carry out independent fact finding so that the Secretary of State’s judgment might be overruled and the regulations struck down as ultra vires. In his view, it was highly improbable that Parliament would have wished to leave to the courts the ultimate decision upon the respective merits of two different sets of regulations. He concluded that it was not for the court to overturn the outcome of what had been a lengthy and properly conducted consultation procedure. His Lordship also expressed the view that the phrase ‘designed to maintain or improve’ health and safety standards was expressing an objective or purpose rather than describing an ascertainable result. The final limb of s1(2) laid down a policy rather than a condition precedent. ‘Designed’ in that context looked to the future and embodied an expectation. It did not really matter whether, as NACODS contended, ‘designed’ meant ‘intended’ or ‘suited’. Even if the word ‘suited’ had been used it would ‘inevitably’ have been construed as ‘suited in the opinion of the regulation-maker’. The HSC’s Review of Health and Safety Regulation was placed, as it were, in the shadow of the above application for judicial review and it is not, therefore, surprising that the publication considered the role of s1(2) at some length. However, in the light of the Divisional Court’s ruling the HSC did not recommend any change to s1(2). The following is an extract from the Review at p 30:

DOI link for carry out independent fact finding so that the Secretary of State’s judgment might be overruled and the regulations struck down as ultra vires. In his view, it was highly improbable that Parliament would have wished to leave to the courts the ultimate decision upon the respective merits of two different sets of regulations. He concluded that it was not for the court to overturn the outcome of what had been a lengthy and properly conducted consultation procedure. His Lordship also expressed the view that the phrase ‘designed to maintain or improve’ health and safety standards was expressing an objective or purpose rather than describing an ascertainable result. The final limb of s1(2) laid down a policy rather than a condition precedent. ‘Designed’ in that context looked to the future and embodied an expectation. It did not really matter whether, as NACODS contended, ‘designed’ meant ‘intended’ or ‘suited’. Even if the word ‘suited’ had been used it would ‘inevitably’ have been construed as ‘suited in the opinion of the regulation-maker’. The HSC’s Review of Health and Safety Regulation was placed, as it were, in the shadow of the above application for judicial review and it is not, therefore, surprising that the publication considered the role of s1(2) at some length. However, in the light of the Divisional Court’s ruling the HSC did not recommend any change to s1(2). The following is an extract from the Review at p 30:

carry out independent fact finding so that the Secretary of State’s judgment might be overruled and the regulations struck down as ultra vires. In his view, it was highly improbable that Parliament would have wished to leave to the courts the ultimate decision upon the respective merits of two different sets of regulations. He concluded that it was not for the court to overturn the outcome of what had been a lengthy and properly conducted consultation procedure. His Lordship also expressed the view that the phrase ‘designed to maintain or improve’ health and safety standards was expressing an objective or purpose rather than describing an ascertainable result. The final limb of s1(2) laid down a policy rather than a condition precedent. ‘Designed’ in that context looked to the future and embodied an expectation. It did not really matter whether, as NACODS contended, ‘designed’ meant ‘intended’ or ‘suited’. Even if the word ‘suited’ had been used it would ‘inevitably’ have been construed as ‘suited in the opinion of the regulation-maker’. The HSC’s Review of Health and Safety Regulation was placed, as it were, in the shadow of the above application for judicial review and it is not, therefore, surprising that the publication considered the role of s1(2) at some length. However, in the light of the Divisional Court’s ruling the HSC did not recommend any change to s1(2). The following is an extract from the Review at p 30: