Cronyism and NHS privatisation: just another day in the House of Lords

Jitesh Gadhia, otherwise known as baron Gadhia, is under suspicion of attending a meeting where a company of which he is a director lobbied a government minister over the NHS. Gadhia is a walking example of why people in power need to stop being ushered into the House of Lords as almost a matter of routine.

He’s an investment banker who worked at Blackstone as a senior managing director. A profile of Gadhia on British Asian Trust reads:

He currently serves on the boards of Rolls-Royce Holdings plc, Taylor Wimpey plc, Compare The Market Limited and the Court of the Bank of England.

Now, it’s those same connections which have caused trouble for him.

A familiar story in the House of Lords – and the NHS

The Guardian reported that Gadhia is a non-executive director of Accord Healthcare. Whilst on the board of the company, Gadhia is said to have attended a meeting in 2021 along with two other Accord Healthcare executives. The company had a £217.7 million turnover in March 2024, and have net assets worth £94 million.

The Guardian found that:

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.

Gadhia’s lawyers have insisted that he wasn’t paid to provide parliamentary advice or services. They found the suggestion that Gadhia could have been lobbying to be “misconceived” and continued to say that he:

believes that he has acted at all times in accordance with the rules and associated guidance.

However, whilst Gadhia may not have been paid to provide parliamentary services at the meeting, it still remains that his business contacts are interacting with government life in a manner that requires public scrutiny. He may well not have been paid, but as a director of a company that supplies drugs to the NHS he may well stand to benefit by Accord Healthcare continuing to maintain NHS contracts, potentially via government ministers.

Public record

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act paint a rather damning picture. James Bethell, a junior health minister at the time of the meeting in question, met with Accord Healthcare executives, and the Guardian noted that:

The [Accord] executive requested the meeting in an email copied to Gadhia at his House of Lords account.

The day before the meeting, Accord Healthcare sent another email setting out the range of issues they wanted to discuss. This included a request for £15 million of taxpayers money in order for the company to build a manufacturing plant in Newcastle. Now in 2024, it’s been confirmed that “following an investment deal between the government and Accord Healthcare,” that plant will be built in Newcastle.

The Guardian also reported that:

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.

Lobbying for NHS privatisation?

Whilst the House of Lords has a code for peers which insists that members must not be paid for parliamentary services and “must not seek to profit from being a member of the chamber.” However, this instance with Gadhia has obvious ramifications that test the limits of this code.

In fact, director of campaign group Unlock Democracy, Tom Brake said:

If the code is ambiguous as to whether peers with commercial interests can attend these kind of meetings, then that should be resolved.

It simply isn’t enough anymore for peers in the unelected House of Lords to insist that they’re following parliamentary code. That code is clearly not fit for purpose if meetings such as the one Gadhia attended are acceptable to the house. One thing’s clear – they’re certainly not acceptable to the public.

Featured image via the Canary