PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation - 6 July 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether the Government are planning to change the law to deport Rochdale grooming gang leader, Shabir Ahmed.

I will start where any discussion of this nature must always start: with the victims. Over the years, they were subjected to unspeakable crimes, exploited and abused by vile predators and woefully let down by the agencies charged with protecting them. I know that the House will join me in saying that they are in our thoughts today and always.

The grooming gangs scandal was and will forever be one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history. I know that for those affected, it will have been unbelievably painful to learn that one of the perpetrators was due for release from prison. Having been convicted in 2012, Shabir Ahmed has served the custodial element of his sentence. He is on the sex offenders register for life, ordered to stay away from his victims, and banned from contacting any child or young person. As well as strict curfews and restriction zones on him, his every movement will be tracked, and he will be required to wear an electronic tag. Should he breach those conditions, he can be immediately returned to prison.

Shabir Ahmed held British citizenship at the time of these offences, and action was taken to deprive him of that right, reflecting the seriousness of his offences. Having arrived in the UK before 1971, he is exempt from deportation due to section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971, which preserved the rights of Commonwealth and Irish citizens who were already in the UK when the Act took effect on 1 January 1973. That is not a loophole; the provisions of section 7 were put in place to protect the existing rights of an identified cadre of Commonwealth citizens, most notably the Windrush generation. However, when a foreign national breaks the laws of this land, our first priority will always be to get them out of the UK.

Under this Government, removals of foreign national offenders are up 36%, with nearly 10,000 returned since we entered office. The fact that that has not so far been possible for an individual responsible for such heinous crimes as Shabir Ahmed’s is unacceptable. I can assure the House that we have not given up, and we will not. While the original intentions of the legislation in question mean that we ought to proceed with care, the nature of the offending in this case demands that we explore all options, and that is what we are doing. In the meantime, we will of course do everything in our power to keep the public safe.

Shabir Ahmed has committed some of the most despicable crimes imaginable. As the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, he was responsible for grooming, trafficking and raping children as young as 12 years old. He was jailed in 2012 for 30 counts of child rape. His victims were promised that when he got out of prison, he would be deported back to Pakistan. He has been released from prison, but now we are told that he will not be deported because of a provision in the 1971 Immigration Act. The idea that he might be allowed to stay in this country because of a clause in a decades-old law designed for a completely different time and context is not just absurd, but sickening. As recently as 2023, parole officers concluded that Ahmed posed a

“very high risk of serious harm”

to children. How can he possibly be allowed to walk the streets again?

When the law produces an outcome that is clearly so wrong, the law must be changed. The Government must now change this law to make sure that we can remove Ahmed. Conservative Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have made it clear that, if the Home Secretary puts forward changes to the law that would allow us to deport Shabir Ahmed, we will support them. The shadow Home Secretary has already drafted an amendment that the Government could adopt. The argument for deporting Ahmed is clear, and the mechanism has already been created. All that remains in question is whether the Government have the will to act. If so, we will be happy to support them. If they do not, people across this country will rightly ask, as they are already asking, whether this is a Government that can really keep the British people safe.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and subsequent follow-up. I share her anger, and I share her concern at the anger of the British people, who rightly expect that, when foreign offenders break our laws, they should be removed from our country. That is why we have made removals to the degree that we have. I will look closely, as we always do, at all amendments and new clauses to legislation put forward by the Opposition and by all hon. and right hon. colleagues, or at other ideas as they come forward. As I say, in this context I could not be clearer that all options are on the table at this stage.

I might gently say that there was a significant period of time between that conviction and the change of Government in which those changes were not brought forward, including by some individuals I expect to be co-signatories to the amendment. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and the spirit in which the hon. Lady offers support is welcome. The public will want to see Parliament come together to ensure that, in cases where people commit really serious crimes, we are able to remove them from the country.

