It was described as a 'debate' but it was nothing of the sort.

Tobacco control doesn't do debate. Instead it was an echo chamber, every speaker endorsing the views of the speaker who went before.

Yes, I'm talking about the Westminster Hall 'debate' on the Government's Tobacco Control Plan that took place in the House of Commons on Thursday.

I may have been a bit premature when I congratulated Nicola Blackwood, the new public health minister, for her polite refusal to be rushed into publishing the Government's new tobacco control strategy.

A desperate attempt by ASH and the APPG on Smoking and Health to bounce her into announcing a publication date was met with a calm "wait and see". What I missed was her comment that:

We can be proud of the progress that successive Governments have made on helping people to quit smoking, preventing them from starting in the first place and creating an environment that de-normalises smoking.

With prevalence rates at an all-time low, there is no question that good work has been done, but as the issues raised in this debate clearly show, there is more ​work to be done. The Government are committed to doing that work as a matter of urgency.

To avoid doubt she added:

The Government recognise this area as a top priority and will continue to work on it as such.

That said the Government will have noted the feeble turnout - just six backbench MPs plus Blackwood and shadow public health minister Sharon Hodgson.

Much as ASH and others will huff and puff, nothing demonstrates the level of priority parliament gives an issue than a poorly attended 'debate' that has clearly been stage-managed and exploited by a taxpayer-funded lobby group.

The event was also useful for shining a light on those MPs who will make it their business to campaign for further tobacco control measures regardless of public opinion.

In no particular order they were Alex Cunningham (Labour), Bob Blackman (Conservative), Sarah Wollaston (Conservative), Norman Lamb (Lib Dem), Kevin Barron (Labour) and Martyn Day (SNP). I'm loathe to single out one particular person but I will anyway.

Bob Blackman is chairman of the APPG on Smoking and Health which is run by ASH and is effectively a Trojan horse for ASH to swan around parliament lobbying MPs and peers. During last year's election campaign I had this to say about the Conservative candidate for Harrow East:

Bob Blackman was one of the more prominent anti-smoking MPs in the last parliament. A supporter of plain packaging, he championed the ban on smoking in cars with children and believes the major priority of local authorties in terms of public health is "to reduce the number of people smoking and reduce the consumption of tobacco-related products".

Two weeks ago however he surprised many people when he told a fringe event at the Tory party conference:

"I come instinctively from a position where I believe that people should be allowed to do what they like so long as it does not impact on others."

Cough, splutter.

The event (Personal freedoms vs. protecting the vulnerable: How should we strike the balance?) took place within the IEA Think Tent so it's fair to say the audience would have been of a slightly more liberal or libertarian persuasion.

Perhaps that influenced his choice of words (I couldn't possibly comment). All I know is, if anyone fell for his impression of a laissez faire politician they can think again. Faced with a rather different audience on Thursday Blackman adopted a very different tone:

"As someone who has been an avowed anti-smoker all my life, I will continue to oppose smoking. I take the view that there are two categories of people here. We have to help people to stop smoking, but even more importantly we have to prevent people from starting to smoke, because we know that once people are addicted it is a very difficult job for them to give up their addiction."

So much for people being "allowed to do what they like so long as it does not impact on others".

Here are some more examples of Blackwood's paternalistic, even socialist, attitude to private health:

On this side of the House it is not unusual to hear people argue that the smoking habit is none of the Government’s business. Of course, it is an important source of tax revenue, but some people say – they are not necessarily employed or funded by the tobacco industry — that those who choose to smoke understand the risks, and have exercised their free consumer choice.

I would say that informed choice and people understanding the damage they are doing to themselves is up to them, but that does not mean that we should not increase the pressure on those individuals to understand the damage they are doing to themselves and to others by continuing to smoke. I seek to make sure that we continue with the regulations and ramp up the tobacco control programme ...

One important lesson that we have learned from previous control programmes is that efforts to reduce smoking must be sustained and progressive. Sustained because, as I have said, nicotine is a powerful drug, it increases dependency and requires powerful interventions to persuade people to quit. Progressive because people who continue to use tobacco after the control programmes are in place can be said to have discounted their effect.

For example, many smokers quit after the introduction ​of the workplace ban in 2006, but most did not. The need for progressive steps is particularly important when it comes to tax and price policy, because the economic impacts of tax rises on reducing demand for tobacco products depend not simply on absolute price levels, but on affordability. If taxes rise more slowly than incomes, tobacco will become more, not less, affordable and consumption will tend to rise, not fall ...

Some colleagues may think that an intervention in the market is not required, but I think one is needed more than ever before. Since the programme was first published in 1998, the fall in our smoking rates has been similar to that of Canada and Australia, as has been mentioned. In France and Germany, which do not have comprehensive strategies, the rates have hardly changed in 20 years. The evidence shows that these programmes work, and that where there is no programme there is no movement forward ...

The targets for the past five years of the [tobacco] programme seemed difficult, but they have all been achieved, so we should set challenging targets now that will lead to a smoke-free Britain. That has got to be our ultimate aim.

Speaking at Forest's fringe event at the Tory conference Iain Dale, LBC Radio presenter and publisher, said, "I don't know how any politician can support excessive regulations on what we consume and call themselves a Conservative."

Well, Bob Blackman not only supports excessive regulations on what we consume, he also calls himself a Conservative. Sarah Wollaston is another.

The question is, where does Theresa May and her 'Conservative' Government stand? The new Tobacco Control Plan, when it's published, will provide some interesting answers.

Read the full Westminster hall 'debate' here.