My Lords, this is an appalling and tragic case. The brutal murder of Henry Nowak, the lies told by Vickrum Digwa and the behaviour of the police officers involved have made it all the more sickening. This was a young man, a university student, who was stabbed before being handcuffed by police as he lay dying and crying out, “I can’t breathe”.

I have been a police officer. I was an officer for 32 years, policing some of the most challenging parts of London. I cannot fathom acting in the way those officers acted. The first course of action I would have taken is to prioritise the person who has been injured, yet in this case, when met with a person shouting, “I’ve been stabbed”, the response of one of the officers at the scene was, “I don’t think you have, mate”.

I have said before, and I will say again at this Dispatch Box, that at the root of the problem with modern policing are two things: training and operational discretion. Officers are being trained to tick boxes rather than exercise their discretion and common sense. We need less national guidance and bureaucratic requirements and more focus on training officers to utilise their judgment.

What has also become blatantly clear from this is how police today will prioritise accusations of racism over murder. That is a wholly unacceptable symptom of the corruption of the once widely accepted concept of equality before the law. This is not only evident in the statements and general attitudes of senior police officers and politicians but enshrined in policing policy documents. In March 2025, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing produced the Police Anti-Racism Commitment. That document states that the police commitment to racial equity means:

“Producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised”.

It also states—this is the worst part—that racial equity

“does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”.

That is an explicit statement of policy that the police should not treat all ethnicities the same. It encourages police forces to artificially engineer arrests and crime statistics so that they are equalised for all ethnic groups, regardless of offending rates.

That is not equality; that is blatantly two-tier policing. It states that people should be treated differently by the police based on the colour of their skin. We should be clear-eyed about the insidious nature of this approach. It is completely divisive. It promotes sectarianism and the ideology of separatism.

Much of this arose out of the Black Lives Matter movement after the murder of George Floyd in the United States. When George Floyd was murdered by police on another continent, politicians and campaigners in this country rallied behind Black Lives Matter. Senior police officers responded by calling it a

“pivotal moment for policing in the UK”,

even though it happened 4,000 miles away in a very different policing environment. There were numerous protests, with many becoming violent and leading to riotous clashes with police.

Yet with the murder of Henry Nowak and the dehumanising treatment he endured from the police, where are those same voices calling for change? Almost every person who is currently saying that we should not politicise the death of Henry Nowak was more than happy to politicise the death of George Floyd.

Those who criticise the violent protests in Southampton did not bat an eyelid when Black Lives Matter were attacking police officers and tearing down statues. We were told constantly that Black lives matter and that to say that all lives matter is somehow unacceptable. I think there has been a blatantly hypocritical approach to these two cases.

Well, I am very clear: all disorder, rioting and violent protest is totally unacceptable. No one’s death should be politicised. My right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition was absolutely correct when she said:

“I don’t want to hear about Black Lives Matter. I don’t want to hear about white lives matter. We all matter”.

They are two sides of the same coin. This is identity politics. It is a poisonous ideology that divides people by placing them into different groups with supposedly opposing interests. This is not how we foster cultural and social unity and cohesion as a nation. All instances of identity politics must be consigned to the dustbin of history. The police’s treatment of Henry Nowak clearly exposes that. Will the Government commit, very clearly, to scrapping the police anti-racism commitment and all similar ideologically motivated equality, diversity and inclusion policies?

During the proceedings on the Crime and Policing Bill in your Lordships’ House, I tabled an amendment to exclude the police from the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. I argued then that this duty created a perverse incentive for the police to prioritise equality practices over their one true duty: protecting the public, preventing crime and arresting criminals. Unfortunately, the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches voted it down. Does this case not clearly demonstrate the folly of the equality duty? This is exactly why we brought forward that amendment: to get the police back on track and doing their actual jobs.

I appreciate the tone and content of the Statement from the Home Secretary but, unless the Government take immediate action to sweep away identitarian politics from the police, her words will never be more than empty platitudes.

My Lords, in the face of an unimaginable tragedy, the Nowak family has shown a level of moral leadership that puts many in the political sphere to shame. While others have rushed to use the death of their 18 year-old son to stoke the fires of a culture war, the family’s plea has been for one thing: justice without division. Henry was a young man with a life of promise ahead of him. We owe it to his memory to honour his family’s request for unity, rather than allowing his death to be weaponised by those seeking to tear our social fabric apart.

