In December 2021, I was fortunate enough to meet and interview Sir David Evennett, MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford. A conservative, he has represented this constituency since 2005 and agreed to sit down with me in Portcullis House for an interview on behalf of The Rose.
To begin, I asked the 72-year-old if he still saw himself as an MP in 10 years, given that the oldest MP is 81. Letting out a light laugh, he stated “You can’t go on forever, I still see myself for the next 5 or 6 years because there are still lots of things I want to do. Age is a number, it’s experience and dynamism, and I'm still pretty dynamic, so I intend to carry on.”
I then took the opportunity to explore his voting record, asking why he has consistently voted against gay marriage in his career. In response, he stated that he’s a “strong believer in marriage” but that he believed “it has to be equal and fair all round”. Given that heterosexual couples couldn’t have civil partnerships at this time, he didn’t believe it was fair for there to be equal marriage if there were not equal civil partnerships, going as far as saying that he “passionately and strongly believed that the measure was not equality”. This was something I contested, arguing that attempting to prevent such a huge and historic step forward for equal rights in the name of equality was painfully ironic. As a parliamentary representative, the ability to progress towards a fairer society for all is incredibly important, and to actively hinder this citing equality is grossly inappropriate, especially given the discrimination still faced by same-sex couples in the UK today. Sir David stated that now civil partnerships are available to everybody, he supports gay marriage. However, to have voted against it in the first place for such a trivial reason questions the extent of his support. He stated that he supported civil partnerships, calling it a “big step”, but that he never changed his mind as his support for gay marriage was and still is conditional on heterosexual couples being allowed civil partnerships, something he described as “fair and reasonable” as it “should be for everybody”.
The next topic we discussed was his decision to vote in favour of tripling the cap on tuition fees in 2010. He didn’t believe it was fair that people who didn’t attend university, the majority of the country, should have to pay for the university education of others through taxes. To this, I questioned the relevance of this point given the fact that students were already paying for their tuition fees, these measures simply increased how much they were paying. I did not receive an answer relevant to my question, but Sir David stressed the importance of more people receiving university education, arguing that increased tuition fees were not discouraging people from going to university given that more people are now going to university than ever before. To that, I asked if he thinks the increase in price of tuition fees played a role in the increase of people pursuing university education. He stated “I think it’s the opportunity for people to go to university” and did not elaborate further on the impact of the increase in price.
On the topic of tuition fees, I asked his thoughts on the calls for reduced tuition fees for students who had not experienced the perks on being on campus during the pandemic - essentially paying the same as somebody else a few years ago but receiving less. My use of the word “less” was challenged here, with Sir David (alongside his aide) stating that it’s not necessarily a lesser experience, just a different one. However, he did recognise the impact of the pandemic, commenting that “The university experience has been damaged because of the pandemic…” and that the pandemic has been “hard for everybody”. It was then quite peculiar that Sir David followed up by claiming that “some people have enjoyed the opportunity to have distanced learning” (a claim that many students who have actually experienced distanced learning might disagree with), with his aide arguing that “[students] have the online experience” rather than the on-campus experience, refuting the suggestion that they were receiving less for their money. He went on to say that he couldn’t give his opinion as he doesn’t run the universities and doesn’t know “the provisions that [universities] have been given”. This refusal to give his own thoughts was particularly troubling for me given that, as an MP, it is his job to comment and act upon issues raised by constituents, including situations in which he is unaware of the “provisions” given.
We then touched on the lockdown parties in Downing Street and the calls for Boris Johnson to resign as Prime Minister. At this time, there was an investigation into the parties by Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, however he was replaced by Sue Gray after it came to light that he had attended a party himself. Sir David said that he doesn’t “go on press speculation” and he wanted “to see the facts”. He stressed that he is a “big supporter of the Prime Minister” and that he didn’t think any judgement should be made until the report comes out. He refused to say how he would feel if it emerged that the Prime Minister had attended a party (as it now has) as he “isn’t in the speculation game”. Now that the Prime Minister has been fined for breaking the law on lockdown, I reached out to Sir David to comment, given the facts are now available to him. In response, I received a letter stating that he appreciates “the frustrations” and that he “welcomed the decision” to investigate the parties. In response to questions on the Prime Minister directly, he sent me a transcript of Boris Johnson’s comments made in the House of Commons on the 19th of April and did not elaborate any further on the matter.
Comments