Bid to defend May undermined by email leak

An attempt by British Prime Minister Theresa May’s one-time closest adviser to defend her record on immigration backfired after emails seen by Bloomberg appeared to contradict his account of a controversial project.

May has had to apologise after the Government admitted it had wrongly told elderly immigrants from former British colonies that they had no right to be in the country, threatening them with deportation, denying them medical treatment and putting some in prison. As Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016, May advocated a policy of creating what she called a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants.

In an effort to support May, Nick Timothy — who was her adviser at the Home Office and then her co-chief of staff until last year’s election — wrote an article in the Telegraph yesterday explaining her immigration policy. In it, he said that one of the most criticised projects as Home Secretary had gone ahead without her knowledge or approval.

In 2013, her department launched “Operation Vaken”, aimed at encouraging illegal immigrants to leave the country voluntarily. Vans drove around racially diverse parts of London with the message “Go Home Or Face Arrest”. There were posters and newspaper ads as well.

Timothy said May had opposed Operation Vaken and blocked it, only for it to be approved while she was on holiday. “She killed off the scheme later that year,” he wrote.

Home Office emails from 2013 seen by Bloomberg show that on March 4 that year, four months before the vans were sent out, both May’s office and her special advisers, who at the time included Timothy, were sent plans for Operation Vaken, including images for the publicity. On March 13, May’s private secretary at the time, Matthew Bligh, replied, summarising the comments of ministers in the department. May’s only objection at that point was that it might look too soft on illegal immigrants.

“The Home Secretary has commented that it is right to advertise enforcement action but we should not be advertising that we will pay people to leave, which is the effect of the proposed advertisements,” he wrote. “Please can officials consider how the material can be revised to get the messaging right and not expose the Agency to criticism for giving taxpayers’ money to illegal migrants?”