Currently British American Tobacco (BAT) is facing a lot of questions on whether it has lobbied MPs to convince the government not to prohibit tobacco products from being placed for sale in shops.

BAT is pressured to state whether it secretly sponsored a campaign against the intention incited by the National Federation of Retail Newsagents (NFRN). The given intention has led to tensions in coalition, involved efforts over approximately a year by the London public affairs firm Hume Brophy to affect MPs and the mass media. Hume Brophy cooperates with BAT and the NFRN, which has recognized that it received financial help from unknown tobacco producers to pay for the lobbying.

The British tobacco company will have to ask on several questions at its annual meeting from Labour MP Kevin Barron, the ex-chairman of the House of Commons. He has sent a letter to BAT chairman asking “whether BAT has funded lobbying directly or by third parties against the existing legislation that bans display of tobacco products.” He also asked if BAT sponsored NFRN in its campaign against the display ban.

Parminder Singh, the manager of the NFRN, which represents more than 16,500 shopkeepers, currently stated that they could not afford the resources to promote such a campaign to struggle against the tobacco ban. But all suspicions have fallen on BAT because of its link with Hume Brophy. “For any leading company to try lobbying MPs through third parties is shameful, and particularly when it is related to tobacco. The Government has obligations to protect public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry and can only do it if tobacco industry is open about this lobbying,” stated Deborah Arnott, the representative of the Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Lobbying by the NFRN was efficient in delaying the introduction of the legislation in shops and it has recognized that it received support from tobacco companies for this campaign. But the main and most important question is which tobacco companies. If BAT was involved than it should come clean.

BAT, which always underlines its commitment to high standards of behavior, denied that it had paid for the NFRN’s campaign. “To blame us of secret actions and the funding of an independent retailer organization to resolve the problem of tobacco contraband is untrue,” stated BAT spokesman. “Hume Brophy does only media work for us on illegal tobacco products trade and cigarette contraband across the European Union only. We have never given them indications to lobby UK politicians on regulation.”

“We do receive incomes from a lot of suppliers, including tobacco companies but I can guarantee that the incomes received from tobacco manufacturers are not significant and constitute less than 5% of our total income,” Singh added.