The country has decided and the Labour Party will form the UK’s next government. Although this regime change is causing a collective buzz in political circles, for those of us who ply our trade in the counter-fraud arena, how Labour faces up to the most pressing of crimes – fraud – will determine how we measure them.

Fraud has become a crime as British as a cup of tea. The new Labour government must tackle and embrace the fight against fraud, which has proven to be such a constant thorn in the side of British law enforcement. Yet right now, the UK’s track record on fraud is about as robust as the soggy biscuit on the saucer of that proverbial teacup.

The UK’s track record on fraud is about as robust as the soggy biscuit on the saucer of that proverbial teacup.

As a former fraud squad detective, I have no issue with admitting that back in the 1990s our fraud squads were fighting an uphill battle. Austerity measures led to the demise of these dedicated fraud units in most forces, so I am not measuring the current officers’ performance against those like me who specialized in the subject.

Despite my loyalties to my former colleagues, their current efforts to investigate and prosecute the crime are now becoming lamentable, even laughable. This is not a criticism of the rank and file, but more of the politicians dressed in uniform, purporting to be senior officers (very few of whom have any tangible policing credibility, let alone fraud background).

Despite our collective best efforts, those of us who deal with investigating fraud failed to bring it to the forefront of the previous administration’s agenda. Why? Because there is no political will to meaningfully combat the problem. Instead, we are faced with repeated soundbites, designed to create the impression that fraud is being managed. Nothing could be further from the truth. But as dismal as the Tories were in facing up to the problem, will Labour fare any better?

Fraud is the most prevalent crime in UK

In the last 10 years, fraud has become the most prevalent crime in the UK, accounting for over 40% of all crimes committed in England and Wales. The National Crime Agency (NCA) confirms that fraud is now the most likely crime to affect UK citizens, but the rate of successful prosecutions remains abysmally low – less than 1%.

One solution I have advocated, for at least three decades, is to make fraud one of the Home Office policing priorities. I believe that until it becomes a policing priority, Chief Constables will continue to ignore fraud, as they are not being performance-measured against the problem.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has already laid out plans to beef up the resources allocated to fraud investigation. The proposed increase in funding and personnel is welcome, but will it be enough to turn the tide? One of the Labour proposals is to recruit detectives directly from parallel fields such as business fraud investigation. I have no major issue with this proposal in theory. But speaking after 33 years of service in the police, my observation is that direct-entry schemes to join CID (the Criminal Investigation Department) straight from civvy street have proven less than successful.

There is no political will to meaningfully combat the problem.

Again, this is not a criticism of those who have followed this pathway. It is merely to state that to become a detective in my day you had to shine in uniform first, proving that you could be a good “thief-taker.” In other words, you only became a detective when you had proven yourself to be worthy of the position. In doing so, you brought with you a minimum of at least two years of experience having worked the streets. What you learned in those years cannot be taught, so I am loathe to have people joining as police officers without having that base from which to build.

For clarity, I have no problem with recruiting “investigators” from the parallel fields suggested by Labour. I would go as far to say that in some instances, depending on their expertise and background, that they may be worthy of a larger salary than their policing counterparts. So, I am not negating the idea on a monetary level, merely that from my old-fashioned perspective, I do not want to see the position of “police constable” being further eroded by direct entries.

Also, I am a firm believer that complex fraud prosecutions (in the context of direct-entry fraud investigators) must be overseen by time-served detectives: the UK Post Office IT scandal is an excellent example of what can go wrong when non-police investigators and prosecutors are left to their own devices.

My trepidation with Labour is that historically they have been perceived to be weak where the issue of imprisoning crooks is concerned. I appreciate that in an ideal world prison alternatives would work and set people back on the right track. But hardened criminals, steeped in organised crime – those who would most likely be targeted by direct-entry fraud detectives – ultimately laugh behind the backs of do-gooders who naively believe that prison is not the answer.

Time to get tough on fraud

I would implore Labour to get tough on fraud (not just “crime”) and dispel the notion that they are soft on crime. The Tories went down that road and it has come back and bitten them where the sun doesn’t shine. Despite the prisons being full, the majority of the public want to see crooks imprisoned; if there is not enough room, build more prisons. Sadly, within days of taking office, Labour has already decided it seems that the best way forward is to release prisoners early, thereby making my point for me.

Let us remind ourselves here: fraud is not a victimless crime. If any of the political parties come down hard on fraudsters, it is a simple tap-in for the party seeking votes. I am totally bemused that all the political parties ignore the pleas coming from grassroots investigators, like me, and instead take their lead from think tanks, academics and retired senior officers, none of whom have any practical experience of investigating and prosecuting fraud. There is a wealth of counter-fraud knowledge and experience out there to be drawn upon by all parties, from both law enforcement and the private sector.

In conclusion, I for one have had enough of all politicians where fraud is concerned, and believe that Labour, like the Tories, will continue to speak in soundbites, never leaving ivory towers and continuing to draw counter-fraud policies from academics and think tanks instead of those with practical experience of investigating these crimes.

I hope to be proven wrong, but early indications – given that Labour is already seeking to release certain prisoners – are not looking good. If hardened crooks are going to be released, what are the chances of non-violent fraudsters replacing them? I’m guessing that if you are reading this, then like me, you are not holding your breath where fraud and Labour are concerned.