(as of December 2011)
Research, education and further training
At its meeting on 12-14 January 2011, the CSEC-N addressed the Human Research bill (09.079) for the second time, having completed its detailed examination in November 2010. The Committee decided against the intervention concept it had introduced during its first discussion of the bill, but voted in favour of a proposal that non-genetic and genetic as well as personal data relating to health should all come under the term “health-related data”. In the final vote on the text as a whole, the Committee voted in favour with 15 votes to 2 and 6 abstentions; the National Council followed suit during the spring session.
The bill was on the agenda of the CSEC-S meeting on 24/25 March 2011, when first of all representatives of research laboratories, the pharmaceutical industry, the Central Ethics Commission and a patients’ organisation were interviewed. The Committee subsequently decided unanimously to address the bill and started examining the text in detail. The issues of clinical trials, appointing an ombudsman and liability in particular were the focus of intensive discussion. A vote on the whole text was postponed.
Since the issue of clinical trials was raised repeatedly in connection with the above bill, the CSEC-N decided during its second reading to submit a Committee motion Clinical Trials (11.3001). This is the result of the Committee’s decision not to include clinical trials in the Human Research bill. The motion calls on the Federal Council to indicate the current regulations on clinical trials in Switzerland, to identify grey areas, from a legal point of view, and to reveal where additions should be made to ordinances, guidelines or laws concerning clinical trials. Following the approval of the motion in the National Council, the CSEC-S decided at its meeting on 24/25 March 2011 to address the motion separately from the proposed new law. On 9 May the CSEC-S voted unanimously in favour of the proposed new law. The most important difference of opinion from the National Council’s stand was the call for cantonal ombudsmen for questions and complaints from people involved in research projects. This idea was not backed by the National Council and, after differences had been ironed out during the autumn session, the National Council’s version was finally accepted.
The proposed federal law on the promotion of universities and the coordination of the Swiss university system (09.057) is intended as a tool for implementing the “Revised constitutional stipulations concerning education” (the so-called Education Articles) with reference to universities. In the future the Confederation and the cantons will work together to improve coordination among Swiss universities: quality and accreditation guidelines are to be harmonised and the ease of transfer between the various different types of universities is to be improved. After the CSEC-S completed its detailed examination based on requests submitted by its specially set up sub-committee and approved the proposal in a vote on the text as a whole, the Council of States also approved its Committee’s proposal during the 2010 autumn session.
The CSEC-N started its deliberations at its meeting on 12-14 January 2011. After many meetings to iron out differences, the bill was finally approved by the Councils during the 2011 autumn session.
Every four years the Federal Council draws up a message on the promotion of education, research and innovation (ERI). In order to ensure a better coordination with legislative planning, the Federal Council presented to parliament on 3 December 2010 only a one-year 2012 Intermediate Message on ERI (10.109). This message is an extension of the aims and measures that had already been set out for the period 2008-2011, with a target annual growth rate of 4.5%. For both Committees the federal share of 25% for the cost of vocational training as recommended by law was an important concern. As the first Council, the Council of States fell into line with the majority of its Committee members and decided to raise the payment tariff to CHF 711.25 million and the obligatory credit for vocational training to CHF 83 million without, however, going as far as the 25% limit. The National Council approved the request from its Committee and increased the payment tariff to CHF 757.6 million and the obligatory credit to CHF 88 million, thus creating a difference that could not be ironed out during the 48th legislative period. Both Councils agreed, however, that the amount earmarked for funding universities of applied science should be increased to CHF 439.4 million and that CHF 0.9 million of this obligatory credit should be allotted to the umbrella organisations for further training.
