A week on, and questions are still being asked about why the prime minister returned her after the breach, and whether her own performance on the job had contributed to squalid conditions at an immigration center in Kent. Here’s what we know: Why did he quit in the first place? Ms Braverman was appointed by Liz Truss in September to take over the Home Office after securing some significant support in the summer leadership contest. But her tenure as home secretary ended after she breached security protocols by forwarding an official document to her personal email and then sending it to a fellow MP, mistakenly copying to a parliamentary staffer. The document was a draft written statement on immigration that was deemed highly sensitive as it dealt with immigration rules, which could have significant implications for market-sensitive growth forecasts. Much of the plan had been briefed to MPs, but it was a serious breach of ministerial code on two counts – sharing a statement in advance and sending it from a personal account. Former barrister and ex-attorney-general Ms Braverman agreed to stand down – and then published a scathing resignation letter to Ms Truss in which she hinted the then prime minister should also look at mistakes made during her premiership. Image: Suella Braverman’s resignation letter to Liz truss was dangerous for her government “Pretending we haven’t made mistakes, carrying on as if everyone can’t see we’ve made them, and hoping things turn out right is not serious politics,” he wrote. “I was wrong, I accept responsibility, I resign.” She also used her letter to raise concerns about the government, saying it had “broken key commitments” and that she had “serious concerns” about the government’s commitment to delivering on manifesto commitments, especially on immigration. Reappointment review Mr Sunak’s reappointment of Ms Braverman less than a week later was criticized by opposition MPs and a former security guard. The new prime minister hired her after promising to lead the Conservative Party with “integrity, professionalism and accountability”. But Labor accused him of making a “shameless deal” to ensure the right wing of his party – where Ms Braverman is a key figure – would back him to take Number 10, “trading security for support”. Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper wrote to Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, who found a security breach had occurred, demanding a full investigation. Use Chrome browser for more accessible video player 0:19 Michael Gove has defended Suella Braverman, saying she is a “first-class, pioneering politician” who “recognized that a mistake was made”. And Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Standards in Public Life Commission, said there were questions about whether her appointment was appropriate, especially as the breach was not reviewed by an ethics adviser. “Normally the prime minister would have consulted a cabinet minister for advice,” he said. “Breaching the ministerial code is considered a serious matter and would make any minister an unsuitable appointment to one of the four highest government posts.” However, Mr Sunak stood by the appointment and Cabinet Secretary Michael Gove insisted to Sky News that Ms Braverman was a “first-class, ground-breaking politician” who deserved to return to the Cabinet. On Monday, Ms Braverman sent a lengthy letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee to address issues surrounding her resignation, detailing the timeline of what happened. In it, she revealed that a Home Office review of her communications showed she had sent official documents from her government email to her private one on six occasions in the six weeks she was in the role. “The review confirmed that all of these cases occurred on occasions where I was conducting virtual Home Office meetings or connected public lines to conduct interviews,” he wrote. Liberal Democrat leader Wendy Chamberlain said the home secretary had “admitted breaking the rules on an industrial scale” and “must stand down now”. However, Ms Braverman said that before her re-appointment she “gave assurances to the prime minister” that she would not use her personal email for official business and “confirmed that I understand and abide by the ministerial code”. Chaos Manston While the row rages over whether he should have been returned, another row is brewing over the treatment of people housed at the Manston immigration center in Kent. Last week, a Home Affairs Select Committee heard that conditions at Manston were “deplorable”, with overcrowding, outbreaks of disease and people being held for weeks longer than the intended 24 hours. The home secretary’s decision has now been called into question after a report in The Times claimed she blocked asylum seekers from being transferred to new hotels and ignored legal advice that the government was holding people illegally at the centre. Local Tory MP Sir Roger Gale said the situation at Manston was an “abuse of human conditions”, with the facility housing 4,000 people when it was designed to accommodate only 1,000. Use Chrome browser for more accessible video player 0:28 The Conservative MP for North Thanet, Sir Roger Gale, told Sky News that the situation at the Manston migrant center was a “breach of human conditions”. He said the conditions “were a problem created at the Home Office”, saying that within five weeks the system was “broken – and needs to be fixed quickly”. Sir Roger did not point the finger directly at Ms Braverman, saying “whoever is responsible, whether it is the previous home secretary or him, must be held to account”. However, sources close to her predecessor, Priti Patel, told Sky News that she signed transfers from operating centers to hotels throughout the summer as she was under an obligation to do so. Labour’s Ms Cooper also claimed there had been a “failure to make decisions” within the government causing the problems and that Ms Braverman needed to make a statement. The Home Secretary appeared in the Commons to discuss the issue, as well as the oil bomb attack on a Border Force migrant center on Sunday, which led to more people being taken to Manston. Use Chrome browser for more accessible video player 1:55 Ms Braverman said she is “very serious about ending the scourge of illegal immigration” and fixing “our hopelessly lax asylum system” Ms Braverman insisted she “never ignored legal advice” or prevented people from being sent to hotels. But he said illegal immigration was “out of control” and spoke of an “invasion of our south coast” by small boats. The choice of language was widely criticized, and even Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick rejected it, saying it would “never demonize people who come to this country for a better life”. Rwanda and reducing immigration The home secretary’s return to government has also raised questions about Mr Sunak’s immigration plans and whether he made a deal with her to get her support. He wants to keep net immigration in the “tens of thousands” and wants to reduce overall immigration, as set out in the 2019 Tory manifesto. But Mr Sunak is under pressure from business to ease immigration rules to help fill job vacancies and boost growth. Use Chrome browser for more accessible video player 26:59 Home Sec to make Rwanda plan ‘work’ One of Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s main strategies to restore market confidence is to relax some of these immigration rules so forecasts will make the government hit growth targets. But both Ms Braverman and Mr Sunak are supporters of Rwanda’s policy of deporting Channel migrants to the east African country. Mr Sunak said he would do “whatever it takes” to ensure the program works, while Ms Braverman said it was her “dream” and “obsession” to see the first flight take off for Rwanda. Thousands cross the Channel Pressure is also building on the Home Office to act on the record number of people continuing to cross the channel, with 1,000 arriving on Sunday. The department is already struggling with a backlog of 100,000 asylum applications, with 96% of asylum applications still pending. On Sunday, refugee charities wrote to the home secretary asking the government to create safer routes to the UK as a solution to stop dangerous small boat crossings.