Nevertheless this development has serious implications for corporations, in terms of both their financial position and their reputation.  Here we examine these implications, and also consider the worrying question of whether the issue of personal liability, and possible imprisonment, for managers and directors for breaches of health and safety law has truly been put to rest.

Existing law will change

The difficulties of securing convictions of corporations for manslaughter were amply demonstrated by the failure of prosecutions arising from large-scale disasters such as Hatfield and other rail crashes.

Problems arise because, for a corporation to be convicted of manslaughter, a "directing mind" - an individual who is regarded as embodying the corporation in his actions and decisions - has also to be guilty of the offence.  Except in the case of small enterprises where a director or senior manager was directly involved in the decision or action which led to the death, this is virtually impossible to prove in practice.

The current law thus bears much harder on managers of smaller enterprises where the senior management is closely involved in day-to-day business decisions and can therefore be implicated more closely in the events that lead to the death.

The bill removes the "directing mind" requirement.  It creates a new offence of corporate manslaughter (or, in Scotland, corporate homicide).

In order to prove the commission of the offence, the following must be established:

1) the death of a person to whom a "relevant duty of care" was owed by an organisation;

2) that the death was caused by the way in which the "senior managers" of the organisation managed or organised its activities; and

3) that the way in which the death was caused amounted to a "gross breach" of the duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.

Breach of a duty of care is "gross" if the conduct alleged to amount to it falls "far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances".  Whether or not the breach is gross is a question for the jury in a given case to decide, taking into account a non-exhaustive list of factors.

A glaring failure by management to take action in relation to a serious and known risk of death or serious injury, for example, would be likely to be considered a gross breach. For the first time, juries are directed to take into account health and safety guidance that relates to the alleged breach of duty.

Employers need to make sure, therefore, that they stay on top of guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive that is relevant to their activities.

What it does and doesn't do

By removing the need to prove the guilt of a "directing mind" of the corporation, the bill should make it easier to secure convictions of corporations for manslaughter.  However, the uncertainties inherent in the concepts of "senior manager" and "the way in which ...activities are managed and organised" give defence lawyers ample scope to raise arguments on behalf of their clients, so convictions may not flow as quickly as the government anticipates.

Crucially, the bill excludes individual liability for the new offence.  There is no prospect, therefore, of directors and senior managers being prosecuted personally and fined or imprisoned under the bill.

However, all businesses - whether they satisfy the legal definition of "corporation" or not - must remember that the bill leaves the existing law on individual liability for manslaughter, where a death can be shown to have been caused by the gross negligence of a particular individual unchanged.

What will it mean in practice?

While there is no question of individuals being liable under the bill, there is no doubt that conviction will have substantial implications for a corporation's reputation.

The impact of a manslaughter conviction on the attitudes of customers will inevitably be greater than the impact of a conviction under general health and safety legislation.  Substantial fines can also be expected.

It's unclear exactly how courts will fix the level of fines for the new offence, but it seems reasonable to suppose that their approach will be similar to that currently used in fatal cases, although presumably fines will be increased to reflect the greater level of culpability implied by a manslaughter conviction.

This could have serious financial implications, particularly for the smaller business.

The focus on senior management, and the way in which it manages an organisation's activities, is likely to lead to greater concentration on safety management systems.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state, "there is no question of liability where the management of an activity includes reasonable safeguards and a death nonetheless occurs."  Businesses will need to scrutinise their procedures for  health and safety management and ensure that they are watertight.

High risk areas such as maintenance of dangerous equipment and proper training of staff in relation to its use need careful attention.  Businesses which employ large numbers of casual staff, who may, in some cases not have English as a first language, need to ensure they are taking steps to communicate their safety procedures to such staff effectively.

The future

The TUC, in welcoming the bill, urged the government to look again at the issue of liability for directors and senior managers.  Victim's groups have also been vociferous in their calls for directors and managers to face sentences of imprisonment in fatal cases.

The government may hope that the bill will silence such demands, but there is no doubt at all that, should there be another major disaster along the lines of Hatfield, the pressure to put directors and managers in the dock will increase further.  will the government withstand this pressure?

Joanne Wardale is a barrister in the regulatory department of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary UK LLP, based in Leeds.