glasses, so they are alive to that possibility, and therefore the fact that there is no erquivalent statement regarding boots (or PPE generally) reinforces that this is not allowed.'

Has anyone asked the HSE what their stance is?

So why are we not all being prosecuted then? Maybe because it is a little trivial to be arguing over what in most case will be a minor issue -- if only all workplaces had such trivial matters to worry about than whether paying an extra £10 or so for a pair of fancy boots is legal or not. I think the consensus is that a majority of respondents do indeed allow the top up - certainly our organisation will continue to do so until we are told otherwise; which I guess will be for while yet?! Bowing out now I have said my final bit on this topic.

A reply from the HSE: Thank you for your enquiry regarding PPE. The employer will be responsible for the provision of 'suitable' personal protective equipment and he will be required to meet the cost associated with such equipment. The following information has been taken from the HSE internal knowledgebase system and states If an employer decides that safety footwear is required, then as we know they have to pay for the provision of such PPE. However, what can an employer do if the employees want an 'up grade' or better pair of boots etc? Does he pay for better ones or just the ones that fulfill the legal requirements? The employer must fulfill the legal requirements and ensure the footwear is 'suitable' as required by Reg 4 of PPE Regs. If this is done and the employees want an 'up grade' then the employer can do the following: He/she can provide the employees with a choice of footwear within a similar price range. Most employees only want a choice. If this option is rejected then the employer can provide the employee with the cost of the 'suitable' pair of footwear which the employer has already identified and the employee will then pay the difference. If an employer wants to do this he must stress to his employees that he is willing to provide the 'suitable' footwear. This is an important point to be stressed to the employees understand that their employer has discharged his legal duties. If the employer provides 'suitable' footwear then the employer has fulfilled his legal duties

Thanks Motorhead.