Ex-Permanent secretary brands Government’s asylum plans ‘unspeakably cruel’ and says measures more about ‘grabbling headlines’ than tackling Channel crisis

• Sir David Normington said reforms are about ‘grabbing headlines’ over the crisis 
• Comes amid concern over attacks on asylum plan from civil servants and others 
• Sir David claims that the Illegal Migration Bill has ‘little chance of success’ 

A former Home Office mandarin has attacked the Government’s asylum reforms as ‘unspeakably cruel’.

Sir David Normington, who was permanent secretary of the department from 2006 until 2010, said the package of measures was more about ‘grabbing headlines’ than tackling the Channel crisis.

His intervention comes amid growing concern over attacks on the asylum plan from the so-called ‘Blob’, comprising civil servants and other agitators.

The Illegal Migration Bill, published on Tuesday, has ‘little chance of success’, Sir David wrote in a letter to the Times.

‘Unless this Bill acts as a deterrent (which seems unlikely), I fear the prospect is for more arrivals, ever-growing backlogs, crowded detention centres, endless legal challenges and further damage to our international reputation – not to mention unspeakable cruelty to those people who are genuinely looking to the UK as a place of refuge from oppression and persecution,’ he added.

Sir David Normington (pictured) said the package of measures was more about ‘grabbing headlines’ than tackling the Channel crisis

READ MORE: How Suella Braverman’s new Illegal Migration Bill will work… and which measures might fall foul of ‘the Blob’ 

Previous attempts to solve the Channel crisis have been blocked by ‘Establishment forces’, Home Secretary Suella Braverman (pictured) says

‘In my day in government that would have been more than enough to stop a policy in its tracks.

‘Hence I can only conclude that this is more about grabbing headlines and talking tough than it is about stopping the boats.’

Sir David, 72, was the Home Office’s top civil servant when it was famously declared ‘not fit for purpose’ by then home secretary John Reid in 2006.

The following year the department was overhauled and radically slimmed down, losing its responsibilities for prisons and probation to the newly-created Ministry of Justice.

The Mail reported yesterday THU how Home Office civil servants lodged a flood of complaints about Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s new asylum policy.

One anonymous worker said in an internal online session that they were ’embarrassed and ashamed’ of measures, while another suggested they breached international law.

In another anonymous remark, a staff member said they were struggling to balance ‘my own personal ethical convictions’ with the Home Secretary’s ‘rhetoric and policies’.

Under the Civil Service Code government workers are required to remain impartial.

It sets out that they must ‘serve the government, whatever its political persuasion’ and not allow their ‘personal political views’ to influence their work.

There was also a row this week over an email sent to Conservative supporters under Mrs Braverman’s name which said an ‘activist blob of left-wing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour Party’ had ‘blocked’ previous attempts to grapple with illegal immigration. 

Sir David, 72, (pictured) was the Home Office’s top civil servant when it was famously declared ‘not fit for purpose’ by then home secretary John Reid in 2006.

The Mail reported yesterday THU how Home Office civil servants lodged a flood of complaints about Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s (pictured) new asylum policy

The email, from Conservative Central Office (CCHQ), was resent five minutes later with the passage removed.

But the leader of one civil service trade union accused the Home Secretary of a ‘cowardly attack’ and demanded an apology.

Downing Street said Mrs Braverman ‘did not see, sign off or sanction’ the email and said procedures would be reviewed at CCHQ,

Yesterday THU Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s official spokesman, said the email ‘was not signed off by the Home Secretary’.

He added: ‘It doesn’t represent her views and certainly does not represent the views of the Prime Minister.’

Source: Read Full Article