IT HAS taken more than a decade to reach the statute books, but even as the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Killing Act comes into effect today critics maintain the legislation does not go far enough.

The STUC has accused the governments in Westminster and Holyrood of letting down the families of those killed at work. And legal experts are divided over whether it will increase scrutiny, or make it more difficult to prosecute large companies.

The promise of tougher legislation to penalise companies responsible for the deaths of employees or members of the public was one of Labour's election pledges in 1997. The Larkhall gas explosion of 1999, in which a family of four died, provided the impetus in Scotland for the call for legislation.

The resultant act creates a new offence - corporate homicide in Scotland, corporate manslaughter elsewhere in the UK - and provides for unlimited fines for convicted firms.

Its supporters claim the act will make successful prosecutions easier by focusing on the actions of senior managers and whether a "culture of safety" existed within that company.

But critics are unhappy that individuals will not be put in the dock, and that it does not extend the powers of the existing health and safety laws.

Sources close to the Labour Party and STUC claimed discussions have been taking place over the possibility of reviving the Member's Bill introduced to the Scottish Parliament by Labour MSP Karen Gillon, whose Clydesdale constituency includes Larkhall.

A Labour spokesperson denied the move would be supported at this stage but said: "If we found the legislation was not working as intended then we would look again at re-introducing the bill."

Gillon described the act as "a step in the right direction", adding: "But the jury is still out on whether or not it will be strong enough to do what we want and prevent deaths in the future. I personally don't feel it goes far enough."

Graham Smith, general secretary of the STUC, described the act as "a fudge". He said: "It is clear that the governments in both Westminster and in Holyrood have let down the families of workers killed by their employers. This legislation will not allow for prosecution of individuals, but only of the company. Even then, only if the failures of a senior manager can be identified.

"This is a fudge of the controlling mind' test that has made the prosecution of companies so difficult in the past."

That difficulty was also highlighted as a major issue by Frank Maguire, senior partner at Thompson's solicitors. He has been involved in Stockline, the Hepatitis C campaign and supported Gillon's bill.

He claims large firms could hide behind "paper trails" created to show that they had complied with the act.

He said: "If you have a small company in Glasgow it is quite simple to identify the senior management. But if it is a larger company based in London, you have to look there and you may find they have done the work which allows them to show that they have done everything in terms of the act.

"They'll be doing great exercises in risk management and making sure that senior management have laid their paper trails."

But Aisha Anwar, of Glasgow lawyers MacLay, Murray & Spens, pointed out that individual directors could still be prosecuted for culpable homicide under common law, and added: "Senior managers' actions are going to be under the microscope as never before."

Professor Andrew Watterson, a public health expert from Stirling University, said the new legislation does not go far enough. He said: "This new act does not cover fatal occupational diseases like cancer. It is not part of health and safety law and there are no new duties or obligations under the Act according to the Health & Safety Executive."

Jake Molloy, general secretary of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee, said: "We are disappointed. The act is watered down to the point that it makes little or no difference. If Piper Alpha happened today, you would find nothing has changed. No person would be held accountable."

In a statement, the Scottish government said: "Health and safety laws are clearly reserved to Westminster at present. We would welcome contributions from the STUC and others through our National Conversation on whether issues relating to corporations and health and safety could be dealt with more effectively were the relevant powers to be devolved to the Scottish parliament."