A recent piece by Bloomberg highlighted the challenges that the increasingly “Hard Brexit” options being considered by the government pose the industry. Now you may not weep for them, which may be fair enough, but they are the major industry around where I live. And the conventional wisdom (see the Copeland by-election) is that part of the value of the British system is the tight link between an MP and their constituency. You’d be very sure that the MP “for Cities of London and Westminster” would have quite a lot to say about it. Surely, with all these debates in Parliament, the Rt Hon Mark Field MP would have had some things to say about the shape of the deal that Britain should be looking for? After all, it’s his local industry, as well as being of some national significance.
So let’s take a little look on Hansard, shall we?
(Linked search is from 23rd June 2016, referendum day, to the present, 9th April 2017)
As far as I can see, he stands up to talk about the Brexit issue nine (9) times.
(I include the quotes below, for reference, since it’s no fun trying to read them all on Hansard.)
Of those nine times, he mentions passporting twice. One of the nine times relates to him standing up to speak in the Art.50 debate, but not doing so.
Every single statement refers to Brexit in only the shallowest terms and indeed only four (4) of the statements even touch on his constituency’s biggest industry at all. There is no single attempt to follow up and hold to account. All this for an even that is likely the largest change in the nation’s legislative setup in 50 years and arguably the biggest challenge to the industry in the same period. (Although some would argue only 30 years on that score.)
So next time someone wants to tell you about British democracy and the special link MPs have with their constituencies… well, I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
(Aside: I don’t work in banking, though I know some people that do that live around here. Many of us wrote to Mr Field, he replied to some with various kinds of boilerplate letters, others he ignored.)
For reference, the Quotes:
The first time he mentions Brexit:
As someone who was on the same side of the debate for the 23 June referendum, I recognise the concerns about leaving the EU. However, we must look to the future. There are great opportunities. One of the great things about our higher education system is that it is focused very much on being a global operator, particularly given the strength of the English language. Therefore, there will be tremendous opportunities. It is a difficult, unpredictable and uncertain time, but none the less a time that is open for and ripe with opportunities for our best higher education institutions.
The second time:
A huge number of actions are taking place now. It is far, far too early to have any definitive approach as to exactly what Brexit will entail. We have to ensure, to an extent, that we get as much of the benefit of being in the single market — I see that, obviously, in the context of the City of London and its passporting rights — as is compatible with the public’s clear view about free movement of people. I hope that in the months ahead we will begin to work on that. However, it is far too early, and it would be doing a disservice to all industries — oil and gas and others — that are so dependent on exports and on being global industries, with the expertise that they have across the globe, to be definitive about precisely what role Brexit has to play.
The third time:
I appreciate that getting back some of our EU contribution was a factor in the decision to leave the European Union, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are, at least at this stage, open to the idea of making some contribution in the future if we are to secure some sort of access to the single market for financial services, or, indeed, making some contribution in relation to passporting and equivalence?
The fourth:
The hon. Gentleman will know that I entirely accept his last point about a number of these postgraduate courses. In an ideal world, as he knows, I would not have students in the immigration figures, but we are where we are and they will remain in those figures. Surely one of the lessons of Brexit is that this issue is of massive concern to many of our fellow countrymen. Therefore, it is incumbent on universities to ensure that we get high-quality students from abroad, and that is really the focus of what the Government are trying to achieve here. We need to ensure that those students who come here are the crème de la crème and will add the sort of experience to which he referred earlier in his contribution. By having a group of high-quality students, we will command the confidence of the public that we are getting only the brightest and the best, rather than a volume operation in our universities.
Fifth:
I am glad that the Secretary of State is now back in her place, and I wholeheartedly support her somewhat expansive approach, which has been criticised in certain quarters during the debate. She appears determined to ensure that the UK utilises all its assets, including the DFID budget, to secure an optimal deal for the nation, not just as we extricate ourselves from the EU, but in the years to come. […] I do, though, question whether, particularly as we leave the EU, large parts of DFID’s budget should not now be made available to the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or the Department for International Trade, all of which should, necessarily and rightly, come under some scrutiny and oversight from DFID, but there should, none the less, be that sense of joined-up co-operation within Government.
(I edited the the middle of this statement because it was not about EU/Brexit related matters.)
Sixth:
But surely the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the proof of the pudding will be in whether there is a sense of confidence drifting away from banks and corporates in relation to that shock. They recognise that Brexit is a major event, and we all recognise that its impact still lies some way ahead, but that impact means that it is quite legitimate not to be bound by rules that pertained 15 months ago in a rather different world from the one that we are going to have to experience in the months and years to come.
Seventh (of particular note because this was the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill debate)
rose —
(He did not speak.)
Eighth:
I very much take on board what my right hon. and learned Friend says, and I understand his concerns. He made a powerful point towards the end of his speech about the importance of there being public trust in the financial services sphere if it is to be the success we all hope it will be in the post-Brexit world.
Ninth:
Although I share my hon. Friend’s positive, buccaneering hope and optimism, it is also worth saying that this country has never given up on having a global role. Notwithstanding our 44-year membership of the European Union, we should not forget that in the Commonwealth and beyond, we have been and will remain a strong global player diplomatically and in terms of trade and all the cultural elements to which I am sure he will refer.
