You are correct I've reported several to HSE over the years and I know they (HSE) have jumped on them But its still rife Simple answer is don't use such agencies

They are obliged to provide but the kit remains the property of the employer just as it does with any employer. Therefore, if the kit is not returned at the end of the contract, and provided the employment contract allows it, the employer can charge the employee for any kit not returned. Put that alongside the temporary nature of agencies and their contracts and you can see at once the nightmare that trying to control the return of PPE can quickly become for both the agencies and their employees. I guess many agency employees prefer to have their own PPE rather than perhaps end up with second or third or twentieth hand me downs. None of that justifies poor practice of course but it does illustrate why it is such an issue. We specify explicitly what PPE standards are required and expect agency employees to have the common basics that they need; we then provide any specific or specialist kit on loan free of charge. Is this another case where the law needs a tweek to recognise the practicality of the modern workplace or it is simply a case that the client should always provide the PPE on loan?

How do you know if the worker has been forced to provide the PPE themselves, by the agency before they come to your site. Just because they turn up with it, does not mean they were provided with it.

This has been discussed here a number of times before and it still remains something of a festering sore, ‘assisted’ in part by a lack of clear guidance from the HSE who must be well aware of the issue, and because there is no specific case law to assist in unravelling the various issues. Although there are ET cases which have identified the employer as being those who administer PAYE/NI (oh, and there are cases that contradict this e.g. Dacas), I would suggest that you can’t necessarily rely on these judgements as the test for determining who is the employer for health and safety purposes. The ‘test’ of ‘control’ is one that may well be particularly relevant when determining employment status. I am not sure if there is a ‘one size fits all’ solution (and perhaps this is why the HSE haven’t dealt with this a little more robustly) and as with a number of aspects of employing temporary workers through an agency, I tend to ask myself the question “who is best placed to do x,y or z?” and then agree this with the appropriate agency and make it part of the T&Cs. I am also aware that many agencies (as the result of legal advice from their ‘professional organisation arising from ET/EAT cases) do not accept that there is an employer/employee relationship between them and the workers they supply. All in all, it is a bit of a muddle and I don’t think that it is entirely fair to either criticise all agencies or always expect them to provide the PPE in all situations. Similarly, if you were to force the hand of the agency, then it is not unreasonable to expect them to merely pass on the costs of PPE to you through their charges. I for one am a little disappointed that AWD/AWR didn’t deal with this; it seems something of a missed opportunity. However, if you think you can (always) argue that the agency is the employer, I fear you may be in for something of a shock.

I do not work in HR, nor am I familiar with contract law, but some agencies that we use set up a tripartite agreement between the agency, the worker and an umbrella company. The workers are self employed for the purpose of tax and NIC, paid by the umbrella company. This means that they skirt round the AWR. Employment status is always a tricky issue, but our insurance company are absolutely positive that they should be treated as our employees for the purposes of employers liability insurance. This being the case we always provide PPE so we are sure that the PPE falls in line with our requirements. I think the only way to be confident about who is responsible for the provision is to enter into an agreement with the agency. Responsibility for the reporting of injuries under RIDDOR should perhaps be in the same agreement, as should a statement regarding the employment status of the worker. Some agencies provide labour under a contract to provide services, and that labour is self employed. Complicated? I am sure it could be simplified.

In addition many many volunteers [ we probably have close to a million at this point in time] are being treated in the same way as agency staff and after working in these areas since the late 60's, and after running an agency myself, I find that most agencies along with most clients do not care and as for the enforcers -well enough said Many years ago my agency was pushed out of many areas because we paid for PPE etc. and treated staff decently where as others did not so we lost contracts as our prices were seen as being too high and we were especially pushed away from government areas e.g. the ones that were supposed to be especially adhering to the law! I know volunteer groups that have brought millions of pounds into organisations via grants yet the same organisations will not give them a pair of 50P gloves! Please note that there are still some very good clients and agencies out there so all is not yet totally lost