Tributes: Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow three such speeches. The cries of dismay that greeted the Lord Speaker’s sad news of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, were as loud on our Benches as anywhere else in the House, having, as we do, so many of his friends and colleagues from the legal world, Whitehall, Scotland and the House in general. On his ennoblement in 1979, he chose as his motto “manu justi”: by the hand of a just man. We have heard much of the relevance of this choice so far, and I will return to it.

I want to reflect on Lord Mackay’s 15 years as Lord Clerk Register, the oldest remaining great office of state in Scotland. This was originally a post connected with Scotland’s records, and he was therefore one of the four commissioners of the regalia of Scotland. On behalf of the Crown, they were responsible for looking after, among other things, the Stone of Scone. The stone was originally taken from Scone Palace, which is by Perth, in 1296. In 1996, thanks to the efforts of the Lord Speaker, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, it made it back as far as Edinburgh Castle.

Around the time of Covid, the commissioners of the regalia had to consider whether the stone would be moved from Edinburgh to Perth. I was the chairman of the relevant museum in Perth. The four commissioners consisted of three judges and Nicola Sturgeon, and they were in receipt of a tremendous amount of incredibly technical advice concerning security, conditions of light and humidity, historical context and so on—the fog of a difficult case. James stopped me one evening in the House and asked a simple question: how much would it cost to see the stone in Perth? I said it would be free. “It’s rather expensive in Edinburgh at the moment at £17”, he remarked. He had no other questions; he had cleared the fog and, shortly after, the commissioners, under his gentle and persuasive skills, reached their decision.

About a year after the stone had arrived at the new museum in Perth, I saw James at an event in Scotland and went to say hello. He immediately asked me what had happened to the stone in its first year. I told him that more than 250,000 people had come: a high multiple over the previous Edinburgh numbers. His eyes naturally sparkled and his smile broadened—an example of “manu justi”.

I was going to add one other anecdote from this House, but unfortunately it has already been given. I remember sitting next to a Conservative Minister at the Long Table and him telling me that the most scary part of being a Minister in the Chamber was not the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, getting up—he is not in his place now—or the Lord Speaker getting up in days of yore. It was the gnarled hand coming over the Bench when you knew that you had no satisfactory answer to whatever the question would be—that hand, of course, being the hand of the just man, the “manu justi”.

I end with one very simple other thing. When Mrs Thatcher offered James the role of Lord Chancellor, he told her that he was not a Conservative and it would not be appropriate. She replied, “Don’t be silly”.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, from these Benches we echo the condolences and comments of the previous speakers. They have spoken so eloquently. Lord Mackay was kind, welcoming and generous in this House, and we on these Benches have been very grateful over the years for his gentle but persuasive advice and support.

A strict Sabbatarian and teetotaller in the best traditions of the Scottish Reformation, as we have heard, he would regularly refuse to work, travel or even give interviews that might be broadcast on a Sunday. He would regularly worship at the Free Presbyterian Church in Inverness, where he also served as an elder, and at All Souls Langham Place in my previous diocese of London.

Lord Mackay was a firm believer in moderation. At a gathering of the Faculty of Advocates, he had laid on a spread of tea and toast, complete with a tiny pot of honey. One of the lawyers in attendance contemplated the pot and remarked, “I see your Lordship keeps a bee”.

Lord Mackay was a great supporter of the Scottish Bible Society and was its honorary president until his death, championing the Bible and the role it played in forming our laws, behaviours and society. He even went as far as publishing a booklet which he distributed to Scottish lawyers, describing the Bible as the foundational sourcebook for the Scottish legal system. His legal mind was second to none, and he demonstrated a deep respect for the distinct traditions of Scottish and English law and the constitution.

Regarding the constitution, Lord Mackay would often refer to the biblical stories of Daniel and Esther, to the phrase “It is all about the law of the Medes and Persians”, and to the irrevocable and binding nature of a decree from a King. It was not just his knowledge of the constitution and its operation but his ability to sum up complex arguments that was impressive. Many of us will know, having done that, that it is not an easy task.

I note that Lord Hacking, in a debate on the Seafarers’ Wages Bill in 2022, revealed to the House that, in 1990, Lord Mackay had the rare honour of being one of the few people other than a Bishop to read Prayers in the House as the Bishop had been delayed.

