---

Crime and Policing Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who is here at this time, especially to all the Front-Benchers on this marathon stretch.

I will speak to Amendment 441C, which stands in my name and is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and my noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath. The amendment would require the Director of Public Prosecutions to establish a unit within the Crown Prosecution Service to support the prosecution of offences motivated by antisemitism and to ensure that those cases are properly tracked and understood.

Members of this House will be acutely aware of the frequency with which problems of antisemitism are raised and of the many cases where prosecution has not gone through or not been carried through particularly well. Figures produced by the Home Office for the year to 2025 starkly illustrate how outcomes differ, particularly in relation to antisemitism. In two communities that have each faced a significant rise in incidents, there is a clear illustration of the impact. For Muslim victims, there are 12 religious hate crime offences per 10,000 of the population; for Jewish victims there are 106. The prosecution rate for Muslim victims is 6.7% and for Jewish victims it is 3.8%. I am not remotely suggesting that either figure is any way acceptable, and there need to be improvements, but the weakness in the case when it comes to antisemitism is self-evident.

The measure that the amendment suggests is the establishment of a unit that specialises in the prosecution of offences motivated by antisemitism to try to increase the prosecution rate. It is not an uncommon practice for the CPS to create units to effectively manage complex, high-profile or sensitive cases or where a focus on a significant area of specialisation is required. The counterterrorism division was established in the light of the 11 September attack on the United States and the London bombings of 5 July 2005. In 2011, as part of a new national structure, this division became part of the special crime and counterterrorism division.

That division has the nominal remit to address this range of issues, but the current performance across the piece makes the case for further specialisation.

We have seen how that has worked more effectively with the example of the violence against women and girls unit, which was established in 2008 and further established the rape and serious sexual offences unit. The defined purpose of these units is to improve the quality of the casework, increase successful prosecutions, and enhance the support and services provided to victims. These units have allowed the CPS to adapt and even ensure significant transformations in the method and strategies employed. I do not want to suggest that this provides an absolute solution in any way as we have seen difficulties with cases in those areas as well, but it certainly provides the CPS with a more effective base to do that.

It is important to say here that it has become a much more widely accepted view that these measures are not being dealt with as adequately as they should. On many occasions, when looking at these issues, we have noted that there is a wide array of existing laws that are not being applied. Measures are of course being introduced through this Bill that will help with the situation—indeed, a review being undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, will address some of the other issues—but the core operation of the CPS requires this unit.

The case was well made by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, in a recent speech. I will use two of his great illustrations, which helped make the point as to why this specialisation clearly seems to be lacking at the moment. First, he said:

“The truth is that hatred of nationality fits onto hatred of race like a glove. And importantly, our law recognizes this. The Public Order Act 1986 prohibits stirring up racial hatred”.

He then quoted Section 17 of the 1986 Act, which defines racial hatred:

“In this Part ‘racial hatred’ means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins”.

He made the very strong observation that he had

“lost count of the times that hatred against Israelis has been stirred up on British streets”

in a way that should fall firmly within that definition.

Secondly, he made a point about the precautionary principle. He said:

“The precautionary principle was described by our own Supreme Court last year as preventative—about deciding to act, rather than waiting until directly harmful … activities have taken place”.

He noted that it is “provisional”, not determinative, and

“capable of responding to evidence”.

He said that the many sectarian calls to violence and criminal damage have become normalised because the precautionary principle has not been applied, used or introduced effectively by the CPS.

I suspect that, at this late hour, my noble friend the Minister, who is impressive and unflappable, would accept this amendment only in error. But I hope that the Government will reflect on this and be willing to consider what can be done, even if that means just

extending the scope of the review by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, to encompass the issues behind the amendment. I beg to move.