Blunkett accused of lying

David Blunkett was accused of lying tonight over the visa application for his lover's nanny.

Opposition leader Michael Howard said the former home secretary "did not tell the truth" in his version of events.

A report concludes today that the application was fast-tracked despite Mr Blunkett's denials when he was in office. He subsequently resigned when proof in the form of a "killer email" was uncovered by an anti-corruption investigation.

Asked if Mr Blunkett had lied, Mr Howard replied: "Yes, of course." He said it was an example of Tony Blair's "grubby government". His attack came as the report failed to clear Mr Blunkett's name today, putting his hopes of a Cabinet comeback in severe doubt.

The former home secretary was left under a cloud by inquiry chief Sir Alan Budd who ruled it was impossible to establish who was telling the truth in the nannygate affair.

The Budd report found that Mr Blunkett started a "chain of events" that led to a UK visa for his then lover's nanny being rushed through in 52 days, 120 days faster than normal. And although Sir Alan did not support allegations of lies or a cover-up, his 44-page report was riddled with holes where vital Home Office evidence had either gone missing or people said they could not remember what they were told to do.

The gaps included four missing faxes and three phone conversations and an official meeting where no one could recall what was said.

Opposition parties called for a judicial inquiry where witnesses would be called on oath - implying that they did not believe the truth had been told. Damagingly for Mr Blunkett, Sir Alan left an open verdict on whether the minister deliberately ordered the case to be fast-tracked or approved.

He said: "I have not been able to determine whether Mr Blunkett gave any instructions in relation to the case, if so, what they were."

The conclusion fell far short of the not guilty verdict Mr Blunkett had hoped for. And it was in sharp contrast to Mr Blair's claim when he pre-empted the inquiry by saying: "I have no doubt at all that he will be exonerated."

In a new twist, the report revealed that a woman official in Mr Blunkett's office was at the centre of the whole affair. The official, described as his private secretary on immigration issues, was aware of Mr Blunkett's three-year affair with Kimberly Quinn, Sir Alan revealed at a press conference.

Allegations over the visa emerged in the bitter aftermath of the breakup of the relationship between Mrs Quinn and Mr Blunkett.

The woman official was instrumental in chasing up nanny Leon-cia Casalme's visa application yet could not remember who had told her to do so.

She had backed up his original - and wrong - claim to have taken the application form into his office to be read aloud. The Home Office refused to name her this afternoon.

Mr Blunkett quit last week after Sir Alan uncovered emails that proved there was "an intervention" to speed up the nanny's visa, contrary to earlier denials. This afternoon he admitted in a state-ment he had made a series of errors but he insisted: "I have told the truth as I knew it.

But the former minister appeared to change his version of events again. He now says he raised Miss Casalme's case with his officials but only as an example of their failure to clear backlogs.

The Budd report makes clear that officials bent over backwards to rush through the visa after being approached by Mr Blunkett's staff. One official sent an email baldly assuring his office: "Sorted - she has been granted indefinite leave to remain."

The unanswered questions from the report make it highly unlikely that Mr Blunkett can be recalled to the Cabinet.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said this afternoon that there would be new rules drawn up on how ministers should handle cases which are drawn to their attention. Sir Alan's report lays bare a chaotic and confused administration at the Home Office where faxes had gone missing

and conversations and emails were forgotten about by both the minister and his officials.

Sir Alan makes clear he was only able to piece together the evidence by calling a special Security and Anti-Corruption unit to retrieve phone, email and computer file records.

Despite Mr Blunkett's protestations that he never intervened in the nanny's application, Sir Alan says: "I believe that I have been able to establish a chain of events linking Mr Blunkett to the change in the decision in Miss Casalme's application for ILR (indefinite leave to remain)."

Sir Alan describes how Mrs Quinn, in evidence given from her hospital bed, told him that she gave Mr Blunkett a letter sent to the nanny warning that the case could take a year.

According to Mrs Quinn's evidence, Mr Blunkett replied: "Give it to me, I will take care of this." In his own evidence Mr Blunkett initially denied handling the letter but remembered Mrs Quinn had discussed it with him.

The report gives no clear explanation why Mr Blunkett and some of his aides all appeared to "remember" him bringing the application form into the office to be read aloud by an official.

In a baffled and sceptical tone Sir Alan's report states "one might ask why the Home Office appeared to accept the story... when neither Mrs Quinn nor Miss Casalme, when I interviewed them, suggested that this happened".