Lord Mackay’s love of the highlands was legendary. He was never happier than when he was back in Inverness, but he was equally at home in London, where, until quite recently, he could be seen walking to the House from his home in the Temple, refusing all offers of assistance or a lift.

We keep Lord Mackay’s family and friends in our prayers. I will finish by using the words from the Church of Scotland’s burial service. We give thanks to God, through His son Jesus Christ, that for Lord Mackay all sorrows are ended, that death itself is past and that he has entered into the rest that remaineth assured for God’s people. We join these prayers with the assurance of God’s presence, that it will remain with Lord Mackay, his family and friends, in their loss and comfort. Amen.

[Noble Lords]

Amen.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

No.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. Those of us on these Benches are clear that we support the inclusion of wider faith representatives in your Lordships’ House. Since before the Wakeham commission, we have favoured wider representation. Many of us work alongside different faith leaders and we know well the expertise that they can bring. In past submissions to this House, the Church of England has offered to work with the appointments commission on how representatives from other denominations and faiths might be identified to serve here. However, this is not straightforward. For example, Roman Catholic clergy are prohibited by the Vatican from serving on legislatures, and it is not easy to find representative leaders among diverse bodies such as Churches or other faith groups. This would require serious discernment, more than is offered by Amendment 109.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that I am the only Member of the House, except for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who was here in 1999 for the first expulsion—

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Hope. We on these Benches welcome this Bill and, as we have already heard, so does the Church of Scotland.

The Columba declaration was signed in 2016 between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, which means we work closely together in mutual respect and appreciation. We are both established churches of this United Kingdom, though how the establishment is manifested in our national life is, of course, different.

We have heard that the Bill will amend the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which still prohibits Roman Catholics from holding the role of the Lord High Commissioner. Given the prohibition does not exist for those with other faith or belief, or for those of no faith, this is a welcome and long overdue change. Indeed, previous officeholders have been Episcopalians, Free Church and from other Christian denominations, so this Bill will remove a legal discrimination that is no longer relevant or required. That it is long overdue for repeal is obvious by the fact that I believe its continuing effect came as a surprise to those making the most recent appointment, so the speed at which this short and straightforward Bill needs to go through is both understandable and entirely justified.

As we have heard, Lady Elish has already contributed significantly to Scottish national life and is clearly well qualified. On these Benches, we support this important change to ensure that the role of the Lord High Commissioner can function as it needs to and to remove a long-standing prohibition whose time is long past.

Defence and Security

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments and his support for the additional funding. I think our reputation is enhanced because we are, by having additional spending on defence, standing up to Russian aggression and making that very clear. They are difficult choices; I do not shy away from that at all. That is why we are saying how we will manage the cuts in ODA at this time. It is not a permanent cut; the legislation remains in place and we wish to return to that.

There is a trade-off between diplomacy, aid—I do not always like to use the term “aid”, because in many cases it is not aid but support—development and defence. At this time, the threat is such and the moment is such—it is a generational shift—that we are focusing on the defence budget. We will be informed on how that is used by the strategic defence review. As I have said to noble Lords already, we will also look at the areas that will be protected in the ODA budget. The work of the Government goes on in working with those countries to ensure that we become a force for good and take a leadership role in those areas.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests: I am the chair of Christian Aid. I am very privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, because I think we need to reject this false choice between defence spending and development spending. They are not competing priorities. This is not just about reputation. Properly used development funding helps to prevent conflict. It tackles instability and provides a greater and more just world. We have heard the concern that cutting aid in this way risks exacerbating instability and leads to conflict. Will the Government not just make an assessment of the outcomes of this cut in funding but make a proper assessment about the risk of increased insecurity, instability and conflict as a result of the cut?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for her comments. She asked how the assessment will be made. It will be made on the overall outcomes of the impact that the cut will have and how best to ensure that the best use of the money is being made. We are still talking about £9 billion of international aid, which will go into a range of projects. Between now and 2027 there is an opportunity to look at that, and the FCDO is actively undertaking that work at the moment. She is right; these are difficult and hard decisions that must be made, but we have to ensure that we stand to protect the nation and the safety and security of our citizens and those in other countries.