However, the details that have so far emerged of the police response at the scene raise deeply troubling questions. When we see footage of a dying teenager being handcuffed and told he is under arrest while his killer’s lies are taken at face value, we are seeing the consequences of a system that has lost its focus on the victim. This strikes at the very heart of public trust. We must ask how the basic instinct to preserve life was so catastrophically overridden by a false narrative provided at the scene.

However, we must also confront the “two-tier policing” narrative being peddled by opportunistic voices. This rhetoric is not just false; it is dangerous. It ignores the fact that the perpetrator’s actions were condemned by his own community and that the weapon used was not a protected religious item. Our response must be rooted in fact and liberal values, not in the reactionary populism that seeks to label entire communities for the crimes of one individual.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Does he agree that this investigation must not only consider the actions of individual officers but examine whether there were systemic failures in training and guidance, particularly in the management of complex and fast-moving incidents? In much of Europe, initial police training lasts years, but in England and Wales the classroom-based foundation is typically 18 to 22 weeks. So I once again repeat our calls for an independent review of police training, which has not taken place since 2018.

Hampshire Police has referred itself to the IOPC. Will the Minister commit to updating the House promptly once that investigation concludes, and to ensuring that its findings are published in full?

Following the trial, there have been reports from Sikh organisations of a significant increase in anti-Sikh hate crime. What steps are the Government taking to support community cohesion and protect minority communities from being targeted in the aftermath of this case?

Can the Minister confirm that the weapon used in this case was not a ceremonial kirpan but a different, larger knife, and that the Government’s focus remains on tackling knife crime in all its forms rather than restricting lawful religious practice?

Finally, does the Minister agree that rebuilding public confidence depends on effective neighbourhood policing, with officers properly embedded in their communities and, crucially, backed by sustained investment, including in youth services, which have been decimated in recent years?

I begin by saying that this murder was appalling. The murder is the responsibility of Vickrum Digwa, who is now facing a life sentence with a minimum of 21 years in jail. It was all the more despicable because of the lies the perpetrator told about the dying boy, Henry. That was a life snuffed out and we should have consideration both for his life and for his family at this time.

It is important that we reflect on the issues that have been made. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said yesterday in her Statement to the House of Commons, there will be an IOPC investigation. I do not wish to prejudge that investigation. We have all seen the body-worn camera footage and we have all seen the concerns that that footage has raised, but it is important that the IOPC has an opportunity to reflect on that. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I say that we will update both Houses of Parliament when that report is produced, and I welcome her comments on that issue. It is also important that we recognise that the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which is independent of the Government, and rightly so, has indicated that it will review the guidance that it issued in 2025 to ensure that there is no ambiguity in its wording and statements.

I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I ask him again to reflect on the fact that the guidance will be reviewed, and I will report back to the House in due course on that issue. On the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about training and the lessons learned from this incident, both the guidance and the IOPC report will help us reflect on what needs to be done to examine those issues in slower time, because it is important that we do that.

With regard to the arguments about scrapping the guidance, everyone should be equal under the law. That is a first principle of policing. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is reviewing the wording to ensure that there is no ambiguity. We also have the Police Race Action Plan, published under the previous Conservative Government, which includes the issues of equality and diversity, and an acknowledgment of the challenges with race. I cannot accept, I am afraid, the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that this House and the House of Commons scrap and throw away that legislation and guidance. We will review them, but it is important, for a whole range of reasons, that police understand the challenges of equality and diversity in policing, and the importance of policing for all the community.

I will also say, if I may, that I am concerned about the disorder that has arisen as a result and, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I hope that people who have a view on any issue do so in a peaceful way and make any protests in a peaceful way. Eleven police officers and a police dog were injured in yesterday’s events in Southampton. The police have already made some arrests and will potentially make further arrests, because it is not acceptable, either last night or at any other time, to express a view on a contentious, difficult and challenging issue in a way that increases violence, tensions and potential aggression in our communities.

I go back to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned. The individual who committed the murder—the perpetrator of the murder—was carrying a knife that was not in order with the religious exemptions that were in place. And even if religious exemptions were in place, the moment the knife is used for a murder, that is the crime for which the individual concerned has been put before the courts. He has been found guilty and others around him have also been found guilty for their actions in response to the initial lies that were told about the purpose of calling the police in the first place.

