Peer on board of healthcare firm attended meeting at which minister was lobbied | House of Lords

A peer attended a meeting where a health care company pressed a government minister, which raised questions about whether this was among the rules House of Lords.

Jitesh GaHIA, an investment bank and a city financier, is a non -executive director of health care. The meeting was attended by online, along with two executives of Accord, according to official records, in 2021, when he was already on the company’s board of directors.

The Accord Healthcare email, which sells a large amount of drugs to NHS, displays the meeting to obtain an update on a change in official policy. She also wanted to discuss securing millions of pounds in granting taxpayers to the manufacturing facility, helping to design services and purchasing contracts, and asking whether he could “contribute” to official working groups.

While there are gray areas in the rules of the House of Lords, they mentioned at that time that their peers must seek to benefit from being a member of the room by accepting funds in exchange for providing advice or parliamentary services. The rules also stated that their peers who paid roles were not allowed to “help foreign organizations or people to influence members of the House of Representatives, ministers or officials”, and that they are prohibited from “benefiting from their position to pressure, or to help others pressure” on the government.

Those who paid roles bearing “the responsibility to maintain a clear discrimination between their external interests and their parliamentary work,” as mentioned by the rules of behavior. The subsequent versions of the code are enhanced by these principles.

Tom Braik, director of the campaign group that opens democracy and deputy former leader of the House of Commons, said that an investigation is needed to determine whether the presence of Lord Gadi in the meeting was within the rules.

He added: “If the code is ambiguous if the peer of commercial interests can attend this type of meeting, then this must be resolved.”

Ghadia’s lawyers said he had not received their salaries to provide parliamentary advice or services. They said that his involvement with the group preceded his appointment in Parliament and that “he believes that he acted at all times according to the associated rules and guidance.” They said that the proposal to pressure him was “wrong.”

Accord said the meeting was not pressing and should be seen as “a vital participation that serves the public interest.”

The details of GaHIA activities are published as part of the Guardian project, Discussion of LordsWho studies the role of the House of Lords and the behavior of its members at a time when the government proposes to reform the upper chamber.

and Investment banker for more More than two decades, Gadiia is currently a non -executive director of England Bank A ruling body, which helps to oversee its strategy and budget. He set up a series of outputs in large companies such as Rolls -Royce and Barkles.

He received his counterpart from David Cameron as Part of honoring the resignation of the former Prime Minister In 2016, Cambridge graduate donated at that time at 214,000 pounds to the Conservative Party, as well as £ 25,000 to liberal Democrats.

It was A non -continued counterpart since 2017 After sitting on the conservative seats during its first year in Parliament.

It was serious a The director of the non -executive Accord Healthcare company for a period of seven years. Since 2010, he has been a consultant to the strategic issues of Intas Pharmaceuticals, an Indian multinational that owns an accord.

Documents issued under the Freedom of Information Law show that in January 2021, a senior executive official began the meeting agreement with James Bethel, then the Minister of Health. The executive authority requested the meeting in an email message that was copied to Jadi in the account of the House of Lords.

On the day before the meeting in February, an executive director via e -mail sent the government that summarizes the issues that the company wanted to raise.

One of them was “exploring the UK government’s appetite to explore construction with the United States, the flexible national supply chain to retaliate the plasma on the basis of losses.” The blood plasma fragmentation process separates its various components, which can be used to produce medications. The company was seeking an update on a change in a policy that restricts the use of blood plasma from donors in the UK.

Another relates to the request of 15 million pounds of taxpayer money in grants and tax credits to help the Newcastle manufacturing factory.

In her e -mail, Accord said she “will be happy to help the government’s ideas about tenders, purchases, or design. Are there any working groups that are prepared that we can contribute to?” Bethell later offered “contact” an agreement with two official work commanders.

In response to questions from the Guardian, Accord said that the meeting “should not be considered pressure; instead, it is a vital participation that serves the public interest.” He said that at the time of the meeting, “he did not receive grants for research, development or tax credits,” adding that “Accord has no representatives in government work halls.”

Ghadia’s lawyers said that the meeting “was part of the dialogue between the government and the industry, and its purpose was to discuss how to respond to government health care goals and NHS needs. This dialogue followed the measures of standard management to participate in the life science industry.” They said that it was the only ministerial meeting that he attended as a non -executive director of X, adding that his attendance was announced in official transparency records.

Accord said she sought to communicate with the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare to discuss the effects of the Covid-19 and the need for more flexibility in the medical supply chain.