Chris Grayling’s charmed life threatens ministerial accountability

This week, Chris Grayling went global. The beleaguered Transport Secretary, who has presided over a series of botched projects and expensive failures during his eight years in office, was the subject of an unflattering profile in the New York Times. The hashtag #FailingGrayling was trending on Twitter. Yet still there is no sign that his job is under threat. Grayling’s charmed life must not set a precedent that undermines ministerial accountability.

Grayling has a record of expensive failures

Grayling’s ministerial record is dismal. He recently hit the headlines when a contract for moving freight that he awarded to a start-up ferry company with no ferries was cancelled. The lack of ferries was the least of the problems. The Department for Transport rushed through the procurement process, against official legal advice, and failed to carry out its due diligence, awarding contracts to companies that failed to meet their own criteria. The company’s main apparent backer promptly pulled out, leading to the department cancelling the contract. DfT has since had to pay out £33 million to Eurotunnel, which operates a competing freight route, to avoid a court case over a contract award which appears to have broken EU procurement regulations.

The ferry contract is not even Grayling’s most significant failure. In 2013, he rushed through the contracting out of all probation services for medium and low-risk offenders in England and Wales. Again he ignored warnings, this time from across the sector. Five years on, the outsourcing of probation appears to have failed. Out of 21 companies, 19 have not met their re-offending targets. The last eight inspections have rated providers to be inadequate and several have been found to be unsafe – meaning freshly released prisoners are not being provided with proper rehabilitation services.

Last summer, Grayling oversaw a period of chaos on the railways when timetables were changed, leading to hundreds of thousands of passengers facing delays. He didn’t accept that he was responsible, citing a ‘system problem’.

He also decided to award Carillion a role on a £1.4 billion HS2 contract just days after the contractor had issued a profit warning. Months later, it went into liquidation.

Under a stronger Prime Minister, Grayling would have been fired or resigned long ago

The ministerial code says that ministers are solely accountable to Parliament for the administration of their departments. In principle, ministers are responsible when things go wrong, even if it is not their fault. For instance, in 1982, Lord Carrington resigned as Foreign Secretary after Argentina occupied the Falkland Islands.

Our research showed that while such high standards have not always been met, and what happens in practice has evolved with the creation of 24-hour rolling news, the principle of ministerial responsibility has prevailed. Under New Labour, if a minister garnered unfavourable headlines for more than a few days, he or she was shown the door. Last year Amber Rudd resigned as Home Secretary, having been poorly advised by officials, following two weeks of negative press coverage of the Windrush Scandal.

While ministers must ultimately accept responsibility for errors of judgement, in some cases poor advice from civil servants undermines them. Yet there is little evidence that this explains all the problems that have occurred on Grayling’s watch.

As the New York Times joins in the criticism, he carries on. Perhaps the irremovable Grayling is a lucky man in extraordinary times. He is a high profile Brexit-backing minister in a divided Cabinet, a leading Leave supporter who could prove to be a tricky presence if demoted to the backbenches. Theresa May, whose leadership campaign was run by Grayling, recently insisted that she still has ‘full confidence’ in him.

Chris Grayling’s continuation in office must not set a precedent

It is clear that the Transport Secretary should have appeared repeatedly before Parliament to explain the failures of projects or decisions that are his responsibility. But his continuation in office also sets a dangerous precedent. It appears quite possible that hung parliaments and minority governments will become part of British political life, while both main parties also look set to remain deeply divided for the near future. In such circumstances, prime ministers will no doubt be tempted to avoid any action that could destabilise their governments.

But they must resist the temptation and preserve the principle of ministerial accountability - whatever the circumstances in which they are in power. The survival of the Transport Secretary, a loyal minister who has overseen a litany of expensive failures, flouts the principles that underpin good government and undermines public trust in how public money is spent.

It is often said that all political careers end in failure. In Chris Grayling’s case, a ministerial career of failures never seems to end.