I think it is important that we also take on board the extremely brave statement from the family. It is one I am not sure I could make if one of my children was involved in a murder. The family said yesterday that they did not want Henry’s death

“used to create further division, hatred or tension”.

Those are wise words from people in the middle of grief, whose child has been murdered and who have just witnessed someone going to prison for life for that murder. It is a time when there is an important need for the community to come together, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said.

The family also quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer, who said something that echoes again the tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey:

“This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder”.

We need to remember that today. I appeal to all Members of this House and all people outside who have concerns over this. Let the IOPC do its job. Let it report. Let the Police Chiefs’ Council review its guidance. Let the parents grieve and, if I may say so, let Henry Nowak rest in peace. Lessons will be learned from his murder, undoubtedly, but I say to the House as a whole that this is a time for calm heads and wise counsel, not for action on the streets.

My Lords, we now have up to 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions.

My Lords, may I, on behalf of Britain’s peaceful, well-integrated Sikh community of half a million, express our deepest condolences to the family of the young murdered student? His murder is totally unforgivable. It was carried out by someone from the Sikh community who has an obsession with weapons. It has nothing to do with the kirpan that is legitimately worn by Sikhs. It was an offensive weapon with a blade of 23 inches. It was meant to harm and hurt, and we again express our deepest condolences.

The other point I would like to make, which I would like the Minister to consider, is on media reporting. On Monday morning, I heard the BBC television news at 7 am. It constantly referred to the offensive weapon and mentioned “kirpan”. It needs to be made absolutely clear that the kirpan is a symbolic, token weapon of about five or six inches, worn under the clothes and not for use in any way. It is simply a reminder of the duty of Sikhs to stand up against social or political injustice. I really would like the Minister to consider the reporting of this event, because that reporting is food and sustenance for the extremists in our society.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will know that the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, which was passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to kirpans, and long kirpans as well. This included extended defences so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons. But let me be clear to this House and to people outside: carrying a knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing; using it to perpetrate a murder is quite another. In saying that, the focus of our ire and concern should be on the perpetrator, who is now serving a long prison sentence. It is not a reflection on the Sikh community nor on the many people in that Sikh community who will, as the noble Lord has done, condemn this act. The noble Lord raised the role of the media. In terms of news media, there is what I would call old media and there is currently social media. In my view, both need to report all instances of violence in a constructive, truthful and factually based way—not one designed to inflame areas where, as was witnessed last night in Southampton, there are potential tensions generated as a result.

My Lords, the guidelines are being reviewed. May I suggest that part of the review should address the use of handcuffs? In this case, it is not at all clear to me that it was right, or indeed seemly or appropriate, to apply handcuffs to Mr Nowak.

With due respect to the noble Viscount, the area he is discussing strays into two issues which are really important. One is on the IOPC investigating what actually happened, both before the footage that we have seen on TV and during the incident of handcuffing and the original response. It is best that it reports on that and give some views on it. That will also stray into the issue of the guidance. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is responsible for that guidance, not Ministers. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is reviewing the approach to that guidance, and I am sure it will ensure that the type of issue the noble Viscount mentions are ones that are considered, both in terms of IOPC response and that of the police chiefs themselves.

My Lords, my thoughts and prayers are also with the family and friends of Henry Nowak in their grief and suffering. Like many others, I echo the courageous words of Henry’s father in his powerful call that his son’s death should not,

“be used to create further division, hatred or tension”.

Sadly, there has been a lot of misinformation spread around this appalling crime. Some have not heeded the call from Henry’s father, which is incredibly disrespectful. I am sure that all noble Lords would call on people to respect his words and to work for peace in their local communities.

I am also deeply saddened that some have targeted Sikh communities as a result of this terrible crime. Along with my fellow Lords spiritual, I stand firmly with Sikh leaders who have made it very clear that, whatever the words used by the murderer, and whatever the words used by his lawyers, faith was not a factor in this crime. I refer noble Lords to the words of Professor Jagbir Jhutti-Johal, an expert in Sikh theology, who stated clearly that the knife used in this crime was categorically not a kirpan, as others have said. The perpetrator was carrying a much larger knife. My hope, therefore, is that we will focus on the societal problem of knife crime. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitments both to tackling knife crime and to tackling misinformation about faith communities?

