Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 8 Jul 2026 · 22 speeches · Official Report
Commons Urgent Question
The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 6 July.
“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 for ever 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”.
My Lords, when this Urgent Question was asked by my honourable friend Katie Lam in the other place on Monday, the Minister responding, Alex Norris, said: “I could not be clearer that all options are on the table at this stage ”.-[ Official Report , Commons, 6/7/26; col. 28.] With respect, the only option that should be on the table is the deportation of Shabir Ahmed. There is no justification whatever for him to remain in the country after the despicable crimes he has committed. If the Government say that they cannot deport him because of the law then they must change the law. The Opposition have said we will support that change, so why will the Government not commit to bringing forward the necessary amendment to the Immigration Act 1971 as a matter of urgency?
The crimes which led to the imprisonment of the individual concerned were despicable and horrendous. I say again to the noble Lord that we are urgently looking at these matters and will bring potential urgent action on them. We are examining this in detail and nothing is ruled out at all. I will keep the noble Lord updated on this matter. It is not acceptable that this individual is protected. For information, in the last 12 months we have deported 187 foreign national offenders for rape offences and 392 foreign national offenders for sexual offences. However, as the noble Lord mentioned, the 1971 Act places a restriction on this individual, and we are urgently examining that issue.
My Lords, this case arises from one of the most despicable and notorious failures of local agencies to protect local vulnerable girls. Can the Minister tell the House what specific lessons have been learned from the original Rochdale investigation? How have those lessons now been built into national policing guidance on grooming gangs? How will the Minister ensure that the guidance on grooming gangs now with police will be applied consistently across the UK?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Self-evidently, there are a number of lessons to be learned. That is why we have established the grooming gangs inquiry, currently operating under the auspices of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield. There are a number of lessons to be learned on this matter. We want to ensure that we take action to give guidance to the police and help prevent future victims. In this case, it should be remembered that of the individuals who were participating in this grooming gang, Mr Ahmed was deprived of his citizenship in 2016, and of the eight gang members in total one was deported to Afghanistan and one was deported to Pakistan, two are British and therefore exempt from deportation but have faced the penalty of prison, one left the UK last year clandestinely, and the final three have been deprived of their British citizenship and have deportation orders in place. We are working speedily to make sure that those individuals face further justice.
My Lords, I wholly agree with the point that has been raised around this case. It truly is a despicable case. Yesterday in the Chamber, I raised comments regarding the Government’s position on early release. This is not in isolation. Thousands of victims-women and young girls-are now left in the most awful situation due to the proposals of this Government on early release. Can the Minister tell us, yes or no, whether rapists will be part of the early release scheme that the Government are about to bring in?
I told the noble Baroness yesterday, but will repeat it today, that those who are convicted of serious offences will not be considered under the early release scheme. I could not have been clearer yesterday and cannot be clearer today. The early release scheme details will be brought forward in due course. It is the intention of the Government to protect the public while dealing with a prisoner backlog in prisons, which, with due respect to the noble Baroness, lies at the door of the previous Conservative Government.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, talked about lessons learned from the original case, but are there lessons to be learned about the release process and the way in which this individual’s immigration status was flagged up to the authorities at an early stage? I have the impression that the Government were slightly blindsided by this case. Frankly, that should not have been the case. It should have been clear earlier on from the file which no doubt follows the individual around the prison system.
My noble friend asks me about the individual’s management within the prison system, which is a Ministry of Justice responsibility. The individual is on the sex offenders register for life, has been ordered to stay away from victims, is banned from contact with any child or young person, faces strict curfews and restriction zones, and is required to wear an electronic tag. Should he breach his conditions, he will be immediately returned to prison. As I have said in response to other questions, we are urgently examining all options. Nothing is ruled out in the response regarding the deportation. Sadly, the deportation issue relates to the 1971 Act, which was a long time ago, under the Government of Ted Heath. There are Members in this House-I am looking at one now-who were Members of Parliament at that time. It is a long time ago, but we need to examine how we ensure that individuals who have been convicted and face deportation do face the consequences of their actions.
My Lords, the Minister has been commendably robust and consistent on this. There are reports in the media today that the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is bringing forward legislation. Can he be more precise on the expected timescale to expedite that legislation? Is his department having discussions with the Government of Pakistan on the issuance of visas? The Pakistani Government have issued a number of, frankly, unnecessarily intemperate comments about colonialism over what is essentially one of their own citizens.
We are in discussion with the Pakistan Government at all times. I hope that the noble Lord and the House understand that we keep all options under review and will take whatever action is required to ensure that we deal with this issue. I am not in a position today to answer the points that he has mentioned, but can reaffirm that we keep all options under review.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it appears that the said gentleman, Shabir Ahmed, has ripped up his Pakistan passport and claims to be without a state at the moment. That is an issue that has not yet been addressed. The issue of the law, the Immigration Act 1971, could simply be addressed in the Government’s legislation before both Houses. Is that not an option?
I am going to sound like a broken record: we keep all options under review. If the noble Baroness will listen to what I have said, we keep all options under review and will take whatever action is required. I cannot further update the House at this moment, except to say that point.
My Lords, at lot of the attention at the moment is rightly on Shabir Ahmed, but there are two other individuals who are facing deportation. Is the Minister able to update the House on whether there are any obstacles to their deportation from this country? Are they in a similar situation to Shabir Ahmed or is it more straightforward?
If it were straightforward, we would have, as the noble Lord will know, dealt with the matter in a way that met the objectives that the House is pressing me to meet. There are three British citizens who have had their citizenship deprived. They have deportations in place and we are in discussions with the authorities in Pakistan to make sure that they can be deported. We will keep all options under review, to make sure that we achieve that objective. If the House will bear with me, that is as far as I can go today, but I hope the House has heard the meaning behind the words that I am saying.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a country that prides itself on keeping the rule of law and on the fact that nobody is above the law cannot hastily amend legislation which goes back to 1971? Such a country has to look at all the processes. Does he agree that it is time that he and the Attorney-General appoint somebody to go through all old legislation where we find ourselves caught up because it is the law?
I am grateful for the noble and right reverend Lord’s comments. The legislation in 1971 was put in place for a proper purpose, and that was to secure the rights of Commonwealth citizens to remain in the United Kingdom. That is a positive purpose. Part of the challenge for the Windrush generation has been a consequence of the avoidance of dealing with that in a proper way. That does not mean to say that, ultimately, the Government cannot then examine legislation when serious offences have occurred, such as those for which Mr Ahmed has been imprisoned. If that legislation is causing challenges in how we can deal with that individual, we need to examine those issues. As I have said to the noble Lords opposite, we are keeping all those matters under review. I will report back to the House as soon as possible on any outcome of that review.