A UK minister’s meeting with a healthcare company has sparked controversy over potential conflicts of interest, raising questions about the rules governing peer behavior.
Jitesh Gadhia, a non-executive director of Accord Healthcare, attended an online meeting between the company and a government minister in 2021. The meeting was aimed at discussing potential taxpayer grants for a manufacturing facility and updating on changes to official policy.
Jitesh Gadhia is a British financial services professional.
He served as the Director of International at the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) from 2016 to 2021.
Prior to joining the FCA, he held various roles in banking and finance, including at Barclays and the Bank of England.
Gadhia has also been involved in several industry-wide initiatives, such as the development of the UK's Stewardship Code.
He is known for his expertise in financial regulation and governance.
Accord Healthcare sells medicines to the NHS and wanted to use the meeting to explore building a resilient national supply chain for plasma fractionation. They also requested an update on a change in policy restricting the use of blood plasma from UK donors. The company sought £15m of taxpayers’ money in grants and tax credits to help its manufacturing plant in Newcastle.
Gadhia’s involvement with Accord Healthcare raises questions about whether his attendance at the meeting was within the rules of the House of Lords. The rules state 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 House of Lords is the upper chamber of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Comprising over 800 members, it plays a crucial role in scrutinizing and revising laws passed by the lower house, the House of Commons.
Members are appointed for life, with senior positions often held by retired politicians or experts in specific fields.
The House of Lords has undergone significant reforms since its inception, with the most notable being the House of Lords Act 1999, which removed hereditary peers' automatic right to sit and vote.
While there are grey areas in the rules, they stated at the time that peers must maintain a clear distinction between their outside interests and their parliamentary work. The code of conduct also prohibits making use of one’s position to lobby or help others lobby the government.
Tom Brake, director of the campaign group Unlock Democracy, said an investigation was needed to determine whether Lord Gadhia’s attendance at the meeting was within the rules. Lawmakers for Gadhia claimed he acted in accordance with the rules and that his involvement predated his appointment to parliament.
Accord said the meeting should not be seen as lobbying but rather a vital engagement serving the public interest. They denied receiving research and development grants or tax credits at the time of the meeting and stated they did not have any representatives on government taskforces.
Lobbying is the act of influencing government decisions through communication and persuasion.
It involves representatives from interest groups, corporations, or non-profit organizations meeting with lawmakers to advocate for policies that benefit their constituents.
According to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, lobbying expenditures in the United States totaled over $3.4 billion in 2020.
The top industries engaging in lobbying include 'healthcare, finance, and technology.'
Lobbying can be effective in shaping policy, but it has also been criticized for creating unequal access to decision-makers and potential conflicts of interest.
Gadhia’s lawyers described the meeting as part of standard department procedures for engaging with the life sciences industry, following no rules violations.
