SHORT of tumbrils and the Army taking over the TV station, it is hard to tell when a revolution has happened in a country like the UK with no single written constitution. But at the weekend, when I briefly and mistakenly heard that David Frost was to become the new Secretary of the Cabinet, I had an uncomfortable glimpse of something revolutionary in the air – and not in a good way. Its immediate threat may have gone, but some of the implications are still hanging.
First, Mr Frost as the National Security Adviser. This is a far less serious matter than his becoming Cabinet Secretary. It has few, if any, constitutional implications. I worked for a previous incumbent for a couple of years. It is an extremely important role but, as its name suggests, it is primarily advisory – and also a kind of personal envoy from the Prime Minister to counterparts overseas. That could be work for a trusted political appointee.
READ MORE: Agenda: Proposed new law could make JK Rowling a criminal
Is it a good appointment? That is a more subjective question, and less fundamental. Mr Frost’s predecessors have been very senior diplomats, with deep grounding across Britain’s foreign policy and security concerns – former heads of the Diplomatic Service, Ambassadors in Washington, Paris, Permanent Representatives in Brussels, both to the EU and to Nato. Some have done more than one of these big jobs, in wide, senior international careers.
Mr Frost is able and, importantly, has the Prime Minister’s confidence. But his diplomatic career culminated in the important, but not central, ambassadorship to Denmark. He then ran the important, but not central, Scotch Whisky Association, and was special advisor to Mr Johnson, as a Foreign Secretary who earned mixed reviews. Judging Mr Frost’s role as chief Brexit negotiator may be premature. But it is odd, after the justified criticism of Sir Mark Sedwill’s being both Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser, that Mr Frost should have to combine the climax of Brexit negotiations with whatever Middle Eastern politics, for instance, or terrorism, may serve up in the coming months.
Choosing the new Cabinet Secretary matters more. Britain won’t acquire a written constitution any time soon. Much therefore depends on working through complex but broadly respected conventions. Over the last 100 years, as government has grown, so has the Cabinet Secretary’s role as a constitutional guardian. He – no “she” yet – advises the Prime Minister on constitutional issues and questions of propriety, as well as maintaining the good order of Cabinet business and co-ordinating departments. Often, though not always, he has been Head of the Civil Service too.
READ MORE: Agenda: How to overcome the challenge of online studying
There is therefore good reason for the common background of most Cabinet Secretaries to include formative service in the Treasury, and senior, repeated exposure to No10, often as Private Secretary to one or more Prime Ministers. They know about Parliament, the economy, cross-Whitehall management, and political and media realities. With a mainly diplomatic background, Mark Sedwill has lacked his predecessors’ grounding in our curious constitution: this must have been a challenge. Even if those appointing his successor want a revolution in Whitehall, it would be good if he or she thoroughly understands the constitutional arrangements to be overhauled, within which crises are bound to happen. Not least, in an increasingly scandal-prone world, the Cabinet Secretary should have a neutral authority to make judgments on erring ministers and officials that command respect across the political and public scene. Let’s hope these are the aims.
George Fergusson is a retired senior diplomat
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel