Citizens can track whether a proposed law in the EU or UK has been influenced by pharmaceutical lobbyists by using existing transparency registers, parliamentary records, and watchdog group reports.

While these resources don't provide a complete picture, they offer crucial entry points for investigation. The EU has a more robust system than the UK, but both contain significant gaps that make full transparency difficult.

Tracking in the European Union (EU)

The EU has a multi-pronged approach to lobbying transparency that provides several avenues for citizens to investigate pharmaceutical influence.

1. The EU Transparency Register

This is the central database for all organizations, including pharmaceutical companies, that seek to influence EU policymaking. It's the first stop for anyone trying to track lobbying.

• Who is Registered: The register lists thousands of organizations and lobbyists, including major pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, as well as influential trade associations like the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA).

• What is Disclosed: Registered organizations are required to provide their lobbying budget and the number of people they employ to lobby EU institutions. They also list the specific legislative proposals or policy areas they are interested in. A citizen can search for "pharmaceutical" to see a list of relevant organizations and their declared spending.

• Meeting Records: Perhaps the most useful tool is the public record of meetings. Officials in the European Commission and key Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are now required to publish records of their meetings with lobbyists. A citizen can search for a specific legislative proposal and see who met with the lead rapporteur or a Commissioner to discuss it.

2. The Legislative Footprint

The European Commission publishes a "legislative footprint" for major proposals, which is a list of the interest groups and individuals that were consulted during the drafting process. This provides a direct link between a legislative proposal and the lobbying activities that influenced it.

3. Watchdog Groups

Due to the limitations of the official registers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and watchdog groups play a critical role. Groups like Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyFacts.eu analyze the raw data from the official register to expose lobbying trends, identify inconsistencies in reporting, and provide an accessible narrative for the public. They publish detailed reports on which specific pieces of legislation are being targeted by pharmaceutical lobbyists and how much money is being spent.

Tracking in the UK

The UK's system for lobbying transparency is significantly weaker than the EU's, making it much more difficult for citizens to track pharmaceutical influence.

1. The Register of Consultant Lobbyists

The UK's Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 created a register that is a primary point of reference.

• Its Flaw: The register only requires "consultant lobbyists"—firms or individuals who lobby on behalf of a third party for payment—to register. It explicitly excludes "in-house" lobbyists, who are employed directly by a company. This is a massive loophole, as most major pharmaceutical companies have extensive in-house public affairs teams. As a result, the register captures only a fraction of the lobbying activity in the UK.

• Limited Data: The UK register does not require lobbyists to disclose their financial spending, making it impossible to see the scale of financial influence.

2. Parliamentary Records-

Citizens can use parliamentary resources to track lobbying.

• All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs): APPGs are informal, cross-party groups of MPs and Lords. The public Register of APPGs lists the external funding they receive. It is common for pharmaceutical companies and their trade associations to fund health-related APPGs. This provides a window into who is gaining privileged access to parliamentarians.

• Committee Inquiries: The House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee holds inquiries on a range of topics. Submissions of written evidence from pharmaceutical companies and oral testimonies are published on the Parliament website. A citizen can see what arguments the industry is making on a specific issue, such as drug pricing or regulatory reform.

Key Challenges and Gaps

Despite the available tools, a full and transparent picture of pharmaceutical lobbying remains elusive in both the EU and the UK.

• "Revolving Door" Influence: Neither system effectively tracks the "revolving door" phenomenon, where former officials and politicians move into lucrative advisory or board positions in the pharmaceutical industry. These individuals use their insider knowledge and personal networks to influence policy in ways that are not captured by lobbying registers.

• Informal Interactions: Much of the most effective lobbying happens in private, informal settings—at conferences, private dinners, or over the phone. These interactions are not subject to disclosure requirements.

• Third-Party Advocacy: Pharmaceutical companies often fund patient advocacy groups, think tanks, and research organizations to advocate for their policy positions. While some of these groups disclose their funding, this indirect lobbying provides a powerful, third-party voice for corporate interests, often with a level of credibility that direct corporate lobbying lacks.

In conclusion, while citizens can use official registers and parliamentary records to track pharmaceutical lobbying, these tools are often inadequate. The EU's system is more transparent than the UK's, but both are undermined by significant loopholes and a lack of enforcement.

For a truly transparent system, both jurisdictions would need to implement mandatory, comprehensive registers that capture all forms of lobbying, including in-house activities and the "revolving door."