Federal Council does too little against indiscretions according to its supervisor
Published: Friday, Nov 17th 2023, 19:50
Retour au fil d'actualité
The numerous indiscretions in connection with Covid-19 business cannot be blamed directly on Health Minister Alain Berset. However, like all other members of the Federal Council, he did too little to stop the leaks. This is the conclusion reached by parliamentary oversight.
On Friday evening, the business audit committees of the National Council and Council of States (CPC) published their eagerly awaited investigation report on the so-called corona leaks. A working group had investigated how many leaks had occurred, focusing on the role of Berset's Federal Department of Home Affairs. The entire Federal Council, as well as the Federal Chancellor and several employees, were questioned because leaks had occurred in all departments.
However, due to the "very incomplete source situation", it was not possible to answer the investigation questions conclusively, according to the report. However, the extent of the leaks from the Federal Council is clear. According to the GPK, around 200 of the 500 articles examined from 24 media titles were certainly based on indiscretions. "Of 50 Federal Council meetings analyzed, 38 were contaminated," SVP National Councillor and GPK member Thomas de Courten told the media in Bern.
Indiscretions not on Berset's behalf
The leaks led to a loss of confidence in the Federal Council and had a concrete impact on its decision-making, the CPC noted. Various media outlets were particularly likely to have "classified information" and reported on it. According to de Courten, the two large media companies Tamedia and Ringier reported on indiscreet content most frequently.
Marc Walder, CEO of Ringier AG, had received information classified as confidential from Peter Lauener, the former Head of Communications at the Department of Home Affairs, the GPK continued. However, the evaluation of the media coverage "did not reveal any indications of the use of the transmitted information in the reporting".
According to the GPK, Berset was aware of the regular contact between Lauener and Walder. However, there is no evidence that he was informed of the specific content of this exchange or that the indiscretions were made on his behalf. Ultimately, however, the facts of the case could not be conclusively assessed.
However, the CPC finds it difficult to understand why Berset, aware of these contacts and the numerous and repeated indiscretions regarding his department's business, did not take any specific measures. Berset emphasized to the GPK that the indiscretions could not possibly come from his department.
A "certain resignation" in the Federal Council
It was clear that the measures against such indiscretions had not been effective, said de Courten. "When indiscretions happen, this must also be actively addressed in the Federal Council." During the coronavirus crisis, there was "a certain resignation" in the Federal Council. No one had shown the assertiveness to stop these indiscretions.
There have also been indiscretions in the recent past, the GPK writes. Given the zero tolerance emphasized by the Federal Councillors, this is "astonishing".
The committees believe that an important measure in the fight against indiscretions is the consistent filing of criminal charges for a breach of official secrecy. Clearer rules are also needed for background discussions between communications officers and media representatives and for debriefings between Federal Councillors and their staff. The CPC-N made a total of eight recommendations to the Federal Council.
EDI criticizes report as "one-sided"
The latter must comment on the report by the beginning of February. Berset's Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA) already responded on Friday evening. Among other things, it emphasized "that the regular contacts between the FDHA and the CEO of Ringier were part of the context of the latter's willingness to provide support and corresponding project ideas". The FDHA was also the only department to file two criminal charges for indiscretions during the pandemic.
The FDHA criticizes the GPK report. It focuses one-sidedly on the former head of communications at the FDHA. The report therefore has a possible influence on the criminal proceedings and thus potentially violates the principle of separation of powers. This perpetuates the prior conviction of the former head of communications of the FDHA without this being classified.
©Keystone/SDA
French 
English 
German 
Spanish 
Arabic