The federal decree on credits under the Promotion of Universities Act was the subject of heated debate in both Committees. With its 2012 Intermediate Message on ERI the Federal Council aimed to synchronise the payment tariff with the estimate credits. Until now, the individual annual instalments of the 4-year payment tariff have only been paid out as part of the budget for the following year. Five of the ten cantons that have universities, namely Basel-Land, Basel-Stadt, Fribourg, Neuchâtel and Vaud, are calling for the current system of payment to remain unchanged in order to avoid value adjustments. Requests to make concessions to the cantons mentioned above have not been granted by either Council. With the exception of the federal decree on funding for vocational training, both Councils voted in favour of all the other federal decrees as well as requests for modification of existing laws (the Federal Institutes of Technology Act, the Promotion of Universities Act and the federal law on contributions to joint federal and cantonal projects aimed at monitoring education in Switzerland) during the 2011 autumn session. Differences concerning vocational training were ironed out during the 2011 winter session. The conciliation conference approved the version drawn up by the National Council.
Policy on children and adolescents
In September 2010 the Federal Council passed a proposed federal law on the promotion of children and adolescents (10.087) to parliament. The aim of this proposal is to take into account the requirements of a changing society and to strengthen the Confederation’s commitment vis-à-vis policy on children and adolescents within its existing constitutional responsibility (Art. 67, para. 2, of the federal constitution). The Council of States having approved the proposal during the spring session and thus falling into line with the request from its Committee, the issue was addressed by the National Council during the summer. Differences were finally ironed out during the autumn session and the proposal was subsequently approved by both Councils. At the same time, a decision was taken regarding the parliamentary initiative submitted by Viola Amherd, Constitutional basis for a federal law on the promotion and protection of children and adolescents (07.402). The Committees are of the opinion that there is no constitutional basis for increased protection for young people, and for this reason a sub-committee of the CSEC-N is at present in the process of drawing up a proposal.
Culture
Having organised initial hearings concerning the popular initiative “Youth and Music” (09.095) and formed a picture of the present situation with regard to this issue, the CSEC-N started examining the proposal on 20 May 2010. It looked at possible ways of funding the project and considered it, together with the Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education and other specialists in the field, in terms of the Swiss constitution. In view of the considerable symbolic importance of the initiative and the broad support that it enjoys among the general public, the Committee decided to disregard the arguments put forward by those not in favour and to back the idea. During the 2010 autumn session the National Council voted in favour of its Committee’s recommendation for approving the popular initiative and rejected a minority call for a direct counter-proposal. Conscious of the fact that this initiative does not comply with the constitutional stipulations on education as approved in May 2006, the CSEC-S decided to examine a direct counter-proposal. This counter-proposal respects the sovereignty of the cantons with regard to education according to the terms of Article 62 of the federal constitution, as well as taking into account the demands set out in the initiative in that the federal and cantonal authorities work together, within the scope of their responsibility, to ensure high-quality musical education and to encourage musically gifted children. Moreover, the federal authorities are to draw up basic regulations concerning musical training outside schools, in particular for children and adolescents. The direct counter-proposal was passed to the cantonal authorities and the initiative committee in a brief consultation process. Finally the Committee submitted its direct counter-proposal but without explicitly including the encouragement of gifted children and recommended that the initiative be rejected. At the same time it called for an extension of the prescribed time limit since the legal limit expires in the summer and it would not be possible to reach an agreement by then. The Council of States voted in favour of all the requests submitted by its Committee. In the summer the National Council voted in favour of extending the time limit and during the winter session the CSEC-N passed on a new counter-proposal which is closer to the initiative to its Council.
On 23 February 2011 the Federal Council presented to parliament its message on Culture (11.020) which sets out the strategic thrust of federal policy on culture for the budgets for 2012 to 2015. The main issues of the Federal Office for Culture, Pro Helvetia, the Swiss National Library and the Swiss National Museum during the period mentioned are dealt with in detail. At its meeting on 9 May 2011, the CSEC-S first held interviews and then started examining the proposal. Eight federal decrees basically define all federal subsidies for promoting culture, regardless of whether the legal bases are set out in the Cultural Promotion Act itself or in special laws (e.g. the Film Act, the Languages Act). The Federal Council requested total funding of CHF 637.9 million for the budget period 2012-2015. During the 2011 autumn session parliament approved a total of CHF 669.5 million for promoting culture between 2012 and 2015, the additional funds being intended in particular for national heritage projects, the protection of historical monuments and the promotion of the film industry.