The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right, and I welcome his support for the Sikh community and for the way in which he has expressed it. As I mentioned in my initial comments, I also very much respect the words of the Nowak family. Everyone should respect these words, and those who have called for action, or for rage, or for other measures as a result, should reflect carefully on what the family have said.

A murder by a knife is 100% a murder for the individual and for their family. The Government are continuing to look at what we can do to halve knife crime. We have put £66 million into the violence reduction unit and £26 million into knife crime concentrations fund. We are providing financial support to tackle county lines, and we are strengthening legislation on the possession of offensive weapons as a whole, as we have done through the Crime and Policing Act. To the right reverend Prelate and the House, I say that recorded knife crime in the past 18 months has fallen by 10%, hospital admissions for stabbings have fallen by 13%, knife-enabled assaults have decreased by 10% and knife homicides are down overall by 27%, their lowest figure in a decade. As I have said, however, knife homicides represent a 100% murder for the family of an individual. These reductions do not take away the pain of yesterday’s verdict, but they show that the Government are trying to address this issue and the trend, thankfully, is a downwards one.

My Lords, I served the public for 35 years in the police. I have dealt with many chaotic situations involving violence and murder, but I confess that none has been as shocking as that of the murder of Henry Nowak, whose death at the hands of the police was captured on camera. The same words were said or whispered by George Floyd on his arrest by the police in Minneapolis: the words, of course, were “I can’t breathe”.

Policing is not an exact science, but we must heed the words of Henry’s father at the end of the trial. He did not want the death of his son to be continued further in the media. He referred to “division, hatred or tension”, and this plea was ignored by Tommy Robinson on Tuesday night in Southampton. The Prime Minister said that lessons should be learned. Does the Minister agree that the camera film—shown in the media throughout this period—should, with family consent, be on the curriculum of every recruit training course in the country, as an illustration of how such incidents should not be dealt with by the British police? In my opinion, justice should be applied equally in the UK to everybody, regardless of nationality, creed, colour or anything else.

My noble friend brings great experience from policing to this debate. I say to him that there will obviously be an IOPC investigation that will investigate not just the issues in the footage we have seen but the initial call, how the call was handled, what happened between the call and arrival at the scene, and what happened at the scene and afterwards. I can make comments on what that investigation might show, but it is important that the IOPC and I have the full facts before we make decisions. However, one thing is certain: lessons will be learned and adopted in the guidance that the National Police Chiefs’ Council will issue. Also, any report from that incident will provide some potential areas for future change in policy or operational issues.

My Lords, close to the end, the Minister said that this has nothing to do with racism, but it does, because the murderer played the race card and the police believed the murderer and his family about racism rather than the dying Henry, who, because of those accusations, died thinking that the state thought he was a racist bigot. Imagine that. It is so much of a tragedy, rage does not even do it.

Does the Minister acknowledge the number of former and present front-line police officers who are now reporting that the fear of career-ending accusations of racism is shaping operational decisions? Hampshire Police leadership said that anti-racism and being ethical and inclusive are its top priorities as a police force—over, by the way, keeping people safe or fighting crime. Surely this demands more than just tweaking the guidance or stating that “lessons must be learned”—a phrase I have heard in this House many a time, without lessons being learned.

Incidents happen, and Governments have to reflect upon what has happened as a result of those incidents. We await an IOPC investigation, and it would be wrong of me to comment on or colour that investigation prior to it happening. With the National Police Chiefs’ Council, we have already examined the current guidance it has published, and it is now looking at what guidance it needs. We will also be looking at other issues. For example, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will discuss the issue of the kirpan with the Sikh community and the police. We will consult on and discuss those issues in non-judgmental way. There are a range of issues, but those who have come to speedy judgment need to reflect upon the fact that Governments need to reflect, because Governments and the police provide policy for the long term, not for the moment.

We will come to the Conservatives next. I encourage noble Lords on all sides of the House to keep their questions short so that the Minister has a chance to answer them fully.

