Two dates at the end of this month will materially alter your organisation's exposure to criminal liability. On 29 June 2026, Section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 comes into force, significantly expanding the basis on which organisations can be prosecuted for the conduct of their senior managers.

The following day, 30 June 2026, marks the deadline for the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) consultation on proposed reforms to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR), which will broaden what must be reported, by whom, and how quickly.

Taken together, these changes increase both the volume of incidents visible to the regulator and make it easier to attribute criminal liability to organisations. If you are responsible for managing risk, health and safety, insurance or regulatory compliance for your business, this will affect you.

Section 250: a new route to prosecuting your organisation

Section 250 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 comes into force on 29 June 2026. It represents a major expansion of corporate criminal liability.

The problem Section 250 solves

For most criminal offences, prosecuting an organisation for the acts of an individual has required proof that the person was the company's "directing mind and will", typically a board-level director exercising ultimate control. In large or complex organisations, where decision-making is distributed across multiple layers, that test has been extremely difficult to satisfy. That difficulty has limited prosecutors' ability to hold organisations accountable across a wide range of areas, from environmental offences and regulatory breaches to data protection violations and modern slavery.

In December 2023, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) introduced a broader "senior manager" attribution model, but it applied only to specified economic crimes such as fraud, false accounting and money laundering. "Failure to prevent" offences (covering bribery, facilitation of tax evasion and fraud) took a different approach, allowing prosecution for the acts of any associated person subject to a "reasonable procedures" defence. Neither reform addressed the full range of regulatory and operational areas that organisations face day to day.

What Section 250 does

Section 250 extends the senior manager attribution model to all criminal offences. It replaces sections 196 to 198 of ECCTA, removing the limitation to economic crimes.

From 29 June 2026, an organisation can be criminally liable where a senior manager commits any criminal offence whilst acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority. It does not matter whether the conduct was explicitly authorised. It is enough that it was the type of activity the individual was authorised to carry out, or that it would ordinarily fall within the scope of someone in that role.

Section 250, therefore, creates new exposure across a wide range of offences. During the Bill's passage through Parliament, the Government confirmed that Section 250 ensures "businesses cannot continue to avoid liability where senior management have clearly used the business to facilitate or conduct crime."

Who counts as a "senior manager"?

The definition is broad, covering anyone significantly involved in deciding how all or a substantial part of the organisation's activities are managed or organised, as well as those who take responsibility for doing so. It goes well beyond the board, and may include heads of divisions, regional managers and senior functional leads.

Are there defences?

Unlike the "failure to prevent fraud" offence under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, Section 250 does not provide a "reasonable procedures" defence. An organisation cannot escape liability by demonstrating that it had robust compliance frameworks in place, took practicable steps to prevent the conduct, or that the conduct was not intended to benefit the company.

Whilst strong governance and compliance remain highly relevant to prosecutorial discretion and sentencing, they do not constitute a statutory defence.

RIDDOR is changing. Why is this so important?

On 7 April 2026, the HSE launched the most significant review of workplace incident reporting in over a decade. The consultation on proposed reforms to RIDDOR closes on 30 June 2026.

So why now? Working environments, technologies and sector-specific risks have moved on considerably since 2013. When the number of reportable occupational diseases was cut from 47 to six following the Löfstedt Review, the trade-off for a lighter administrative load was that serious work-related ill health dropped off the regulator's radar. The Government's March 2025 paper, 'New approach to ensure regulators and regulation support growth' (referred to as the Regulation Action Plan), added further momentum, acknowledging that unclear regulations can impose disproportionate costs on businesses. The HSE wants a more targeted, data-driven and transparent reporting regime.

What is actually being proposed?

Clearer definitions

The HSE wants to tighten up key terms in Regulation 2, including "work-related", "routine work", "injury" and "diagnosis", where ambiguity has led to inconsistent reporting. Its own data from November 2024 to November 2025 shows persistent problems: wrong forms being used, categories being misapplied and, in some cases, reports being submitted by people who are not the responsible person. Where reports should have been made but were not, organisations face the risk of criminal prosecution for non-compliance. In 2024/25, 8.2% of all RIDDOR reports (some 7,742 reports) turned out not to be reportable at all.

Greater clarity should improve consistency, but it could also reduce the flexibility that businesses have relied on in borderline cases. If the new definitions are not drawn carefully, reporting volumes could increase regardless of whether the underlying risk has changed.

More reportable occupational diseases

This is one of the biggest changes. The current list of six reportable occupational diseases is set to grow to nineteen. The HSE proposes reintroducing nine conditions removed following the Löfstedt Review and adding four new ones:

  • Reintroduced: pneumoconiosis (including silicosis, but not asbestosis), decompression illness, asbestosis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, cadmium-related emphysema, beryllium disease, chromium-related ulceration, knee and elbow bursitis, and oil folliculitis.
  • New: noise-induced hearing loss, bronchiolitis obliterans, occupational allergic rhinitis, and occupational contact urticaria.

