Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

Debate between Alex Norris and Katie Lam

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

(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.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)]

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.

[Katie Lam]

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.

[Alex Norris]

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.

Asylum Accommodation

Debate between Alex Norris and Katie Lam

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, which confirms what we have suspected since last week: this Government are planning to put more illegal migrants into sites across the country.

Some of those sites are due to host illegal migrants until 2030, yet the Government did not think that it was worth alerting the hon. Members who represent those communities and live nearby ahead of the announcement in the press. Rather than subjecting the plans to proper scrutiny here in Parliament, the Government tried to sneak the news out quietly before the weekend, without discussion here in this place by those people’s democratically elected representatives. That is exactly the same playbook that the Government have tried to use in places like Inverness where, thanks to the work of the Conservative group on the Highland council, the Home Office’s plans to house illegal migrants at Cameron barracks were blocked.

We have seen in far too many cases the risk that illegal migrants, most of them young men, pose to the public, particularly to women and children. If the Government are planning to force communities to live alongside people who have shown complete contempt for our laws and norms by the very act of coming here illegally, the least that they can do is to allow those plans to be subject to proper scrutiny.

Now that we finally have an opportunity to scrutinise the plans, we can perhaps see why the Government were so keen to hide them. For all the talk of smashing the gangs, they reveal that this Government do not have any faith in their own ability to fix the problem. If they are so sure that they are ending illegal channel crossings, why are the Government making plans to host illegal migrants in this country until 2030? What does that tell us about their confidence in their own approach?

The truth is that this Government have no intention of fixing the problem: they care only about managing people’s perceptions of it. While they talk up the reduction in illegal migrants living in hotels, they conveniently leave out the fact that thousands more migrants are being housed in so-called dispersal accommodation: homes in the middle of our towns and cities where illegal migrants pose an even greater risk to the public.

Since the last election, 75,000 people have crossed the channel. In the past few weeks alone, 3,000 have made the crossing. For all the Government’s talk of removals, nearly all of them—some 93%—are being allowed to stay. The Minister boasts about a reduction in outstanding decisions, but they have achieved that reduction by granting asylum to thousands upon thousands of illegal migrants.

The Minister said in his statement that to stop the use of asylum hotels for good

“we must go further, and that means scaling up our use of larger, more basic facilities.”

He is right that the Government must go further to stop the use of asylum hotels for good, but he is utterly wrong that the problem is solved by instead spending huge resources to create other places to live for those who arrive here illegally.

As Conversative Members have made clear time and again, the only real solution to the crisis at our border is to remove illegal migrants as soon as they arrive. People must know that if they try to break our laws, they cannot stay. For it to be possible to remove people as soon as they arrive, we must leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights that prevents us from doing so, but the Government refuse to recognise that. They are in hock to activist lawyers in this country and unaccountable judges in Strasbourg, and keeping those people happy takes precedence over keeping the British people safe and delivering on their democratic will.

The plans before us are another sorry example of that. More illegal migrants will enter the endless cycle of appeals and legal challenges, allowing them to stay here for years at the taxpayer’s expense. More people will be put at risk because of these plans and because of the Government’s unwillingness truly to solve this problem for good.

[Alex Norris]

We see the contrast there clearly. While the Government have a serious plan on how to accommodate a significant number of people and change that reality, the hon. Lady offers just “Hail Marys” and long shots. Her colleagues had 14 years, but sat through them and did not make any of those decisions. It is hard to believe.

The hon. Lady started by asking why, and that is a very important point, because these sites are part of our theory of change. At the moment, the traffickers say, “Come to the UK. Live in a hotel. You will be able to work illegally, dead easily.” We have to change that reality if we want to reduce pull factors. This plan does so; it says, “You will not live in a hotel. You may well live on a military site.” That is about reducing numbers and reducing the impact on the British taxpayer, and that is the right thing to do.

The hon. Lady mentioned dispersal accommodation. The previous statistics release in May shows a 32% reduction in the number of people in hotels, but there was a reduction of less than 1% in the number of people in dispersal accommodation, so the reality is not quite as she put it. On decision making, she knows that the grant rate has not changed significantly at all, so I simply cannot accept her case that by making more decisions we are letting more people through.

The reality is that we have a choice between another hopeful attempt at culture war by an Opposition who have no ideas, and a serious plan to reduce numbers. Let us face it: asylum applications are three times what they would have been 10 years ago. From us, it is serious action; from the Opposition, it is empty calories.

Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Alex Norris and Katie Lam

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 General Committees

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman has occupied his second position in about three minutes, so perhaps he needs a little more time. But I cannot get with the argument that because the numbers may be small—of course that is a good thing—the situation is in some way tolerable. The numbers who commit crime across the population are, mercifully, small, but we still seek to prosecute; we still seek punishment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that unimportant. If something happened in his constituency—despite that very small number of people, a significant crime could take place or illegal working could have an impact on the local economy—the people of Dundee might feel strongly about that. I think that they would.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, talked about this measure not being enough to provide discouragement. She also talked about scale and suggested that what we know is only a small part of the issue. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, the extra powers, particularly on the gig economy, to ensure that those substituting their labour are doing so to people who have a genuine right to work, are a step change in the regulatory regime in this country. They will help us to close the gap and make it very hard indeed to work illegally here.

The hon. Member also said that meaningful change is impossible without leaving the ECHR. I always caution colleagues about being quick to discount things that provide a really important underpinning of rights, because they are our rights too. “Restoring Order and Control”, our document published in November, is the biggest reform of our asylum system certainly in my adult lifetime—probably in my whole lifetime, to be fair. That is all doable within our international obligations. The reality is that the alternative to doing those serious things is just ripping up our international obligations and then spending years trying to work out how to get back return agreements with other countries, never mind our own freedoms.

