Tributes: Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to add a few words about the truly remarkable way that Lord Mackay performed his duties to the House and the stamina that he exhibited.

Three things were different in Lord Mackay’s day. First, when you looked to the Woolsack, you would see him in his day dress of the full-bottomed wig, the stockings and buckled shoes which he wore every day.

Our timings were different. It was quite usual for the House to sit after 11 pm—indeed, it was not unusual to sit after midnight. I am recorded in Hansard speaking on the Scotland Bill at 2.30 am, but Lord Mackay was always there. He regarded it as his duty to remain on the Woolsack whenever the House sat and for how long it sat.

There was no team of Deputy Chairmen in his day. I think there was one person who could take Lord Mackay’s place when it was necessary, but that team did not exist. The rota of leaving the Woolsack from time to time was not there. I remember one day he sat there for eight hours in an important debate with only 20 minutes’ difference. The stamina he exhibited was quite extraordinary. I never heard him complain. It was his sense of duty that kept him going, and it was a truly remarkable performance.

There were three turns of events in Lord Mackay’s life which made all the difference. First, shortly before he was approached to be Lord Advocate, he had been offered and had accepted the position as a judge in Scotland. The Labour Lord Advocate who gave him that offer began to realise that Labour was going to lose the election, as indeed it did. He said to James, “I’m sorry, I’ve changed my mind”, and all the excitement of the offer of a place on the Bench disappeared overnight and James was very much taken aback. However, because he was not a judge and had not accepted that offer, he was available when Mrs Thatcher approached him and said, “Dean of Faculty, I need your help”, because the other candidate for Lord Advocate was not suitable. It was his five years as Lord Advocate that really cemented his relationship with Mrs Thatcher, which led ultimately to his appointment when Lord Havers fell ill, sadly, as Lord Chancellor. These were three events that all turned out in James’s favour. He was fortunate but, indeed, we were so fortunate too.

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

My Lords, I vividly remember another very hot summer day during the Brexit wars, when the relationship between the Government and the press had broken down. There was no trust and we were struggling with the intricacy of the Northern Ireland protocol. We needed a lawyer who could help.

I was tasked with ringing Lord Mackay, who was a towering figure for all lawyers younger than himself; he really brought us on and mentored us in our profession. I rang him; I swallowed my pride and I explained the issue, which, of course he grasped, in under three seconds. Three minutes later, I saw him trotting out to College Green, where he was able not only to give live press interviews and put the matter to rest, but he spent the next couple of hours in baking sunlight explaining behind the scenes to members of the press how the law worked and what the answer was. We were fortunate to have him in our House for so long.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words of my own. As has been said, Lord Mackay of Clashfern brought to public life a wonderful combination of brilliance, courtesy, principle and faith. He was formidable, but never vain. He was learned, but never showy. He was firm in judgment but always humane. He was a proud Scot and a good friend to me.

Robert Burns’s lines, written in 1784, “Epitaph on my own Friend”, uncannily capture why all of us who knew him will miss James so much:

The friend of man, the friend of truth;

The friend of age, and guide of youth:

Few hearts like his, with virtue warm’d,

Few heads with knowledge so inform’d:

If there’s another world, he lives in bliss;

If there is none, he made the best of this.

Our thoughts today are with Bett, who, throughout some 68 years of marriage, was his formidable rock and guide. God bless her and her family at this time.

UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago

Baroness Prentis of Banbury Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord. I begin by thanking the staff, officials and, indeed, Members across this House, who have welcomed me so kindly to my place. I thank my sponsors: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, who has supported me since I was his pupil 30 years ago, and my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, my constituency neighbour, whose call during a radio interview in 2014 for more professional women to stand as MPs was heard by me loud and clear while I was washing up in my kitchen at home.

I confess that I have long loved this end of the building. In my first job as a government lawyer, I was frequently sent with heavy bundles of documents, copied 10 times and bound in white ribbon, for the Law Lords. My kinsman, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, enjoyed in many ways the most fulfilling time of his career here as chairman of the European Union Committee through the Brexit years. I spent a great deal of my time as a Minister engaging—sometimes productively but always pleasantly—with noble Lords who, it transpires, take a great interest in agricultural and legal policy.

I am in many ways my father’s daughter. As many noble Lords know, we farm in Aynho near Banbury, and my sisters and I have stayed within a few miles of home and brought up our own daughters there. The Cherwell Valley has formed the backdrop to my life as, kindly, my husband, himself a proud Yorkshireman, was also prepared to make it his home. I was very pleased to serve as Minister for Farming, and I had hoped that the schemes we put in place to support environmentally friendly food production would be the legacy I looked back on. I am concerned by the situation now.

Possibly because my home life is so geographically settled and bound by the rhythms of the rural and Church year, I have always worked away. My work life has been centred on public and international law, almost all in the Government Legal Department. Government lawyers are a committed and able band, and it was an honour to oversee their work as Attorney-General.

As a family, we enjoy learning languages, and our eldest daughter was doing just that in Ukraine before the full-scale invasion. Luckily, we got her home. We also brought over a young woman from Kherson, who came to live with us and is now a much-loved part of our family. After the election last summer, I knew that I wanted to continue the work I had been doing in government to support Ukraine, so I have been training Ukraine’s lawyers in the law relating to war crimes.

The Ukrainians have over 170,000 open files of crimes alleged to have been committed by Russian soldiers. That they are carrying out these prosecutions during an active war is unprecedented, as is the enthusiasm with which they have taken steps to ensure fairness in proceedings. I have in fact spent over half my time training those who are conducting the defence of the Russian soldiers. They are spinning what they describe as a web of accountability with thought and precision, and I will of course continue to help where I can.

They want our help. They see us in the UK for what we are: historical leaders in the field of international law and lucky, far more than we realise, to have judges we can trust. They value our dedication to proper process and individual rights, and so should we. International law should not be seen as a threat to our national interest. In fact, particularly in the environmental space, it regulates the interactions between nations pretty well. Of course we must abide by whatever rules we have agreed to adhere to, but, if we really feel that our national interest is not being served, we are free to walk away. These decisions should be seen as what they are: fundamentally political rather than legal.

Although domestic law changes and evolves over time, treaty law is rather different. Treaties must be precise and clear if they are to be useful. If the Government wish to persuade this House that this treaty represents a good deal for the UK, not to mention value for money, we will need greater transparency. We will need to know how and why the figures were arrived at. We will need assurances that the various legal regimes—including an undefined international law, Mauritian environmental law and the termination clause definition of “serious threat” to Mauritian national interests—can all work together. We will need to know how all this is to be enforced. We will need assurances that the Chagossians are to be consulted about their future. We will need to be sure that the precious marine protection area is cared for in the longer term. Most importantly, we need to be certain, in an ever more dangerous world, that the base can continue to be used for its primary purpose, which is, of course, to keep us safe.

I am very grateful for noble Lords indulgence for the piece of family history playing out before them. I am thrilled to be here.