AMBER Rudd has suggested she was the victim of a dirty tricks campaign after a Whitehall report said she was failed by her officials during the row over immigration policy, which led to her resignation as Home Secretary.

The senior Tory quit the Cabinet after she "inadvertently misled" the Commons Home Affairs Committee over targets for the removal of illegal immigrants.

But the report into the row found officials repeatedly gave her wrong information and then failed to clear up the problem in time to allow her to correct the record.

Ms Rudd said: "There are elements of this report which just show that, unfortunately, that area of the department did not have a grip on what was going on.

"I hope that there will be changes made as a result of this report so that people get a better service from Immigration Enforcement."

On BBC Radio 4's Today programme, she questioned why the report had been "sat on for nearly six months" and claimed she had been targeted by a series of leaks while she was Home Secretary.

"There were a series of leaks during the past year at quite a high level that were definitely intended to embarrass me," she claimed.

The report, itself leaked to The Times, could clear the way for Theresa May to promote the Hastings and Rye MP back into the Cabinet; Ms Rudd said it was now "up to the Prime Minister" whether she returned to the front bench. It is thought she would like to return to the Government frontline. When asked if she wanted to return to Cabinet, she replied she was “not without ambition”.

The internal report reveals she asked officials for advice on targets before her ill-fated appearance at the Home Affairs Committee in April at the height of the scandal over the treatment of the Windrush generation.

The report, written by Sir Alex Allan, the Prime Minister's independent adviser on ministerial standards, says "crossed wires" contributed to Ms Rudd's downfall.

It states she "was not supported as she should have been" by her officials before, during and after the committee appearance on April 25.

"In preparations immediately before the hearing, the Home Secretary asked: 'Are there removals targets?' and was told 'No'. This led to her denial in the hearing," writes Sir Alex in an executive summary.

Sir Alex adds: "I cannot establish how she was given this reply: the most likely explanation is crossed wires between her special adviser and her private office."

Ms Rudd told the Commons committee that the Home Office did not have targets for removals.

The following day, however, she returned to the House to admit that Immigration Enforcement managers did use "local targets" and a memo later emerged referring to a target for enforced returns and progress towards a 10 per cent increase "which we promised the Home Secretary earlier this year".

Sir Alex wrote that following the then Home Secretary's answers at the committee there were "confused email exchanges trying to establish the position on targets".

"The Home Secretary [was] never provided with a briefing that might have allowed [her] to put the correct position on the record," the report said.

The report singles out for criticism the "less than satisfactory performance" of Hugh Ind, the then Director-General for Immigration Enforcement, who has since moved to a different role in Whitehall.

Meanwhile, a Downing Street spokeswoman told a Westminster briefing that the report had "raised some difficult and important issues" but insisted Theresa May did not believe civil servants were acting against ministers.

She explained: "The Home Office have rightly said they will learn from them and the Prime Minister will expect them to do that."

The spokeswoman went on: "There was an investigation into this. It was published today. It deals with a specific set of circumstances involving a small number of individuals.

"There is nothing to suggest such issues are widespread across either the department, civil service, and the Home Office will now learn from these issues."

Asked if Mrs May would like to see Ms Rudd back in government, the spokeswoman replied: "That would be a decision for the Prime Minister in the future."