Take-Aways (AI)
  • The com­mit­tee unani­mously reque­sted that the whist­le­b­lo­wing bill 13.094 be refer­red back to the Fede­ral Coun­cil with the ins­truc­tion to for­mu­la­te the bill in a more com­pre­hen­si­ble and simp­ler way.
  • The basic struc­tu­re of the pro­po­sal (cas­ca­de employer-aut­ho­ri­ty-public and incen­ti­ves for inter­nal report­ing offices) should be express­ly retained.

Media release:

The Com­mis­si­on unani­mously pro­po­ses that the Coun­cil appro­ve the decis­i­on of the Natio­nal Coun­cil of May 5, 2015, to refer the whist­le­b­lo­wing bill 13.094 back to the Fede­ral Coun­cil with the Order to for­mu­la­te the draft more under­stan­da­ble and simp­le. Howe­ver, the basic struc­tu­re of the bill is to be retai­ned, name­ly with regard to the cas­ca­de (employer, aut­ho­ri­ty, public) as well as the incen­ti­ve for the crea­ti­on of inter­nal hotlines.

Con­sul­ting:

Bishop Pir­min (CE, SO), for the Com­mis­si­onYou are right to be fami­li­ar with this busi­ness. We dis­cus­sed it in com­mit­tee at our mee­ting on July 4, 2014, and the Coun­cil of Sta­tes appro­ved it on Sep­tem­ber 22, 2014, by 22 votes to 13 with 6 abst­en­ti­ons. Our sister com­mis­si­on and then the Natio­nal Coun­cil step­ped in, but sent the bill back to the Fede­ral Coun­cil with the man­da­te to Design more under­stan­da­ble and simp­le to for­mu­la­te. At the Basic struc­tu­re of the tem­p­la­te, howe­ver, is to be retai­ned. This should be empha­si­zed twice. This applies in par­ti­cu­lar to the cas­ca­de of employees, aut­ho­ri­ties, the public and the incen­ti­ve for the crea­ti­on of inter­nal report­ing offices in com­pa­nies. The Natio­nal Coun­cil deci­ded this by 134 votes to 49 with 1 abstention.
We now have to deci­de today whe­ther we in our Coun­cil want to adopt the appr­oval of this rejec­tion. The Com­mis­si­on has deci­ded to do so, albeit wit­hout gre­at enthu­si­asm. The purely for­mal and not sub­stan­ti­ve revi­si­on is admit­ted­ly a nice wish. It is always the legislator’s wish that the legis­la­ti­on be simp­le. Nevert­hel­ess, the deba­te in the Natio­nal Coun­cil then tur­ned part­ly to content.
But wit­hout much desi­re and in con­side­ra­ti­on of the very clear vote of the Natio­nal Coun­cil decis­i­on, your com­mis­si­on unani­mously pro­po­ses to you to fol­low the Natio­nal Coun­cil and to refer the busi­ness back to the Fede­ral Council.

Som­ma­ru­ga Simo­net­ta, Pre­si­dent of the Swiss Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on: The com­mis­si­on spo­kes­man has said it: The man­da­te accor­ding to the Natio­nal Council’s rejec­tion reso­lu­ti­on requi­res no con­tent revi­si­on of the bill, on the con­tra­ry. The order express­ly requi­res that the basic struc­tu­re of this bill be adhered to, as it also pri­ma­ri­ly con­cerns this cas­ca­de employer, aut­ho­ri­ty, public and the inten­ded crea­ti­on of incen­ti­ves for employers to crea­te inter­nal report­ing offices.
We alre­a­dy take this busi­ness back and will do our best. But I also have to tell you that it won’t be easy. “Sim­pli­fy” is a nice word, ever­yo­ne likes that. But sim­pli­fy­ing means going into less detail. Then, in the end, peo­p­le say again: “But that has to be regu­la­ted! The­re must be very clear rules, so that ever­yo­ne knows when who does what…” We will be faced with this dilem­ma not only here, but also here, that we may then have a loss of pre­cis­i­on; it will be a balan­cing act.
Once again, I think it’s worth lea­ning over here again, loo­king at how we can find a com­ple­te, pre­cise, simp­le and under­stan­da­ble for­mu­la­ti­on. When we find them, I’ll be the first to rejoice.