Shabir Ahmed and his co-offenders committed grave crimes that shook and angered the country. His victims and survivors are foremost in our minds today and they deserve justice. There are two aspects to deportation: first, getting our own legal house in order, and secondly, securing an agreement with Pakistan. On the first, once Shabir Ahmed was deprived of his British citizenship, it would have become apparent that the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 would create a barrier to deportation. Given where we are now, can the Minister ensure that all options will be on the table, including on Monday when the Immigration and Asylum Bill comes before the House? Secondly, can he update the House on what conversations are taking place with Pakistan?

I have known my hon. Friend for a very long time. He is resolute on this issue and fights day by day to protect his constituents in Oldham, and his contribution was in that spirit. I can confirm that all options are on the table. I share his anger and the anger of his community.

I have personally engaged with the Government of Pakistan in recent months; we engage with them frequently. It is in all our interests for us to have excellent, functional returns agreements with as many countries as possible. All the work that we do is in that spirit.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

My thoughts are with the victims and survivors, who have already suffered unbelievable harm and trauma. They have been failed at every stage, and they deserve better. It is completely unacceptable that someone who has been convicted of such vile offences, and who has rightly been stripped of his British citizenship, cannot be deported because of what I believe is a loophole in the law. It was not intended back in 1971 that the law should protect people like this, and the law must be rectified as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government will bring forward the necessary changes, and whether they have set a deadline for doing so? What progress has been made in discussions with Pakistan to ensure that this offender is deported?

I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman puts his question. I can only rely on what I have said so far: we are highly motivated in this case, and all options are on the table. I appreciate that pace is important, particularly for public confidence—we understand that totally.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), we engage frequently with Pakistan. That is an important relationship for us, and we will continue to engage with Pakistan in the normal way.

The past week has been profoundly difficult for constituents in the communities I represent—communities that still bear the scars that Shabir Ahmed inflicted from takeaways in Heywood. Over the past week, I have spoken with the family members of one of his victims; they are understandably fearful and deeply let down by his release. For my constituents, any right that he had to walk our streets was forfeited when he committed those vile crimes. What reassurances can the Minister give to my constituents that nothing is off the table when it comes to the consequences faced by Shabir Ahmed and those who abuse children?

A great many people across Lancashire and Greater Manchester will have the same feelings as my hon. Friend’s constituents. I give a clear assurance that very, very stringent conditions have been placed on this individual. If he breaches them, that would be very serious and would mean he would be eligible to return to prison. That is taken exceptionally seriously. I hear the spirit in which she asks the question, and that is the spirit in which the Government are working.

I cannot quite believe the words that I am hearing from the Minister. He says that all options are on the table, but the only option that the Government should be considering is deportation. He has the ability to bring through emergency legislation, which I am sure would get the backing of both sides of the House, to ensure that Shabir Ahmed is deported. When will he bring forward such legislation, so that we in this House can vote on it and ensure that this individual, who has committed heinous crimes across Rochdale, is deported?

The hon. Gentleman is an esteemed member of the Home Affairs Committee, so he knows that deportations are multifactorial; they involve barriers in our own domestic laws, perhaps barriers in other laws, and our returns agreements around the world. He has heard, from me, the spirit in which we are operating. I can only say again that all those options are on the table. He raises important ways of proceeding, but it is never quite as easy as he suggests. I know his motivations, which I share, and I am sure that at the right moment he will be keen to support us in our work.

Shabir Ahmed is a dangerous, manipulative paedophile whose sickening crimes are a damning indictment of the public authorities’ failure to adequately protect the victims of Rochdale grooming gang. Does the Minister agree that, now that we have a new Immigration and Asylum Bill, this House has the power to change the law so that child rapists like Ahmed are deported back to Pakistan? Does he also agree that, as he hinted, that is just the first step towards pulling every legal, diplomatic and economic lever to ensure that Pakistan takes back those who have committed gross abuse in our country?

I am grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend. He has raised this issue since his first day in this place, with myself, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and many others. He makes an important point about possible legislative vehicles. We are looking at all those options, as I have said to him. Similarly, he raises the important issue of how we work with countries that we remove individuals to. Again, I give him my total assurance that we work with returning countries day in, day out to ensure that they take back their foreign offenders.

