MPs try to block Priti Patel’s pick to scrutinise immigration plans, fearing nominee won’t stand up to her

MPs are trying to block Priti Patel’s pick to scrutinise her immigration policies, fearing he will fail to stand up to her or for Windrush victims.

The nominee to be the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration failed to demonstrate he was up to the job in vetting by the Commons Home Affairs Committee, it said.

Its scathing report says David Neal – from “a military background” – was unable to provide examples of having challenged authority publicly.

The MPs said they were also concerned that Mr Neal would not press for changes demanded by the Lessons Learned Review into the Windrush scandal, by Wendy Williams.

“It is fundamental to the independence of the inspector that he or she is confident to challenge performance publicly, providing accountability and maintaining public confidence in the effectiveness and impartiality of the inspectorate,” the report concludes.

And, on Windrush, it adds: “Mr Neal’s answers initially focused more on the Home Office as a stakeholder than people who are affected by the border and immigration systems.”

The attempted blackballing comes amid growing concern about Ms Patel’s determination to crack down on migrants crossing the Channel, which included threats to call in the Royal Navy.

The Home Secretary also explored sending would-be refugees to a processing centre on remote Ascension Island, in the South Atlantic – and even “floating walls” to push back boats.

Meanwhile, Ms Patel has shelved promises to end the ‘hostile environment’ for immigrants, an “improvement plan” suggesting it will remain in place until at least 2022.

The new document gave no commitment to scrapping any measures, while arguing action had already been taken to ensure such a scandal “never happens again”.

“We were unable to support the recommendation of Mr Neal as the preferred candidate for the particular role of Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration,” the report states.

The committee acknowledges that Ms Patel can overrule its recommendation, which she is almost certain to do.

It blames her for putting Mr Neal “in an unfair and difficult position by a recruitment process which we believe was insufficiently robust”.

Its concerns were raised last year but “although the recruitment deadline was extended, only four candidates were judged worthy of interview and two found to be appointable”.

That “suggests possible weaknesses in the Home Office’s advertisement and recruitment strategy”, it said, with understatement.

Mr Neal has worked in military police support to NATO, before becoming an Army Provost Marshal and then as an adviser to Blackstone Security Consultancy.