A peer attended a meeting where a healthcare company of which he is a director lobbied a government minister, raising questions about whether this was within the rules of the House of Lords.
Jitesh Gadhia, an investment banker and City financier, is a non-executive director of Accord Healthcare. He attended the online meeting along with two Accord executives, according to official records, in 2021, when he was already on the board of the company.
An email shows Accord Healthcare, which sells a substantial amount of medicines to the NHS, wanted to use the meeting to get an update on a change in official policy. It also wanted to discuss potentially securing millions of pounds in taxpayer grants for a manufacturing facility, assisting with the design of services and procurement contracts, and to ask if it could “contribute” to official working groups.
While there are grey areas in the rules of the House of Lords, they stated at the time that peers must not seek to profit from being a member of the chamber by accepting money in return for providing parliamentary advice or services. The rules also stated that peers who had paid roles were not permitted to “assist outside organisations or persons in influencing members of either house, ministers or officials”, and that they were banned from “making use of their position to lobby, or to help others to lobby” the government.
Those who did have paid roles had a “responsibility to maintain a clear distinction between their outside interests and their parliamentary work”, the code of conduct stated. Later versions of the code reinforce these principles.
Tom Brake, the director of the campaign group Unlock Democracy and a former deputy leader of the House of Commons, said an investigation was needed to determine whether Lord Gadhia’s attendance at the meeting was within the rules.
He added: “If the code is ambiguous as to whether peers with commercial interests can attend these kind of meetings, then that should be resolved.”
Lawyers for Gadhia said he was not paid to provide parliamentary advice or services. They said his involvement with the group predated his appointment to parliament and that he “believes that he has acted at all times in accordance with the rules and associated guidance”. They said the suggestion he had engaged in lobbying was “misconceived”.
Accord said the meeting was not lobbying and should be seen as a “vital engagement that serves the public interest”.
Details of Gadhia’s activities are being published as part of a project by the Guardian, the Lords debate, which is examining the role of the House of Lords and the conduct of its members at a time when the government is proposing to overhaul the upper chamber.
An investment banker for more than two decades, Gadhia is currently a non-executive director of the Bank of England’s governing body, helping to oversee its strategy and budget. He has held a series of directorships in big companies such as Rolls-Royce and Barclays.
He received his peerage from David Cameron as part of the former prime minister’s resignation honours in 2016. The Cambridge graduate had by that time donated £214,000 to the Conservative party as well as £25,000 to the Liberal Democrats.
He has been an unaffiliated peer since 2017 after sitting on the Conservative benches during his first year in parliament.
Gadhia has been a non-executive director of Accord Healthcare for seven years. Since 2010, he has been an adviser on strategic matters to Intas Pharmaceuticals, the Indian multinational that owns Accord.
Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that in January 2021 a senior Accord executive initiated the meeting with James Bethell, then a junior health minister. The executive requested the meeting in an email copied to Gadhia at his House of Lords account.
The day before the meeting in February, an Accord executive emailed the government summarising the issues the company wanted to raise.
One was to “explore UK government appetite to explore building with us a resilient national supply chain for plasma fractionation on a toll basis”. The process of fractionation separates blood plasma into its different components, which can be used to produce medicines. The company was seeking an update on a change to policy restricting the use of blood plasma from UK donors.
Another concerned its request for £15m of taxpayers’ money in grants and tax credits to help its manufacturing plant in Newcastle.
In its email, Accord said it “would be happy to assist with the government’s thoughts on tendering, procurement or designing services. Are there any working groups being set up that we can contribute to?” Bethell later offered to “connect” Accord with two official taskforces.
In response to questions from the Guardian, Accord said the meeting “should not be seen as lobbying; rather, it is a vital engagement that serves the public interest”. It said that at the time of the meeting, it “did not receive research and development grants or tax credits”, adding that “Accord does not have any representatives on government taskforces”.
Gadhia’s lawyers said the meeting “was part of the dialogue between government and industry, the purpose of which was to discuss how to respond to government healthcare objectives and NHS needs. This dialogue followed standard department procedures for engagement with the life sciences industry.” They said it was the only ministerial meeting he had attended as a non-executive director of Accord, adding that his attendance was declared in official transparency registers.
Accord said it had sought to engage with the Department of Health and Social Care to discuss the implications of the Covid-19 pandemic and the need for greater resilience in the medical supply chain.
