Has there ever been a Cabinet
minister more inept than Chris Grayling, the leader of the House of Commons? He
is a man who can be utterly relied upon to get things wrong, a man whose lack
of judgement and staggering incompetence defy belief.
John Crace put it perfectly in
Thursday's Guardian: "If there is an argument that cannot be lost, Chris
Grayling has yet to find it. Ask him to prove the Earth revolves around the
sun, and everyone will inevitably end up believing the exact opposite; as an
intellect, he barely registers even at the lower end of the IQ scale. So it can
only be an act of pure sadism on David Cameron’s part that the leader of the
house is invariably left to deal with the problems the rest of the cabinet
don’t have a clue how to solve."
Those words were written after Mr
Grayling's botched response to the House of Lords rebellion against the
government's proposed cuts to tax credits. First he announced that there would
be a "rapid review" into the Lords vote, but then, without pausing to
draw breath, he assured MPs that, oh no, hand on heart, it most certainly would
not be rushed. So, "rapid" as in "not rushed".
There was worse to come. Barely
24 hours later, he was back on his feet in the Commons to complain that
journalists have been misusing the Freedom of Information Act. They have, he
said, been using it as "a research tool to generate stories for the media,
and that is not acceptable."
It is necessary at this point to
take a deep breath, count to ten, sit Mr Grayling down in a comfy chair, and
try to explain. Freedom of information means -- how can I put this? -- that
information should be freely available. That's "freely available" as
in "freely available to everyone." As he himself said, presumably not
comprehending the words he spoke: "It is a legitimate and important tool
for those who want to understand why and how governments make decisions."
Now, why do we think that
journalists might use the act to get hold of information? Might it, just
possibly, be because they think that their readers, listeners and viewers
"want to understand why and how governments make decisions"?
Might it be because journalists
think their readers have a right to know, for example, how much MPs have been
claiming in expenses, and for what? Because as even Mr Grayling must surely
know, that information became available only because journalists claimed their
right to see it under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.
(Brief reminder: in 2008, the
High Court ruled in favour of a Freedom of Information Act application for the
release of the details of MPs' expenses claims. The House of Commons
authorities then announced that certain information deemed
"sensitive" would be removed. In the event, an uncensored copy of the
records was leaked to the Daily Telegraph,
which published them.)
Or, to take another example,
perhaps journalists thought that voters had a right to know that hundreds of
thousands of calls to the 101 police non-emergency number are never answered.
Or that according to a statistical evaluation by the Metropolitan Police, knife
amnesties seem to have no long-term impact on the number of knife crimes
committed. (These examples, and many more, are cited in a BBC analysis of the
impact of the Freedom of Information Act published earlier this year.)
Mr Grayling has form for this
kind of thing. In 2009, he landed himself in hot water by comparing Moss Side
in Manchester to the city of Baltimore as depicted in the TV drama series The Wire. The Manchester Evening News reported: "His comments have sparked
fury in Manchester - not least because all the evidence would suggest that cops
and the community are winning the battle against the gangsters ... In fact,
over the last two years, Greater Manchester Police have recorded the biggest
reduction in gun crime of any force in the country."
In 2010, when he was shadow home
secretary, the Conservative party claimed that violent crime was increasing
throughout Britain. The chairman of the UK statistics authority, Sir Michael
Scholar, was so angry about the misuse of the statistics that he complained to
Mr Grayling by letter: "I must take issue with what you said about violent
crime statistics, which seems to me likely to damage public trust in official
statistics."
In office, as a grossly inept
justice secretary, he introduced a widely condemned ban on books being sent to
prisoners (the ban was overturned with indecent haste as soon as Michael Gove
took over from him after the election last May). He also introduced a mandatory
system of flat-fee court charges for defendants that the president of the Law
Society described as a threat to fair trials.
His cuts to legal aid payments
went down like a lead balloon --
one high-profile fraud case was halted because of what the judge called the
government's “failure to provide the necessary resources to permit a fair trial
to take place”. Five of the defendants were represented by Alex Cameron QC, who
offered his services free of charge. (His younger brother, by the way, is
called David -- yes, that David.)
The decision to halt the trial
was later overturned by the Court of Appeal, but even so, this is not a record
of which any Cabinet minister should be proud. It is a shameful record of
botched decision-making and woeful ignorance that should disqualify anyone from
holding public office. In any other line of business, Mr Grayling would surely
be dismissed for gross incompetence.
So if you have any thoughts about
a job to which he might be better suited, I'd be happy to forward them to
Number 10.