Quote Originally Posted by ronaldo7 View Post
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
You've quoted the BBC. Is this a true story, or has she misled, again?
There was a piece on 'PM' on Radio 4 this afternoon which featured input from a couple of former senior Home Office civil servants.

The business case for destroying documentation was signed-off under Labour. The operational decision to go ahead happened under the Coalition.

What came across as being overlooked was that the destruction was of a far greater volume of official documents and records, not just the landing cards. This passed the 'common sense' test for me, as there are vast swathes of hard-copy documentation that would have been destroyed over time and when the work was carried out, it would make sense to batch it as large as possible due to the costs.

All the former secretaries of state at the Home Office have denied knowledge or said they have no recollection of signing off on the decision. One of the civil servants on R4 said that at some point an immigration minister (usually Minister of State level) must have had some sign-off. From memory of the programme, Phil Woolas (Lab) and Damian Green (Con) were the MoSes at that time. Neither had made a statement when 'PM' was broadcast but that may have changed by now. I suppose the question is which of them, if not both, had involvement and when.

What was also interesting was some analysis by 'PM''s political editor. He stated that he thought Amber Rudd would and should be safe - she wasn't around at the time of the destruction and didn't feel she was vulnerable about how Government has responded to events. He did make the point however that there would be elements within the Tories who would use this to try and weaken her position, as Rudd is the most senior Conservative who is out-and-out opposed to hard Brexit and a target for the full-on Leavers.