Windrush scandal: Amber Rudd says parts of Home Office ‘did not have a grip’ on immigration policy

Ex-home secretary quit the cabinet in April after she ‘inadvertently misled’ the Home Affairs committee over the existence of targets for deporting illegal immigrants

Amber Rudd has said parts of the Home Office “did not have a grip” on immigration policy after a probe found she was failed by officials in the Windrush row, which prompted her resignation.

The ex-home secretary quit in April after she “inadvertently misled” the Home Affairs committee by saying targets for deporting illegal immigrants did not exist.

A report has now found Ms Rudd was badly briefed by her senior civil servants before, during and after the committee meeting, and they failed to assist her to correct the record in time.

The row came out of the Windrush scandal, in which hundreds of Commonwealth nationals were wrongly threatened with deportation and deprived of medical care as they lacked the correct documentation.

Ms Rudd was forced to step down over the row but the report by Sir Alex Allan, the prime minister’s adviser on ministerial standards, could pave the way for her return to front-line politics.

The Tory MP told the Radio 4 Today programme: “There are elements of this report which just show that, unfortunately, that area of the department did not have a grip on what was going on.

“I hope that there will be changes made as a result of this report so that people get a better service from Immigration Enforcement.”

Ms Rudd questioned why the report had been “sat on for nearly six months”. She added: “There were a series of leaks during the past year at quite a high level that were definitely intended to embarrass me.”

The document, obtained by The Times, reveals she asked officials for advice on targets before the committee appearance that cost her the frontbench role.

It said “crossed wires” contributed to Ms Rudd’s downfall and she was “was not supported as she should have been” by her officials.

“In preparations immediately before the hearing, the home secretary asked, ‘Are there removals targets?’ and was told ‘No’. This led to her denial in the hearing,” said Sir Alex.

He added: “I cannot establish how she was given this reply: the most likely explanation is crossed wires between her special adviser and her private office.”

Ms Rudd initially told the Home Affairs Committee that the Home Office did not have targets for removals but the following day she admitted that there were “local targets”.

A memo later emerged referring to a target for enforced returns and progress towards a 10 per cent increase “which we promised the Home Secretary earlier this year”.

Sir Alex wrote that following Ms Rudd’s answers to the committee there were “confused email exchanges trying to establish the position on targets”.

“The home secretary (was) never provided with a briefing that might have allowed (her) to put the correct position on the record,” the report said.

The report noted the “less than satisfactory performance” of then director-general for immigration enforcement Hugh Ind, who has since moved to a different role in Whitehall.