[Katie Lam]

Could the Minister give us a quantitative way in which we can judge whether that has been a success, so that we can decide whether further steps need to be taken? How many people coming here illegally would he be able to tolerate—would enable him to decide that actually that is okay?

[Alex Norris]

I gently say that I do not think it is my test. The public are very clear about what they think about the system: the system lacks order and control. The test by which we judge our efforts is whether we bring order and control to the system, and that is what we are doing.

That allows me to segue nicely to what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking, said about a credible plan; that is the plan, as he well knows, given that he was part of those deliberations and has been on many occasions. He talked about the appeals backlog—a very important point. I gently say that that is a sign of a system that we are getting to grips with. He will know—indeed, I think I have heard him talk about this before—that the original sin, particularly in relation to hotel capacity, comes from the backlog in initial decision making from when the previous Government just stopped making decisions. As a result, a huge backlog built up. I am very pleased that, as a Government, we have been able to get through that backlog.

The hon. Member has talked about this before, and I listened carefully to what he said about Nightingale-style decision making. I gently say that we do not need to do that, because of the decisions that have been made at a quicker rate, without affecting the grant rate but with better and improving quality. That of course creates pressures on the appeal system while that cohort of people move through it. That is not a forever thing, although I recognise it. He talks about a plan; he will have seen what we have said about appeals reform. I hope that he and his colleagues will feel able to support that in due course.

The hon. Member also talked about knock-on effects on others. I am particularly mindful of local government; he knows my passion for local government. The intention of this measure is not to shift the burden from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or to councils. Indeed, he will have seen our plans to reduce homelessness, in respect of which we are a significant stakeholder. Of course we are mindful of those effects. I argue that the article 3 backstop in relation to destitution should give him—I hope it does—a degree of confidence that that is not going to happen.

The point about a right to work is one of principled disagreement between us. My strong view is that, if we know that traffickers are saying, “Come to the UK—you will be housed in a hotel and allowed to work illegally”, simply changing the reality so that the people can work legally would be an intolerable pull factor. However, to help close that gap there is the right to work at 12 months, so the gap is not so big. The hon. Gentleman suggested around six months. I do not know if he would go any further, but he certainly mentioned six in his contribution.

With regards to important questions around slavery, the hon. Member mentioned that he does not quite understand the definition of “deliberate”. I do not think people will be accidentally working illegally, but I accept they could be compelled to. That is why we have modern slavery protections through the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We of course take that exceptionally seriously. That vulnerable group of people will not be affected by these provisions.

The hon. Member gave me a slightly impossible challenge by asking me what I will do to make sure that a future Government who do not currently exist do not do something that he and I would not want. I kind of get that, but, as many people have said in this room over the centuries, one Government cannot bind the hands of a future Government. There is a reality there. That is why we have elections and we seek to continue in Government. However, at least in most cases, we have a backstop—we have an article 3 backstop and a refugee convention backstop—that gives universal protections irrespective of the Government of the day. Those principles are of course contested, although not by us, but I hope the hon. Member is reassured that the backstop exists.

The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee Central, spoke at great length about a world that I did not quite recognise, and which I have to say is not in anything we are preparing here. I say gently to him that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where human traffickers have the most agency and people routinely lose their lives in the channel, and that is before any sort of transit effects—never mind the impact on the women and children in that transit. If that was a challenge about where I sit on the political spectrum, there was language in what he said I would not recognise.

This is a hopelessly broken system; there is nothing progressive about defending it, which is why we are seeking to change it. The hon. Member set out quite a dystopian vision, but I gently say that for around six years of our nation’s history, between 1999 and 2005, we relied on the power rather than the duty. I was at school at the time and remember those days only tangentially, but it was not exactly a dystopian past, so I do not recognise what he said.

The hon. Member said that the support we have today should be a floor, not a ceiling. I have not heard from Scottish nationalist colleagues—even, I suspect, as a feature of the current election in Scotland—a suggestion of what services or public investments they would cut in order to top this up, and in what way. I hope that he will be out making the case for that on the doorstep as soon as possible, and at least quantify what we should stop doing, so that we can do more on this.

The hon. Member also mentioned destitution. Again, I would rely on the article 3 backstop on that. He talked about a “straw man”, but that is not in the nature of my politics. I reassure him that this is a genuine attempt to grip a system that does not work. We have had lots of debates in the Chamber on the other things we are doing; this is a serious attempt to grasp a serious problem. It is a good thing that the level of offending is mercifully low, but we want that level to be nil, as that is a fair balance with the taxpayer. That is why we are doing what we are doing.

The hon. Member for Fylde asked what side we are on—left or right? I am on the side of the British people. That is the reason why I am here. It is why I stood for my council. It is why I stood for Parliament and why I wanted to be a Government Minister.

Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition

Debate between Alex Norris and Katie Lam

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

Again, I am afraid I cannot pre-empt what the Home Secretary is about to say, but the hon. Lady will have the chance to put that point to her soon. In our community strategy and our attempts to ensure that communities are resilient ones where people can live together in harmony, we are of course considering what was said in Dame Sara Khan’s review, and one of the underlying causes that she raised concerns about was austerity. We need to make sure that we have well-resourced public services. We also need to ensure that people do not feel that there is any division in the allocation of resources that is in some way targeted against them. We know that that should never be the case and would never be the case, so of course we are considering that as part of our communities work.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The independent review of Prevent, the Government programme that tries to stop people being radicalised by extremist views, said on its very first page that

“the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues.”

The last Government knew this to be true. Do this Government?

[Alex Norris]

This Government have taken on the independent review of Prevent, and 33 of its 34 recommendations have been implemented. We are engaged in the counter-extremism sprint, and our counter-extremism strategy will flow from it. The hon. Lady will have a chance to see that.