Animal protection
On 7 September 2011 the Federal Council submitted three proposals to parliament concerning animal protection and animal health.
11.058 n Trade in protected flora and fauna. Federal law
Today important regulations concerning the implementation of the agreement on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna (CITES) are set out in ordinances. The aim of the Federal Council’s proposal is to anchor these regulations in federal legislation. Detailed discussions were held on the issue of delegating responsibility to the Federal Council for concluding international agreements concerning the monitoring of trade in flora and fauna (Art. 4). The majority of the Committee members were of the opinion that this was a pragmatic and appropriate solution, while a minorty thought that, in principle, parliament should have the final word on international agreements.
Exceptions to the compulsory reporting and permits as set out in the Federal Council’s version, based on the above-mentioned agreement, would include items destined for private use (Art. 8). The majority of the Committee voted in favour of this article. A minority, however, called for the detailed regulations concerning exceptions to the rule as set out in the ordinance to be included in the federal legislation.
Furthermore, the Committee expressed a certain uneasiness with the term “Exemplar (specimen)” as used in the German version of the law, which is also meant to include live animals. It considered this general term for flora and fauna as lacking dignity. The proposal as a whole was approved with 14 votes in favour, 6 abstentions and 1 against. The issue will be on the National Council’s agenda for the 2011 winter session.
11.059 n Livestock Epidemics Act. Modification
This proposal would lead to the proactive and faster implementation of measures to combat livestock epidemics and animal diseases that can be transmitted to humans, as well as the improvement of preventive measures. The Committee decided unanimously to address the proposal. The only change that was put forward during the detailed examination of the proposal concerned compulsory compensation (Art. 34): the stipulation on compensation for animals of domestic origin in public or private abattoirs was deleted. A minority within the Committee called for health regulations for farms to be decreed by the Confederation in agreement with the cantonal authorities (Art. 22). In the knowledge that livestock epidemics do not recognise national borders, the majority of the Committee members voted in favour of the draft stipulation on international cooperation (Art. 53b), while the remaining members called for this article to be deleted.
The question of national harmonisation of funding to combat livestock epidemics and for preventive measures was also the subject of debate. The Committee decided to include a corresponding stipulation on funding in the bill on livestock epidemics. A new Article 31a is aimed at creating a legal basis for the pan-Swiss, fixed-term funding of programmes for combatting livestock epidemics. At the same time it would give the Federal Council the possibility of levying charges among livestock owners for fixed-term programmes. In setting out such programmes the Federal Council should take into account the proportion of costs that would be covered by the charges levied and by the federal and cantonal authorities. A minority of the Committee members wanted only the cantonal authorities to be included in the cost-sharing. The vote on the draft decree as a whole received unanimous approval and it was passed on to the National Council, which will examine it during the winter session.
11.060 s Animal Protection Act. Modification
The proposal was welcomed by the CSEC-S. The Committee recognised the fact that the dignity and well-being of animals remained a major aspect in the changes that had been proposed and that they could only lead to improved protection for animals. As a result, the Committee voted in favour of all the proposed changes, with the exception of one article. The new Article 20a, aimed at ensuring better and more transparent information with regard to animal experimentation, was considered highly appropriate and necessary. Nevertheless, the Committee members asked what kind of and how much information the general public should be given without compromising private interests that merit protection or public interests. Since, however, interested parties have the possibility of acquiring sufficient information from publications and research databases, a majority of the Committee members voted in favour of changing this article. According to the new version, once a study involving laboratory animals has been completed, data on the title and research area of the study should no longer be made public. In future the Federal Veterinary Office should consider the predominant private or public interests that merit protection when passing on information.
A minority of the Committee members were of the opinion that the stipulation proposed by the Federal Council would improve the general public’s acceptance of and understanding for animal experimentation and rejected the suggested change. The proposal as a whole was unanimously approved and the Council of States will address the issue during the 2011 winter session.