Retirement of the Clerk of the House

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and to say a few words on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this House about Sir David Natzler, a man whose contribution will be enormously missed; he has been an exceptionally distinguished holder of a distinguished office.

As others have said, he entered the House service in 1975, and in 1981 he assumed the office of Clerk of Select Committees, where the early decades of his career were spent. His influence there is to be seen in the way in which the Select Committees have grown in stature as part of the operation of this House. It is difficult to remember now that in 1979 they were something of a radical novelty.

As a Minister and Chief Whip for my party and the former coalition Government, I often had recourse to seek procedural advice from him and his predecessor Lord Lisvane. Sir David’s advice was always everything we would expect from the Clerks’ office: candid, independent, trustworthy and always rooted in an understanding of, and respect for, the rules that govern this House. He understood that for the House to perform its functions as it ought to, it had to have respect for its own rules; indeed, if we do not respect our own rules, how can we expect others to respect the rules we make for them?

Sir David was, however, an enormously approachable figure in what is otherwise a very magisterial office. He was always willing to offer Members of Parliament a way to save themselves if they only had the wit and humility to take it. Indeed, humility was just one of the considerable attributes he brought to the role of Clerk, as seen when he was prepared to acknowledge previous failings that he and all of us have had in how we have carried out our business in the past. That was not easy, I am certain, but it was very necessary, and the fact that he was able to do it with style and gravitas says a lot about the man.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

As Mr Speaker alluded to earlier, many years ago now, he and the Chairman of Ways and Means and I served on the Trade and Industry Committee with Sir David and one thing always stands out in my mind about the Clerk of the House: anyone might have thought he was a bit of a Scotsman because he was certainly very frugal, to say the least, about expenditure and paying expenses. Gordon Brown always liked to talk about prudence, and I often wondered whether they came out of the same nest. Nevertheless, he often gave me good advice and he will be badly missed in this House; it will probably be a long time before we see his like again.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sure that is the case, and the hon. Gentleman tees up my next thought perfectly. I have been moved to consider what makes a good Clerk. I am sure that there are many qualities and influences that one must bring to bear, but when I consider those who served as Clerk in my time in this House, I think of Sir William McKay, Sir Malcom Jack, the now Lord Lisvane and Sir David himself, and in the lives of two of them, Sir William McKay and Sir David, there have been strong Presbyterian influences. The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), referred to Sir David’s membership and regular attendance at the Church of Scotland congregation in Pont Street, and it strikes me that to be a Presbyterian often puts one in a place where one has to be close to the establishment and to authority, and to understand it, but not necessarily be part of it. I do not think it would come as a surprise to any of us in these challenging times to think that anyone holding the office of Clerk of the House of Commons might have cause to have recourse to prayer, and I have mused whether in those moments of prayer in the magnificent surroundings of St Columba’s, Pont Street, Sir David was seeking guidance from the Almighty or offering advice. Fortunately and happily, that is known only to Sir David and the Almighty. I venture the thought that of course offering advice to an omnipotent deity should not be undertaken lightly, as one risks incurring the wrath of God. I am sure if that were ever to be the case, Sir David would be able to meet the wrath of God with the good humour, equanimity and aplomb we would all expect from a man of his knowledge and experience.

I had always thought that Sir David had never offered an opinion with which I could disagree, but ahead of today’s debate, I made the mistake of putting his name into Google, and I found an article on the website of the constitution unit of University College London where he is quoted, I hope correctly, as saying,

“most members of the UK parliament do not come to Westminster expressly to legislate, but to support their parties.”

From that one sentence, it is clear that Sir David’s considerable experience has been gained in the Clerks’ office and never in the Whips Office. Now that perhaps his time might permit it, as Liberal Democrat Chief Whip I would be more than happy to offer him a work experience placement in our Whips Office for him to gain a slightly more rounded experience of how this place works. There is one further interesting sentence in that article:

“Natzler concluded with a suggestion for future research on rebellious opposition backbenchers.”

I am not entirely sure why he restricted that to Opposition Back Benchers, but there is clearly a rich vein of future research and discourse to be had here.

Sir David leaves Parliament with an enormous wealth of knowledge and experience acquired over many years of distinguished service. I hope that last sentence from the UCL website is an indication that this is not an end of his engagement with our Parliament and politics. He has had a long and distinguished service in this House, and I am sure all in this House hope he will have a long and distinguished retirement.