Is it true that the diplomats in the Foreign Office who deal with Pakistan are part of the obstacle to getting rid of this loathsome individual? Does the Minister agree that it is long overdue that the moral courage—indeed, heroism—of former Labour MP Ann Cryer, who first exposed this horrendous abuse, is properly and officially recognised?

I would not normally comment on the specific details of conversations across Government, but I must simply say that that is not true; the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of diplomats in the Foreign Office is not my experience to any degree. The point about recognition is, of course, for others with more exalted office than myself, but I think he makes a very good suggestion.

We cannot call ourselves a civilised society while Shabir Ahmed is walking the streets of this country. I agree with the thrust of the question by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), but surely there is another approach to get him off the streets of our country: to put him back in prison and change the law that reduces the tariff for uncivilised wretches like him, so he can be put straight back in prison?

In this case, the sentence that this heinous individual received had an auto release at two thirds, which means that legally he cannot be detained any more. But, as I say, the licence conditions are exceptionally strong, and therefore there is a route to recall if they are not properly followed. I point to the changes that this Parliament has made in recent months with the Sentencing Act 2026: we have made grooming an aggravating factor, so that vile criminals face being locked up for longer for this type of offence, in exactly the spirit in which my hon. Friend speaks.

Will the Minister commit to reviewing every case where an individual has been stripped of his British citizenship on public protection grounds but remains in Britain because deportation has failed, and will he tell the House how many such people there are?

In this situation, there are no other people. I say to the hon. Lady that we are resolute in pursuing the removal of foreign offenders. Where there are hurdles, either legally or with the country of return, we work every day to overcome them, so of course we will work in that spirit.

Shabir Ahmed’s crimes are the worst imaginable, and we are all just horrified to learn that he has now been released. As the Government look at every option to remove this vile individual, can the Minister confirm when he expects to bring forward those options and legal solutions to this situation?

I appreciate that my hon. Friend, and indeed all hon. colleagues, are keen for a defined timeline. What matters and is hugely important in this case is that, whatever option is taken forward, it resolves the situation and it sticks. It is right, therefore, that we take the time to get it right—but, as I say, we are working at pace, because we totally understand the seriousness of this case.

I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, and he has adopted the tone of the House, which is united on tackling this issue; but there is clearly a lacuna in the law as it stands. It will take time, however fast the Government work, to get that change on the statute books. In the interim, is the Minister prepared to use sanctions against Pakistan to ensure the deportation of this grievous individual?

It is important to say that in this case, the barrier to removal—the initial and currently unmoved barrier to removal—is section 7 of the 1971 Act. That has to be resolved, so I would not run to the second part of that question. Our returns agreement with Pakistan last year returned 1,300 people who had no right to be here, including sex offenders. We want to work closely with the Government of Pakistan to remove people with no right to be here, and that is what we are doing.

Shabir Ahmed is a vile criminal, and the British public rightly want to see him deported. Does the Minister agree that where the law does not allow us to do so, we should change it, and that we should redouble efforts to secure returns agreements with countries like Pakistan?

On the second part, I absolutely agree. I want returns agreements with everybody and, critically, I want them to be functioning. Where they are not, we should have conversations with those countries to ensure that they do function and that they follow up on the things they said they would do.

On the first part, I share the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. It is important that people understand that there are legal hurdles in many cases in all walks of life, and legal protections are important, but it should be understood that Parliament is sovereign and that when we think that things are wrong, we can make changes—sometimes, very healthily in a democracy, on points of significant disagreement and division, or often in cases where we agree too. We have the ability to do that, and that is one of the options on the table.

