The replacement of traditional standards by less prescriptive provisions has caused unease in some sectors of the workforce and has been challenged. In the following case one of the coal mining trade unions sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s conduct in replacing certain regulations, alleging that the new regulations, which, in the view of the unions, were less rigorous than the ones they replaced, were ultra vires (that is, invalid) because they did not meet the standards required by s1(2). R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT EX P NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLIERY OVERMEN, DEPUTIES AND SHOT-FIRERS The HSC, acting in accordance with s1(2), intended to replace parts of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and various sets of regulations made under it which were prescriptive in nature. A formal consultation document including a draft of the regulations and code of practice was published in May 1989. There followed a series of meetings leading to revised proposals. A further consultation document was published in April 1990. Again, there were written observations followed by meetings followed by revisions of the proposals and then further meetings. A final revision of the proposals was circulated for comment in June 1992 and meetings were held in September 1992 with NACODS and other principal consultees. Except for NACODS and the National Union of Mineworkers, there was widespread general agreement with the proposals in their final form. The HSC believed that, in accordance with s1(2), the proposals would ‘maintain or improve’ standards of health and safety. The Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/1897), which gave effect, without modification, to the HSC’s proposals, were laid before Parliament and an unsuccessful motion was put down in the Commons praying for their annulment. NACODS were not satisfied that the standards of health and safety set by the new regulations and accompanying Approved Code of Practice matched those of the measures replaced so they commenced judicial review proceedings, seeking to strike down all or part of the Regulations, contending that they were ultra vires the Secretary of State’s regulation making power under the 1974 Act. The leading judgment was given by Simon Brown LJ. He noted that the question was whether Parliament, on the proper construction of the 1974 Act, had entrusted to the Secretary of State’s judgment whether the new regulatory regime met the requirements of s1(2) or whether the courts had jurisdiction to

DOI link for The replacement of traditional standards by less prescriptive provisions has caused unease in some sectors of the workforce and has been challenged. In the following case one of the coal mining trade unions sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s conduct in replacing certain regulations, alleging that the new regulations, which, in the view of the unions, were less rigorous than the ones they replaced, were ultra vires (that is, invalid) because they did not meet the standards required by s1(2). R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT EX P NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLIERY OVERMEN, DEPUTIES AND SHOT-FIRERS The HSC, acting in accordance with s1(2), intended to replace parts of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and various sets of regulations made under it which were prescriptive in nature. A formal consultation document including a draft of the regulations and code of practice was published in May 1989. There followed a series of meetings leading to revised proposals. A further consultation document was published in April 1990. Again, there were written observations followed by meetings followed by revisions of the proposals and then further meetings. A final revision of the proposals was circulated for comment in June 1992 and meetings were held in September 1992 with NACODS and other principal consultees. Except for NACODS and the National Union of Mineworkers, there was widespread general agreement with the proposals in their final form. The HSC believed that, in accordance with s1(2), the proposals would ‘maintain or improve’ standards of health and safety. The Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/1897), which gave effect, without modification, to the HSC’s proposals, were laid before Parliament and an unsuccessful motion was put down in the Commons praying for their annulment. NACODS were not satisfied that the standards of health and safety set by the new regulations and accompanying Approved Code of Practice matched those of the measures replaced so they commenced judicial review proceedings, seeking to strike down all or part of the Regulations, contending that they were ultra vires the Secretary of State’s regulation making power under the 1974 Act. The leading judgment was given by Simon Brown LJ. He noted that the question was whether Parliament, on the proper construction of the 1974 Act, had entrusted to the Secretary of State’s judgment whether the new regulatory regime met the requirements of s1(2) or whether the courts had jurisdiction to

The replacement of traditional standards by less prescriptive provisions has caused unease in some sectors of the workforce and has been challenged. In the following case one of the coal mining trade unions sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s conduct in replacing certain regulations, alleging that the new regulations, which, in the view of the unions, were less rigorous than the ones they replaced, were ultra vires (that is, invalid) because they did not meet the standards required by s1(2). R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT EX P NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLIERY OVERMEN, DEPUTIES AND SHOT-FIRERS The HSC, acting in accordance with s1(2), intended to replace parts of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and various sets of regulations made under it which were prescriptive in nature. A formal consultation document including a draft of the regulations and code of practice was published in May 1989. There followed a series of meetings leading to revised proposals. A further consultation document was published in April 1990. Again, there were written observations followed by meetings followed by revisions of the proposals and then further meetings. A final revision of the proposals was circulated for comment in June 1992 and meetings were held in September 1992 with NACODS and other principal consultees. Except for NACODS and the National Union of Mineworkers, there was widespread general agreement with the proposals in their final form. The HSC believed that, in accordance with s1(2), the proposals would ‘maintain or improve’ standards of health and safety. The Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/1897), which gave effect, without modification, to the HSC’s proposals, were laid before Parliament and an unsuccessful motion was put down in the Commons praying for their annulment. NACODS were not satisfied that the standards of health and safety set by the new regulations and accompanying Approved Code of Practice matched those of the measures replaced so they commenced judicial review proceedings, seeking to strike down all or part of the Regulations, contending that they were ultra vires the Secretary of State’s regulation making power under the 1974 Act. The leading judgment was given by Simon Brown LJ. He noted that the question was whether Parliament, on the proper construction of the 1974 Act, had entrusted to the Secretary of State’s judgment whether the new regulatory regime met the requirements of s1(2) or whether the courts had jurisdiction to