The transparency of meetings between lobbyists and EU/UK health committees is a critical aspect of public accountability, and while there have been improvements, significant gaps and a lack of public access to detailed information remain.

The general consensus among transparency advocates is that records should be made public to a much greater extent to ensure that policy decisions are not unduly influenced by corporate interests.

Transparency in the European Union (EU)

The EU has made strides in lobbying transparency, largely through its EU Transparency Register, which also applies to the European Parliament's committees, including the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), which handles much of the health-related legislation.

• Mandatory Disclosure for High-Level Meetings: In the EU, a key safeguard is the rule that to meet with a Commissioner, Director-General, or their cabinet, lobbyists must be registered. Since a 2021 interinstitutional agreement, this principle has extended to the European Parliament, where MEPs holding key roles (such as committee chairs, rapporteurs, and shadow rapporteurs) are now required to publish records of their meetings with lobbyists on their personal profile pages. This provides a valuable, though often incomplete, public record.

• Committee Hearings: EU parliamentary committees, including ENVI, often hold public hearings where stakeholders, including pharmaceutical lobbyists, are invited to present their views. These hearings are generally live-streamed and their recordings and transcripts are made publicly available. This provides a direct, transparent view of the arguments being made by various interest groups.

• "Legislative Footprint": A more recent development is the concept of a "legislative footprint," where the European Commission publishes a list of meetings with lobbyists for key legislative proposals. This provides a crucial paper trail of who influenced the drafting of a specific piece of legislation.

However, significant gaps remain:

• Informal Meetings: The disclosure rules primarily cover formal, scheduled meetings. A great deal of lobbying happens in more informal settings—in the hallways, at private events, or over email and instant messaging—which are not subject to public disclosure.

• Incomplete Data: While MEPs are now required to publish meeting records, the level of detail is often insufficient. Some records simply list the name of the organization without a clear description of the meeting's content, and compliance can be inconsistent.

Transparency in the UK

The UK's system is widely considered to be less transparent than the EU's, particularly at the parliamentary committee level. The main body for health scrutiny is the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee.

• No Mandatory Lobbying Register for In-House Lobbyists: The UK's Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 only requires third-party "consultant" lobbyists to register. It does not apply to "in-house" lobbyists, who are employed directly by companies, leaving the majority of corporate lobbying activity completely opaque. Since most pharmaceutical companies have extensive in-house public affairs teams, their meetings with MPs and committee members are largely hidden from public view.

• Limited Ministerial Transparency: While the UK government publishes quarterly departmental transparency releases that list meetings between ministers and outside bodies, this information is often released long after the fact, making timely scrutiny impossible. Furthermore, it only covers ministers and permanent secretaries, not the Members of Parliament (MPs) who sit on select committees.

• Committee Scrutiny: The Health and Social Care Committee holds inquiries and public evidence sessions that are televised and transcribed, and written submissions are made public. This provides a degree of transparency. However, the private meetings and informal interactions that committee members have with lobbyists are not publicly recorded, making it difficult to understand the full extent of the influence being exerted.

The Argument for Making Records Public

There is a compelling case for making all records of meetings between lobbyists and health committees—both in the EU and the UK—fully public, in a timely, searchable, and comprehensive format.

• Ensuring Accountability: Public disclosure of meetings ensures that policymakers are accountable for who they meet with and what they discuss. It allows the public, journalists, and civil society organizations to scrutinize potential conflicts of interest and to see if certain corporate interests are getting privileged access.

• Informing the Public Debate: Health policy is a matter of public interest. Knowing who is lobbying on issues like drug pricing, vaccine policy, or healthcare reform helps to inform the public debate and allows for counter-arguments to be heard. It prevents a situation where policy is shaped by a narrow group of well-funded interests.

• Promoting Ethical Conduct: The act of making a meeting public can, in itself, act as a deterrent to unethical behavior. If a lobbyist knows their conversation will be made public, they are less likely to make inappropriate requests or offers.

• Leveling the Playing Field: The pharmaceutical industry has vast resources and can hire expert lobbyists. Public transparency can help to level the playing field by providing public health advocates, patient groups, and NGOs with the same information and access to the policy debate.

In conclusion, while the EU has a more robust system for lobbying transparency than the UK, both systems have significant shortcomings. Meetings with health committees are often shrouded in opacity, particularly in the UK, where most in-house lobbying is unregulated.

Making records of all meetings between health committees and lobbyists public is a crucial step towards greater accountability and would help to ensure that public health policies are made in the best interest of patients and the public health system, rather than being disproportionately shaped by corporate interests.