Earlier this year I asked the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box about the case of Fabian Henry, a child rapist who was removed from a deportation flight in 2021 after the Home Secretary herself, then in opposition, signed a letter calling for the removal of people from that flight. Last October, I also asked the Minister for an update on Fabian Henry and whether he was still in the country, and he refused to tell me based on the fact that the Home Office does not comment on individual cases. Given that Fabian Henry could be removed from the country under current legislation in the UK Borders Act 2007, what confidence should any of us or any of the victims of Shabir Ahmed have that the Government are going to change the law in order to facilitate his deportation?

Fundamentally, when it comes to options that we take forward, it will be for the public to assess whether or not they think we are doing the right thing and for us to demonstrate that we are. On that specific case, as I think the hon. Gentleman would understand, there are important safeguards around the information that we would share, particularly around victims first, but we can, with constituency MP and victim consent, share some of that information. Let me pursue that with the hon. Gentleman outside these proceedings, because I want him to have the fullest information impossible so he can see, as would be my contention to all colleagues, just how vigorously we pursue removals of foreign criminals.

Some crimes are so despicable and some individuals so evil that they forfeit their rights and their protections, and we must change the law to ensure that they are never afforded them. Is not the law change required here to ensure that no individual can ever again be released unless the very next day they are being deported from this country?

I hear the spirit and strength with which my hon. Friend, who represents Hartlepool, speaks. I think we have demonstrated the strength of the Government’s ability to remove people and remove them in significant numbers. As I say, this case clearly has legislative hurdles. All options are on the table, and I ask him and colleagues to give us a little bit of time to consider them and to come forward with plans.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) on securing this urgent question and thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it, because Shabir Ahmed is a vile individual and his continued presence at liberty on our streets is an affront to every single value that we hold dear. The Minister has come here and said that all options are on the table, but he has also said he needs to tread carefully. The people of Spelthorne, who have been talking to me about this all weekend, do not want him to tread carefully; they want him to pull on his hobnail boots and frogmarch Shabir Ahmed to the airport today.

I am grateful for that question and know that the people of Spelthorne, like the people of Nottingham, are very sensible people. What I would say is that the hon. Gentleman has heard about the interaction of section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 with the rights of a wide range of Commonwealth citizens, and we know where that can end if done badly. In that context, he will want us to do things right, because when anything could happen in this space, he would want to know that the action taken has been legally considered properly and, as I have said to colleagues, is robust. That is why all options are on the table, and I ask just for that little bit of time in order for us to come forward with plans.

It is my view that Shabir Ahmed, a vile paedophile, signed up for a one-way ticket out of this country on the very day that he started committing his vile crimes. I thank the Minister for his statement setting out that he will stop at nothing to see him deported, but is it not also the case that this situation demonstrates the importance of the Government’s ability to deprive individuals of British citizenship, notwithstanding that that must always be done with the utmost care and with proper scrutiny?

My hon. Friend raises a characteristically thoughtful point. The ability to deprive individuals of British citizenship—the ultimate foundational right shared collectively by people across the country—is a significant step and a crucial tool in our armoury to ensure people who come to this country and commit crimes here are removable. That is really important and something that we take exceptionally seriously.

My thoughts are with the victims and survivors of Shabir Ahmed and the Rochdale grooming gang. The Minister has always been clear that removing foreign national offenders is a priority for him, the Home Secretary and this Government. Will he update the House on what more the Home Office is doing to speed up these removals?

We have made significant progress, removing nearly 10,000 foreign offenders since we took office. As we said in our asylum policy statement in November, and as reflected in the legislation that we brought forward last week, there are hurdles that are used to frustrate removal, be they abusing crucial protections from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 or the gaming of article 8 of the ECHR that goes far wider than Strasbourg case law. That is why we have brought forward legislation to ensure we are able to remove people who forfeit their right to be in the country.

I know the wisdom of the people of Harlow: they are tolerant and respect people from all over the world and from all backgrounds, whether they are 500th-generation Harlow, like my hon. Friend, or have arrived more recently. They know that when people commit crimes and abuse that status then, of course, they should be removed. We have made significant progress during our time in office and there will be more progress made through our recent legislation so that we can go further. I look forward to his support and the support of colleagues.