Kenneth Clarke prepares for ‘enforced retirement’ following cat spat with May

Justice secretary unlikely to survive next reshuffle as No 10 backs home secretary in fall out over Human Rights Act Kenneth Clarke is bracing himself for an enforced retirement from the cabinet after Downing Street reacted furiously to his accusation that Theresa May gave a “laughable, childlike” example in criticising the Human Rights Act at this week’s Tory party conference. David Cameron is assessing whether to clear out the bulk of Clarke’s Ministry of Justice in a long-awaited reshuffle, after what No 10 regards as a series of blunders. The reshuffle was due in the spring but there was speculation that the shakeup, which will see the departure of the justice ministers Crispin Blunt and Jonathan Djanogly over separate mistakes, could come as early as next month. Clarke annoyed Cameron for the second time in a week yesterday when he appeared to raise the stakes in his dispute with No 10 and May over the Human Rights Act. In an interview with the Nottingham Post, the local newspaper in his Rushcliffe constituency, he launched a fresh attack on the home secretary over her claim that a man had been able to avoid deportation because he owned a cat. The justice secretary, who had mocked May at the Tory conference on Tuesday, said: “I sat and listened to Theresa’s speech, and I’ll have to be very polite to Theresa when I meet her – but in my opinion she should really address her researchers and advisers very severely for assuring her that a complete nonsense example in her speech was true. “I’m not going to stand there and say in my private opinion this is a terrible thing and we ought to get rid of the Human Rights Act. It’s not only the judges that all get furious when the home secretary makes a parody of a court judgment – our commission, who are helping us form our view on this, are not going to be entertained by laughable, child-like examples being given.” In further remarks on the website of the Nottingham Post’s political editor, Joe Watts, Clarke said: “I expect I will have to wear body armour the next time I meet Theresa. She was at the thing I was at last night, but I thought it was too soon to go over and greet her and say: ‘It wasn’t my fault.’” No 10, which strongly supported May’s speech and feared the justice secretary was opening a second front, asked Clarke to explain himself. Clarke told them he had given the interview in Manchester, a few hours before Cameron’s speech to the conference. In a statement released at lunchtime, Clarke said: “This is old news from an interview I gave during the conference. I consider this issue closed. “The prime minister has made the position clear, and I fully support it. There is a problem with deporting foreign prisoners, which I have always agreed with Theresa needs to be addressed. The government’s commission on a bill of rights is under way. I do rather regret the colourful language I used at one point in my interview.” No 10 thought the statement would close down the affair. But officials had failed to spot that Clarke and May were due to attend a ministerial meeting on trade. When they were spotted entering No 10, rumours appeared on Twitter that they had been summoned to No 10 for a dressing down. The two ministers made a point of talking in a friendly way as they left No 10 together. Downing Street regards Clarke’s public mocking of May as unacceptable behaviour towards a cabinet colleague. There is particular anger as it was the only divisive moment during the Tory conference. Friends of Clarke, 71, accept that he may struggle to remain in the cabinet when the prime minister carries out his reshuffle. They acknowledge the PM will be able to argue that a graceful retirement is the right option for the MP who entered parliament when Cameron was three years old. The Ministry of Justice could see the departure of three of its ministers. Blunt is being lined up for the sack after a row last summer over parties for prisoners. Djanogly has annoyed No 10 over the handling of his business affairs. But Clarke is adamant that he is right in his criticisms of May. He cites a statement by the judicial communications office on Tuesday, issued with the full authority of the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, which said the Home Office was wrong. The original immigration ruling makes clear the judge considered the dying father of the Bolivian student’s partner far more important than their joint ownership of Maya the cat in deciding the case. The officially unreported judgment which emerged on Thursdayreveals that the unnamed student, aged 33, had been living in a “strong relationship” for four years with his gay partner who is settled in Britain. It is also shows that the senior immigration judge, JR Devittie, regarded evidence from friends and his partner’s brothers to the strong quality of their relationship as “persuasive and telling”. The original ruling shows that the student had entered Britain legally but overstayed his visa and was issued with a removal notice after being arrested for shoplifting. He was never charged with the offence. The detailed ruling makes clear that the evidence about the cat was only introduced by a witness. While sources close to May have been keen to stress this reference to the cat, they have not quoted the judge’s conclusion that the evidence from friends, relatives and photographs of family occasions had “amply demonstrated” the quality and strength of their relationship: “The evidence shows that the appellant is well integrated into the larger family his partner has with his siblings and parents. He attends family functions with his partner and is regarded as a member of the family.” He also rejected the Home Office’s contention that they could both simply go and live in Bolivia, pointing out that would not be reasonable given that his partner’s father was ‘in a condition that he was not expected to recover from’ and the family, including the Bolivian student had collectively decided to support him. The Home Office appealed Devittie’s decision claiming it had placed “an inappropriate weight on the Bolivian student having to leave behind not only his partner but also his joint cat.” The appeal judge, senior immigration judge Gleeson, does not seem to have taken this seriously and says that the Home Office claim that Devittie had made a mistake in law by applying a policy that had already been withdrawn was more significant. When the case was heard on 1 December 2008 Gleeson dismissed the appeal saying the immigration authorities had overlooked their own procedures for dealing with unmarried partners of a person present or settled in the UK. But even this judge couldn’t resist a parting shot: “The immigration judge’s determination is upheld and the cat need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice.” Kenneth Clarke Theresa May Conservatives Human Rights Act Human rights Immigration and asylum Conservative conference 2011 Nicholas Watt Alan Travis guardian.co.uk

Posted by on October 6, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.