After a little advice on PPE and payment from employees, Where i have worked we have always had a set standard for PPE and an allowance that company contribute such as safety footwear, RPE etc then anything above this that an employee requires has been chargable which as far as i am aware is acceptable.I have always ensured the PPE we offer is mid range so not to get into a price war.

However some employees require a better spec of product One example is we offer laserlite earplugs some employees required the moulded ones, whilst i appreciate long term they are better for lots of reasons we dont want to offer as standard.

So re the increased cost which we have said the employee has to contribute, however the response is we as the employer cannot charge for PPE (as per the regs) is it still in place that as long as PPE offered is suitable and suficient employee can be epected to pay for an upgrade? 

Interested to know what others do and their thoughts on this. 

It was never in place that an employer could charge - that has become an interpretation over time.

The regulations state an employer may not charge for the provision of PPE.

Your premis that you pick a mid-range price point is actually an admission of failing to comply with the regulations as you are not selecting the most suitable protection for the employee but rather making commercial decision on behalf of the employer with the employee forced to contribute to "suitable and sufficient" (for their needs) equipment.

There is obviously justification for moulded plugs which would make them the default for this process activity rather than an on-cost.

You should consider if there are alternative resolutions such as eliminating the noise either at source or through engineering controls which then saves the company the costs of provision, maintenance and disposal of PPE. 

If you do (for reasons other than cost of engineering control) actually need hearing protection why are you using "in-ear" devices (personally I find these detestable) rather than ear muffs?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/8/regulation/5/made

“Modification of the 1974 Act 3A.—(1) The duty placed on the employer in respect of their employees by section 9 of the 1974 Act (duty not to charge employees) is modified to apply in respect of the duties under these Regulations to their workers, and “employer”, as referenced in section 9, in relation to a worker means the person by whom the worker is employed under their worker’s contract.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/section/9

9 Duty not to charge employees for things done or provided pursuant to certain specific requirements. No employer shall levy or permit to be levied on any employee of his any charge in respect of anything done or provided in pursuance of any specific requirement of the relevant statutory provisions.

It seems to me you need to go back to the drawing board. What you 'must' do, taking into account all other reasonably practicable measures have been taken (e.g. engineering controls as stated by Roundtuit), is to provide hearing protection that is suitable and sufficient.

We do offer both ear defenders, my preferred item and ear plugs, as HSE guidance says you must offer choice. We had a noise exposure assessmen tcarried out which identifies areas where action needs to be taken. The report therefore advised on specific rated hearing protection - you shouldn't over protect as machine alarms and FLT reversing sirens, horns etc need to be heard.

If anyone requires above and beyond for medical reasons, the employer must pay. If what you currently offer will suffice, for those without medical reason, then anything above and beyond is not the responsibility for the employer to resource.

I'll give an example of safety footwear. We had a set budget per worker that has increased over time as costs have risen. I managed to get an agreement this year regarding doubling that budget which enables better quality, more durability and supposedly more comfortable footwear. In turn this also means less deliveries to our site and less waste going to landfill. If someone wanted footwear that was above the very reasonable budget, that remained suitable for the protection needed, they would indeed pay the difference.