Warning: this post contains a gratuitous reference to Jimmy Savile
Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 9:27 One moment aside, Thursday night's Oxford Union debate ('This House believes the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible') was fairly uneventful.
Don't get me wrong. It was an enjoyable evening and very well organised. The attention to detail, before and after the event, was impressive.
At 6.20, as arranged, I was met at my hotel by a personable young undergraduate from Amsterdam. He was there to escort me to the Union, half a mile away.
Pre-dinner drinks in the Gladstone Room were followed by dinner in the Macmillan Room. The President, Olivia Merrett, gave a toast to the Queen and said something in Latin I pretended to understand but didn't.
After dinner (which included wine and port) we trooped downstairs for the official photograph – speakers and Union officers at the front, Union members lined up behind.
Then it was time to walk over to the debating chamber where we stood outside waiting for the call to go in. Eventually, like footballers entering a stadium, we marched in to warm applause.
This was the second Oxford Union debate I've taken part in. The first was on the subject of the smoking ban.
There are three speakers per side and speeches can last up to eight minutes. Unfortunately when I rehearsed my speech that afternoon I found I'd written 15 minutes' worth of material. Cue frantic editing.
Proposing the motion were Isaac Virchis, a first year student at Oriel College; Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, professor of palliative medicine and the peer who proposed the bill to ban smoking in public places in Wales; and Professor Gerard Hastings, founder of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research and a special advisor to the House of Commons Health Select Committee.
While the rest of us were wearing dinner jackets Prof Hastings was in full Scottish evening dress, kilt and all.
Opposing the motion were Toby Tricks (his real name), a first year student at St John's College; the IEA's Mark Littlewood; and me.
The tobacco industry should have been represented but wasn't. (Full story here.)
Isaac kicked things off. Afterwards he told us it was his maiden Union speech but you wouldn't have guessed.
Toby was described as a "competitive debater" and a "breaking speaker at the World Championships". It was easy to see why because he injected a welcome touch of humour, even whimsy, into the debate.
He did however come unstuck when Baroness Finlay responded brilliantly to a point of order he raised during her speech.
In his own speech Toby made several references to rugby which he hated and wasn't very good at thanks to his, er, delicate physique. His argument was that the game can result in very serious injuries but no-one thinks rugby should be banned or the coaches denounced as "morally reprehensible".
Responding to his point of order (another reference to sport, if I remember), Baroness Finlay shot back, "I'm so sorry you had such a terrible experience of PE at school, Toby."
She said it with a twinkle in her eye. In debating terms it was the best and funniest moment of the night.
After Baroness Finlay it was my turn. I knew when I stood at the dispatch box that my speech was still too long so I had to omit one or two passages but it finished as planned so it wasn't too bad.
Then it was time for members of the audience to take the floor.
We heard from six people, three for the proposition and three against. A medical student from Newcastle spoke and that was the moment I felt we would probably lose.
What I hadn't anticipated was Prof Hastings' contribution.
I've met him before and on a personal level he's perfectly pleasant. We shook hands before and after the debate and we also had a brief chat about his travel arrangements. (He came down from Scotland on the overnight sleeper, if you're interested!)
Get him on the subject of tobacco, however, and he's a completely different person.
Close to tears (it seemed to me) he pleaded with the audience to vote for the proposition. Citing Bob Dylan's 'The Times They Are A-Changin', he implored the younger generation not to make the same mistake as his own.
One of the sections I had to cut from my speech concerned the tobacco control industry becoming a moral crusade akin to the old temperance movement.
Now, right in front of us, Britain's foremost anti-tobacco evangelist was in full crusader mode, beseeching members of the Union to turn their backs on an evil industry. Or something like that.
Then, out of the blue, he made a quite gratuitous reference to Jimmy Savile. I'll have to check the video to confirm exactly what he said but if I understood him correctly he was equating the activities of the tobacco industry with Savile's predatory behaviour towards children.
I couldn't believe it. Was it my imagination or was there a stunned silence in the chamber?
I looked across the floor and Baroness Finlay had the look of someone who thought her colleague had taken leave of his senses.
Union rules state that "Booing or hissing a speaker is both a grave and a pointless discourtesy and an abuse of the Forms of the house" but I was sorely tempted.
Instead I called out, "That's sick!" and "You've crossed a line".
Startled, his response was to demand I declare who my "paymasters" are.
This sudden and unexpected turn of events rendered me speechless.
So he repeated his demand.
"Jimmy Savile!" boomed a grim, mocking voice to my left.
It was Mark Littlewood, the final speaker.
As ever, Mark's speech combined biting commentary with witty soundbites. Hastings' appropriation of Bob Dylan was remarked upon and he took the opportunity to out himself as a white, male, middle class .... smoker.
Debate over, speakers were the first to leave the chamber. Members then followed through the relevant 'ayes' and 'noes' exit with tellers totting up the numbers.
Outside we were joined by a small group of smokers. They thanked us for our efforts.
Fifteen minutes later, in the Gladstone Room where we were invited to join members of the Union for a post debate drink, the President announced the result:
For the proposition, 77. Against the proposition, 60.
We didn't expect to win but I thought Hastings' performance might have cost his side a few more votes. Perhaps it won the day, who knows? My guess is it lost the proposition support but not enough for us to win the debate.
Could we have done better? In the absence of a speaker representing the tobacco industry (which was effectively 'no platformed') our case was undermined by allegations that young children are targeted by the industry in the Third World and accusations that tobacco companies have been complicit in tobacco smuggling in Europe.
These are matters that only Big Tobacco can answer with any authority.
How can you decide whether an industry is "morally reprehensible" if that industry is not allowed to defend itself in person?
In the circumstances I think we did OK.
See also: Tobacco controllers will debate, but only on their terms
Update: Re that comment about Savile, another participant has interpreted it to mean that smokers buying tobacco products are no freer in their decisions than Savile's victims.
If the Union posts the video of the debate online I'll publish the exact quote and you can decide for yourselves.
Reader Comments (4)
Sounds like you made a jolly good fist of it, Simon. 77v. 60 is a much better result than might have been expected.
Will the debate be uploaded on Youtube, do you know?
It was filmed so I think it will, yes.
Gerard Hastings was an expert witness in McTear case. Quoting from judge Nimmo Smith: ''I am bound to say that none of Professor Friend, Sir Richard Doll and Professor Hastings seemed to me to be mindful of the need to be independent (see para.[5.18]), and each appeared to me to engage in advocacy to a greater or lesser extent. '' Has anyone mentioned this aspect and the result of that trial ? (it couldn't be proved that smoking causes lung cancer)