Immigration minister Beverley Hughes resigned yesterday after admitting she knew about a suspected visa scam in eastern Europe. Christen Pears looks at the background to the row which has rocked the Government.

Q How did the row start?

A On March 7, whistleblower Steve Moxon claimed key checks were being waived at the Sheffield office of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

He told the Sunday Times that applications for UK residency by migrants from eight eastern European countries due to join the EU in May had been secretly fast-tracked. He said the process, less rigorous than the normal system for granting British citizenship, was designed to rush through as many applications as possible and make the numbers coming to Britain seem less dramatic when the EU expanded.

Q What happened next?

A Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes ordered an investigation into the allegations and Mr Moxon was suspended.

On March 8, Ms Hughes was forced to admit in the Commons that some checks had been waived but only under the European Community Association Agreement (ECAA) scheme, which applies to prospective business people from the eastern European countries due to join the EU in May. She said this was an attempt by local officials to clear a backlog rather than an attempt to massage the figures.

She faced calls for her resignation but said she was ignorant of Mr Moxon's concerns until they were made public in the press.

She later insisted to a Commons select committee that is was "absurd" to blame her for failure to enforce checks on eastern Europeans, and blamed middle managers and junior staff for "an excess of zeal" which led to the easing of checks on immigrants.

Q Why did the dispute escalate?

A On March 13, The Sunday Time published leaked e-mails suggesting officials were turning a blind eye to bogus students and that sham marriages are ten times the official number. The documents also indicated that the original failings admitted by Ms Hughes were more widespread than she had told MPs.

The Tories accused the Government of "collusion, cover-up, and incompetence", claiming the report was evidence that fast-tracking extended beyond Sheffield and that ministers knew about it. They made fresh calls for Ms Hughes' resignation.

Q How did the Government respond?

A Although the Government admitted some fast-tracking was taking place, they denied it was secret and said the process was similar to measures that had taken place from 1988 onwards under successive home secretaries, including current Tory leader Michael Howard.

An internal inquiry was carried out by senior official Ken Sutton, which cleared Ms Hughes of waiving checks on eastern European migrants in a bid to manipulate immigration figures. It did, however, highlight deficiencies in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Mr Moxon dismissed it as "whitewash" and the Tories repeated their calls for the minister's resignation.

David Blunkett made a spirited defence of his junior minister on Monday, telling the right-wing press they would not claim Ms Hughes scalp. On Tuesday, he suspended business immigration claims from Romania and Bulgaria while investigations were carried out and set up a hotline for whistleblowers.

Q What about the other whistleblower?

A James Cameron, a senior British diplomat in Bucharest, Romania, sent an email to Shadow Home Secretary David Davis on March 8 saying the concerns raised by Mr Moxon were just the "tip of the iceberg". The document was not released until Monday, said Mr Davis, because he had to wait for evidence.

Mr Cameron said immigration checks being waived under the ECAA scheme were also being waived in relation to Romania and Bulgaria, which are not due to join the EU until at least 2007. He also claimed that when British officials in Romania informed the Sheffield Immigration and Nationality Directorate that applications were being made using forged documents, their letters were ignored.

Mr Cameron was interviewed by the Foreign Office last week and suspended from his job. Critics are asking how, if he had already been interviewed, Ms Hughes could deny knowing about his concerns until Monday.

Q Why did Beverley Hughes resign?

A Ministers have been known to get away with incompetence but never misleading people, even if it was unwittingly. Ms Hughes has done exactly that.

The minister had denied any knowledge of wrongdoing or a cover-up throughout the dispute. On Monday she gave an interview to Newsnight in which she said the whistleblower's claims were the first time she had heard about the visa scam claims. She also failed to explain during a Commons debate that she had been warned about problems with immigration from Romania and Bulgaria.

But it has now emerged that the deputy chief whip Bob Ainsworth had written to her about the situation a year ago when he was a Home Office minister.

In his letter, he said officials in Romania and Bulgaria had told him solicitors were providing "pro-forma" business plans to back visa applications. He said the Immigration and Nationality Department approved the applications despite the embassies' concerns.

Ms Hughes replied on March 17, 2003, promising to raise the issue with the immigration department. Another letter, dated April 10, confirmed she was aware of the possible abuses.

None of this emerged during the dispute. In fact, Ms Hughes seems to have forgotten the entire correspondence. A memory lapse perhaps, but certainly not an excuse.

In a personal statement to the House of Commons, she insisted she had "acted properly" at all times but admitted that she may have "unwittingly" given a misleading impression.

Q What happens now?

A The Government is keen to put the row behind them but the Tories have called for an independent inquiry into the scam claims, saying Mr Blunkett must shoulder the blame if any policy errors are discovered.

The spotlight now falls on the Home Secretary, who, on Monday, said he took "ultimate responsibility" for everything that happened in his department and gave his full backing to Ms Hughes. Like Ms Hughes, he has insisted ministers were not aware of the issue.

He described yesterday as the "worst personal day" of his political career, although the Prime Minister's spokesman insisted there was no threat to Mr Blunkett's position, describing him as a "first class Home Secretary".