Government remains tight-lipped on BAT investigation
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government has refused to explain why it decided to investigate allegations of smuggling by British American Tobacco (BAT) in secret.
The Government has refused to explain why it decided to investigate allegations of smuggling by British American Tobacco (BAT) in secret.
In response to a request by The Independent under the new Freedom of Information Act, which is supposed to open up Whitehall documents to the public, the Government said it was "in the public interest" to withhold information revealing why ministers chose to conduct a confidential inquiry in to BAT.
Claims that BAT had been involved in smuggling surfaced in 2000, prompting MPs to call for a full Government inquiry, the results of which were to be published. But the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers, ordered an investigation using powers that prohibited publication of its findings.
In March 2004, the DTI concluded its inquiry and took no action against BAT. MPs and anti-smoking campaigners have, however, demanded to see the report.
The DTI said publishing information on why a confidential inquiry was conducted would jeopardise the "full and frank" advice given to ministers by DTI officials. "Ministers need to be informed of the allegations made against a company. Such allegations are unproven and capable of being damaging, particularly if it were to come out that they had been discussed at a ministerial level. This is so even if many of the allegations are in the public domain," the DTI said. It added that exposure of its methods of investigation could assist rogue companies to escape attention.
The DTI also refused to divulge any information that might have shed light on one of Philip Green's early retail investments - a group called Amber Day. Mr Green, who would have offered investors a stake in Marks & Spencer had his attempt to acquire the retailer succeeded last summer, abruptly quit Amber Day in 1992 after the group missed a profits target.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments