Mr. Mark Field, Member of Parliament & Minister of State at the Foreign Office
“Mark Christopher Field (born 6 October 1964, Hanover, Germany), is a British politician, author and solicitor. Since the 2001 general election, Field has represented the Cities of London and Westminster constituency as a Conservative Party Member of Parliament (MP). On 13 June 2017 he was appointed a Minister of State at the Foreign Office.” (Wikipedia)
He is related via his wife to: “Charles Brett Anthony Elphicke (born 14 March 1971) is a British Conservative Party politician. He has been the Member of Parliament for Dover since the 2010 general election. He became a Government whip, a Lord Commissioner (Lord of the Treasury) following the 2015 general election. However, he stood down when Theresa May replaced David Cameron as Prime Minister. …Elphicke is a prominent campaigner for fathers’ rights “leading a campaign by Families Need Fathers” and introducing a private members bill “to change family law and make it a legal right for children to know both of their parents”. In the Queen’s Speech of 10 May 2012, the Government announced that they intended to “legislate this area” and on 13 June 2012, Children’s Minister Tim Loughton announced that the law would be changed to guarantee children’s access to both parents.” (Wikipedia)
His mother-in-law campaigns on his behalf at the time of elections on the streets of South West London.
Mark Field’s official website: http://markfieldmp.com/
A summary of Mark Field’s voting in Parliament has been summarised by www.theyworkforyou.com:
Mark Field is a Conservative MP, and on the vast majority of issues votes the same way as other Conservative MPs. However, Mark Field sometimes differs from their party colleagues, such as:
- Mark Field generally voted for a wholly elected House of Lords, while most Conservative MPs generally voted against.
- Mark Field generally voted for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords, while most Conservative MPs generally voted against.
As a full Mark Field’s voting analysis, it can fully be found on www.theyworkforyou.com:
- GENERALLY voted FOR equal gay rights between 2001–2014
- GENERALLY voted AGAINST smoking bans between 2002–2015
- CONSISTENTLY voted AGAINST the hunting ban between 2003–2004
- CONSISTENTLY voted FOR allowing marriage between two people of same sex between 2004–2014
- GENERALLY voted AGAINST laws to promote equality and human rights between 2011–2016
- CONSISTENTLY voted AGAINST allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life in 2015
Foreign Policy and Defence (Mark Field being a German born national)
- Almost ALWAYS voted FOR use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas between 2003–2015
- CONSISTENTLY voted FOR the Iraq war between 2002–2003
- GENERALLY voted FOR investigations into the Iraq war between 2003–2016
- Almost ALWAYS voted FOR replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system between 2007–2016
- GENERALLY voted AGAINST more EU integration between 2008–2017
- Almost ALWAYS voted FOR a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU between 2008–2016
- GENERALLY voted AGAINST strengthening the Military Covenant between 2010–2012
- Almost ALWAYS voted AGAINST a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK between 2016–2017
- Almost ALWAYS voted AGAINST UK membership of the EU between 2016–2017
- CONSISTENTLY voted FOR military action against ISIL (Daesh) between 2014–2015
For all other Mark Field’s voting in Parliament, click here.
For the Parliament link, click here.
Parliamentary Debates on Local Issues:
Serious Fraud Office — [Albert Owen in the Chair] – in Westminster Hall at 9:30 am on 7th February 2017.
In congratulating Stephen Timms on securing this overdue debate on the workings of the Serious Fraud Office, I register my concern that the regular reliance of the SFO on special funding facilities from the Treasury lays it open to the charge that it lacks full and proper independence.As we know, we live in financially straitened times for those agencies that depend on the public purse. Nevertheless, the sight of the SFO repeatedly having to go cap in hand to the Treasury for supplemental income opens up the Government to the potential accusation that they at least have the ability to close down what might be politically sensitive inquiries by the simple expedient of refusing the SFO funding.I am not suggesting for one moment that the Government are behaving improperly. However, they must see that there is an inherent conflict of interest, which will persist unless and until the SFO’s funding is placed on a more sustainable and arm’s length basis.