Asked 1000 times, 1000 times nothing happened…

class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>

Requested 1000 times, 1000 times nothing happened… And then came the emergency merger of UBS and CS. Will this be the subject of investigation by a parliamentary committee of inquiry? At the earliest, after the summer session, will we know whether Parliament’s hem falls under the responsibility of the authorities in the form of a PUK. However: not only at the federal but also at the cantonal level, a PUK is often requested, but it is extremely rarely used – unlike our northern neighbor. There are currently 25 commissions of inquiry, as they are called in Germany, at the federal and state level. Why these differences?

On the one hand, existing supervisory committees in Switzerland have strong control capabilities. On the other hand, the German Bundestag must set up a committee of inquiry at the request of a quarter of its members – in our case, however, this requires a majority.

A minority right in Germany

Convening a commission of inquiry is one of the so-called minority rights in Germany, ie a right of factions not represented in the government. This means is very important in German parliamentarism. For example, in the 2013-2017 election period, the number of votes needed to exercise minority rights was reduced to one-fifth because the Left and Alliance 90/The Greens opposition held only 127 of 630 parliamentary seats (AfD and FDP were not represented at the time in the Bundestag). The provisions are similar in the federal states – the Swiss cantons of St. Gallen, Appenzell Innerrhoden and Thurgau, on the other hand, have no legal basis for using a PUK.

If an application for a committee of inquiry is submitted in the German Bundestag, the principle of acceleration applies: the vote in parliament must take place as quickly as possible. Delays and delaying tactics should not make parliamentary scrutiny more difficult. The formal decision is “only” taken by the upper chamber (Bundestag), unlike Switzerland: in 2010 a PUK was called to “investigate the role of the federal authorities in the supervision and regulation of the financial sector, especially in the case of UBS and in connection with the financial crisis”. The National Council supported the request, the Council of States was against – so a puk was off the table.

Rarely able to achieve a majority in Switzerland

Although the research also shows the contradiction between parliamentary government factions and opposition factions – some observers tend to note that some investigative committees are a weapon of the opposition – existing supervisory committees in Switzerland do not come into the picture in this way. These bodies review the work of the government and administration across party lines. On the other hand, the demand for a PUK in Switzerland is generally quite biased. That makes the PUK an exceptional case, because rarely more than half of the parliamentarians are in favor of it. However, this increases its importance and greatly reinforces the purpose of investigating “incidents of major importance”.

But what is an “incident of major significance”? In Germany this is concretized as follows: A committee of inquiry is set up if parliament or parts of it believe that the relationship of trust with the government has been damaged and/or clarification and gathering of information is not possible in any other way.

Perhaps these criteria can be used to answer the question of whether or not a puk is required for the UBS-CS case. Whether through PUK or not, one of the most important functions – perhaps the most important function – of parliament is to control the government.

* Michael Strebel holds a PhD in political science with a focus on parliamentarianism and political systems. He has several teaching assignments and is the author of the book “The Swiss Parliament Lexicon”, published by Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag.

Source:Blick