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that it is a time for calm heads, but it is also not a time for heads in the sand. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has just outlined, this wicked crime and terrible tragedy has thrown up issues about the conduct of the police and their paranoia on the ground. There is now a substantial 20-year body of scientific research that has established that diversity, equity and inclusion training, and all the training being rolled out by the police, does not work and causes more harm and division. Will the Minister undertake to the House to conduct a proper review of police training and resolve this once and for all?

That is an important point, and I know that the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Government will reflect on the issues of training. However, the police still have a sacred duty to police without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is equal before the law, and that is the promise on which our justice system rests. The equality of the citizen is the foundation of our policing, and we will look at the lessons to be learned. That is not an empty phrase, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, believes it to be; it is a real commitment to examine with the police what has happened and ensure that, when we know the facts from the IOPC, we learn what needs to be remedied, if anything, as a result.

My Lords, I am speaking here in a personal capacity. My condolences go out to Henry Nowak’s family, because what happened to him should never have happened, and the police should be at fault for what happened on that night. When my son was murdered, nobody stood up and asked for judgment to happen for him. On the mere fact that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place can use my son’s name in referring to Reform, it took 20 years and more for anybody to understand the murder of my son and to have anybody convicted. I am really pleased that the Nowak family managed to get those convictions for those who caused the murder of their son. Some in this House talk about race equality. They have no idea what race equality means; it is for those of us who have suffered from it over the years. From my perspective, families have suffered when their son has been murdered, and nobody gives two hoots about them. You can be here, standing in a position of power, and say that you want to change and go back to what it was before but, for me, what we have moved on to is a much better equality for all in this country.

My noble friend speaks with an authority that nobody else in this House can match, given her experience and her understanding of how the Nowak family feel today after the verdict yesterday. I hope she heard my comments, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies: that I believe we need to maintain and retain equality, diversity and an understanding of the impact of those challenges on the police. But that does not mean that we cannot learn lessons about what happened in this instance, which the IOPC will opine on, or that we cannot let the police examine the guidance they issued last year so that we ensure that—this is the key point—everybody in this society is dealt with equally under the law by the police, irrespective of their colour, irrespective of their race and irrespective of their religion. It does not mean that the people who commit the type of offence that has led to this discussion today cannot be held to account, as was the perpetrator in this case, with a life sentence with a 21-year minimum.

My Lords, the point has been made a number of times that the knife was not a kirpan, but is it not entirely possible that police officers who do not necessarily have expert training in what exactly a kirpan looks like may have been less likely to challenge the killer, who was carrying an illegal offensive weapon? So, for clarity, is the Minister saying that this exemption is now being reviewed or not?

It is an offence to have an article with a blade or point in a public place without good reason. One of the good reasons, under legislation passed, is “for religious purposes”. Curved swords over 50 centimetres and zombie-style knives and machetes are prohibited items. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that she will discuss with the Sikh community, the police and other stakeholders the circumstances, post the potential further information coming to light, and the exemptions to date. But the exemptions were given for good reasons, and they have had cross-party support. As I said to the noble Lord, it was not an individual who was a Sikh using a knife for religious purposes; it was a person who was a murderer who used a knife to murder an individual. We should keep that in mind when we reflect upon our discussions.

My Lords, the Home Secretary said yesterday in her Statement in the Commons that she knows that it is

“difficult to wait any longer for answers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/26; col. 1015.]

Why will it take three to four months for this inquiry to take place? These inquiries seem to go on for such a long time, and surely that is a ridiculous amount of time for an inquiry to detail what to look at with this particular incident, which we have seen so graphically and awfully illustrated.

The noble Lord makes the point that we want answers about what happened at the incident in full, as soon as possible. Yesterday, I watched the very painful footage from the body-worn camera, it having been released by Hampshire Police last night. It is appalling and horrific and it is of great concern. However, I have not been party yet to what happened prior to that camera footage. I do not know what happened with the call centre or what advice was given during the travel. The IOPC needs to look into that matter and I expect it to produce a report as soon as possible, to give a definitive view of the performance of the police and any back-up to that police force in relation to what happened, as we have seen on camera. That may take time, but I want it to be done as quickly as possible for the family and for the wider community. It is important that we reflect on that in a measured way, as I have tried to say, to ensure that the issues that arise from the incident, and from the conviction of that murder and sentencing, are fully considered by both government and police, and indeed the wider community.