How Cameron is misleading over prosecutions for price fixing

The real obstacle is not an absence of applicable law, but the woeful underfunding of fraud investigation and prosecution.

Downing Street is trying to persuade us that if oil traders deliberately distort the price of petrol they cannot be prosecuted under existing criminal laws. This assertion is deeply misleading. If there is substance to the allegations against the oil companies said to be involved, there is now a very real danger that perpetrators will escape justice.

It has been reported that the government is in the process of drafting a new law targeting the manipulation of energy prices. However, because laws don't work retrospectively, wrongdoing prior to the law getting royal assent will not be captured. A Number 10 spokesman has said as much: "The law is the law so it will apply at the point it comes in. A change in the law that makes something illegal takes effect from the moment it takes effect."

If you accept the government's line that passing a new law is necessary, the resulting legislation will not bring anyone to justice or get to the bottom of what has been going on. It will do the opposite. It will draw a line under it and allow the sector to move on quickly and largely unruffled. That Number 10 is so quick to give up on the prospect of prosecuting under current law once again reflects the desire of Cameron, Osborne and company to let the City off the hook.

If people have been deliberately fixing prices to benefit themselves then it is already against the law. This has always has been the case. A scam is a scam. A fraud is a fraud. Different rules don't apply in the City than they do for you and me. There are some very plain, very simple offences in the Fraud Act 2006 that can be applied to price manipulation. For example, there's fraud by false representation. This is aimed at people who say something misleading to line their pockets or cause financial harm to someone else. There is also fraud by abuse of position for those who scheme against those whose interests they are not supposed to harm. And then there is good old fashioned common law conspiracy to defraud.

These are very broad offences and that is deliberate. The principles that underpin these offences are supposed to be applicable whoever is perpetrating the fraud, whoever they are defrauding and by whatever means they are doing it. The law must be interpreted this way otherwise criminals will always be ahead of the game. What a nightmare it would be if we individually had to criminalise every single abuse of every single commodity, market or financial product. There are thousands of these and new ones being invented every day. Such an approach would have disastrous implications for regulation and policy-making. Any slide towards it must be resisted.

The reason why City criminals are not in jail is not an absence of applicable law. The law is there for prosecutors who are front-footed and creative enough to apply it when the opportunity arises.

The real obstacle here is that fraud investigation and prosecution is woefully underfunded. The budget of the Serious Fraud Office is being slashed by 25 per cent. It has already had to ask for extra money to investigate the Libor scandal. If the director of the SFO does decide to investigate the energy market allegations, he is unlikely to be able to do so within the agency's current budget. A system has been established whereby he has to go to the Treasury and ask for the funds, giving that department an effective veto on high-value investigations. He will almost certainly have to go cap-in-hand to George Osborne and ask his permission. He has already had to do this for the Libor investigation.

In the US, the government easily recoups the money it spends on serious fraud investigations because its laws make it easier to fix liability on to companies and imposes much higher penalties. If reform is needed, surely that's where we should look.

So, in the event that there is something to these allegations, if there is no criminal investigation it will be down to two things: a lack of will and a lack of resources. It will not be down to a lack of applicable criminal law. The financial elite do not need special laws for themselves. This is one nation and there is one criminal law.

Emily Thornberry is MP for Islington South & Finsbury and shadow attorney general

Shell is among oil companies being investigated by European competition authorities. Photograph: Getty Images.

Emily Thornberry is MP for Islington South & Finsbury and shadow minister of state for employment.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.