United Kingdom: A conflict of interest case reignites the debate on tobacco industry interference

The revelation of a possible conflict of interest within the House of Lords, during the examination of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, is attracting considerable attention in the United Kingdom. According to joint investigations by The Examination[1] and the Guardian[2]A member of the House, Lord Strathcarron, is said to have proposed an amendment to reduce the scope of the future ban on tobacco sales to generations born after 2008, while being linked to a senior official at British American Tobacco (BAT).

This situation highlights the need for rigorous application of the principles of transparency and independence in the development of public health policies, in accordance with the UK's international commitments under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

A landmark bill weakened by suspicions of interference

THE Tobacco and Vapes BillThe law, presented by the British government in 2024, represents a major step in the fight against smoking. It plans to permanently ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 2008, placing the United Kingdom on a "tobacco-free generation" path comparable to that initiated in New Zealand before the withdrawal of its law in 2023. This measure, welcomed by public health organizations, is based on a simple approach: by preventing new generations of consumers from entering the market, the country would initiate a lasting reduction in smoking, the leading preventable cause of premature death.

However, during its consideration in the House of Lords, the text was subject to a controversial amendment proposed by Lord Strathcarron, a non-affiliated peer and president of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health and a long-time advocate of so-called "harm reduction" approaches. The amendment proposed replacing the generational ban with a much more limited measure: raising the legal age for purchasing tobacco from 18 to 21. This seemingly moderate proposal would have maintained long-term legal access to tobacco for new cohorts of young adults—and neutralized its structural impact.

The investigations of The Guardian And The Examination They revealed that Lord Strathcarron had a family connection with a senior executive at British American Tobacco, a relationship he had failed to disclose as required by the parliamentary code of conduct. He also admitted to meeting with a tobacco industry representative at the British Grand Prix after his amendment had been tabled. During the session, he disclosed another potential interest: a minority investor in one of his companies holds shares in a company that manufactures e-cigarettes. However, he maintained that his concerns were not about vaping itself, but about "the treatment of cigars and pipes," adding that a generational ban would be "unenforceable" and "ineffective."

These statements were followed by remarks describing cigars as "harmless products," contradicting the scientific consensus that their regular consumption significantly increases the risk of cancer, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases. All of these factors have led several observers to question the true nature of the influences shaping the legislative process.

Lord Strathcarron also indicated that he maintains relationships with several organizations active in public relations, including Action on World Health, there Free Speech Union And Big Brother WatchOne of them, Action on World HealthThis organization openly campaigns against the World Health Organization and its policies, claiming it wants to "reform or replace" the WHO, which it accuses of "interfering in citizens' lives." This group, whose funding sources are not public, includes among its members former consultants for the nicotine industry and advocates for products such as nicotine pouches. These connections reinforce concerns about the close ties between certain political circles and actors linked to the tobacco industry.

Transparency, integrity and respect for international commitments

The Strathcarron case raises a fundamental issue: the ability of institutions to guarantee the integrity and independence of the legislative process in matters of public health. The House of Lords' code of conduct requires members of Parliament to declare any personal, financial, or familial interest that could influence their actions. In this specific case, the initial failure to declare a family link with a BAT executive, combined with proven interactions with representatives of the sector, calls into question the practical implementation of these ethical obligations.

Beyond the national context, this situation illustrates the persistent challenges related to the implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This article, legally binding on States Parties, obliges them to protect their public policies against any form of interference from the tobacco industry, whether direct or indirect. Its effective implementation requires robust mechanisms for disclosure of interests, transparency of interactions, and conflict prevention, as well as rigorous oversight by the competent authorities.

The British case demonstrates that, even in countries with advanced governance cultures, industry influence can be subtle and multifaceted. Contemporary lobbying strategies rely less on direct confrontation than on mobilizing intermediaries and third parties—elected officials, experts, and pressure groups—to disseminate industry arguments within the public debate. This indirect and opaque form of influence threatens the coherence and credibility of public health policies by transforming legislative bodies into arenas of competing economic interests.

A revealing controversy on the eve of COP11

Just weeks before the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (COP11), to be held in Geneva in November 2025, the British case starkly illustrates the persistent challenges related to preventing tobacco industry interference in public policy. This issue will be among the central points of discussion, in line with previous decisions of the UNFCCC calling on States to strengthen their governance frameworks and transparency mechanisms.

The Strathcarron case demonstrates that current mechanisms, while advanced, remain insufficient to counter more diffuse forms of influence exerted through networks of related actors, ideologically aligned with industry, or simply funded by it. It underscores the need for increased vigilance on the part of states, as well as international coordination to guarantee the coherence and independence of public policies in the face of economic pressures.

In a context where the tobacco industry is striving to redefine its image by promoting alternative products, protecting the decision-making process becomes an essential component of public health. On the eve of COP11, the British case serves as a reminder that the fight against smoking can only be fully effective if it is accompanied by governance that is honest, transparent, and impervious to any form of interference.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Matthew Chapman, Lawmaker with family tie to British American Tobacco attempts to stop UK smoking ban, The Examination, published on October 26, 2025, accessed the same day

[2] Rob Davies and Matthew Chapman, Peer trying to derail UK smoking ban discussed bill with relative at tobacco firmThe Guardian, published on October 26, 2025, accessed the same day