Of these, the reintroduction of silicosis is particularly significant. The consultation cites a rise in accelerated silicosis cases and deaths attributed to workers manufacturing kitchen and bathroom worktops from engineered stone. Because silicosis is not currently reportable, the HSE has had to rely on anonymised surveillance data or coroners' reports issued after a worker's death. By the time a Prevention of Future Deaths report reaches the HSE, as the consultation puts it, "it is too late".

Updated dangerous occurrences

The current list of reportable dangerous occurrences has not kept pace with modern workplaces. Offshore wind installations, hydrogen generation facilities, novel explosives and chemical processes are all absent. Proposed additions include:

  • tunnelling incidents (excavation, boring or maintenance of tunnels 1.2 metres in diameter or greater);
  • unintentional dropping of objects from buildings or structures under demolition or construction;
  • overturning of construction plant, including excavators, mobile plant, drill rigs or piling rigs; and
  • uncoiling and projection of pipework, hosing or materials.

The consultation also proposes amendments to existing dangerous occurrence categories. Notably, the definition of "offshore installation" would be expanded to cover offshore marine and wind farms, and the definition of "wells" would extend beyond oil and gas to include geothermal energy.

What about stress? Work-related stress and suicide were considered but are not being proposed for inclusion at the moment. The HSE has said that "it is difficult to define work related stress in a way that allows for consistent and reliable reporting across sectors." As for suicide, the legal determination rests exclusively with Coroners (in England and Wales) and the Procurator Fiscal or Sheriff's Court (in Scotland) who can determine whether a death was suicide. Requiring employers to attribute a suicide to work-related factors would, the consultation states, "pre-empt these established investigative processes" and require employers to make determinations about causative factors to which they have no access, such as the deceased's medical records.

A wider pool of diagnosing professionals

Currently, only GMC-registered doctors can confirm a reportable occupational disease. The HSE wants to extend this to other registered health practitioners, including registered nurses and physiotherapists.

A simpler form, but a bigger regime

The HSE is also looking at non-legislative improvements: simplifying the online form, reordering questions, cutting free-text fields and introducing flowcharts and completed examples. Welcome changes, but they will sit alongside a broader reporting regime, so the overall compliance burden may still go up.

Who will feel this most?

  • Construction and manufacturing: The reintroduction of pneumoconiosis, silicosis and asbestosis, together with noise-induced hearing loss, will hit hardest where dust, vibration and noise are day-to-day operational risks. The expanded dangerous occurrences list adds a further layer of reporting. With more incidents crossing the reporting threshold, the potential for HSE investigation and enforcement action increases proportionately.
  • Facilities management and maintenance: Legacy hazardous materials, repetitive physical tasks and chemical exposure all feature. Conditions such as occupational dermatitis, bursitis and respiratory sensitisation are likely to become more frequently reported, bringing greater regulatory visibility to sectors that have historically seen less enforcement attention.
  • All employers: Clearer definitions and a wider pool of diagnosing professionals (including registered nurses and physiotherapists, not just GMC-registered doctors) will alter the reporting threshold across the board, including in office-based environments. Non-compliance with RIDDOR is a criminal offence and, with a wider net, the risk of inadvertent breach increases.
  • Insurance Market: An expanded disease list, earlier diagnosis and clearer definitions will drive up reporting volumes. More RIDDOR reports mean more data available to the HSE, and more data means more targeted investigations and enforcement activity. For insurers, this translates into a greater frequency of policyholders facing regulatory investigation, interviews under caution and potential prosecution, with corresponding demands on defence cost funding and notification pipelines.

What should you be doing now?

The two dates at the end of this month bring into sharp focus a step change in the criminal enforcement risk facing organisations across all sectors.

From 29 June 2026, Section 250 will make it significantly easier for prosecutors to attribute criminal liability to organisations through the actions of their senior managers. Identify which roles fall into the statutory definition (looking beyond job titles) and strengthen training, oversight and escalation procedures where required. Consider whether D&O policy coverage adequately protects individuals whose conduct could expose the company.

From 30 June 2026, the window to influence the shape of a reformed RIDDOR regime closes. If your operations involve significant occupational health risks or high volumes of reportable incidents, consider submitting a consultation response before that deadline. Review your internal reporting and escalation procedures now to ensure they can capture incidents that may fall within an expanded RIDDOR scope, and engage with your occupational health providers to understand how the broader pool of diagnosing professionals will affect your reporting obligations.

Together, these changes represent more reporting and more scrutiny for employers, and a greater volume of policyholders facing investigation and enforcement for insurers and brokers, with corresponding pressure on defence cost funding. The organisations that prepare now will be in a far stronger position than those that wait.

Whether you are preparing for a reformed RIDDOR regime, need to understand how Section 250 changes your exposure to prosecution, or are already facing a regulatory investigation and need to protect individuals and the organisation from criminal liability, we can help. Speak to Natalie Barton-Howes or a member of the Corporate Crime team.