The financing of a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CEP) will not be publicly debated at the Grand Council. The Vaudois deputies definitively decided on Tuesday to give the Bureau of Parliament the competence to grant the financing necessary for the operation of a CEP and not directly to the plenum.
After two hours of discussions in the first debate two weeks ago, parliamentarians debated another hour on Tuesday in the second debate on this tense subject. Always with the same question: who provides funding for a CEP? The Grand Council or the Office of the Grand Council?
As a reminder, it was the CEP on the Riviera-Chablais Hospital (CEP-HRC), established in March 2021 in the context of the financial difficulties of the Rennaz establishment, which recommended a change in the financing arrangements. His wish followed resistance encountered during his year of work, in particular interference from the Finance Commission (COFIN) and probably from the head of the Finance Department at the time, Pascal Broulis.
Five weeks lost
COFIN had, in fact, asked to reduce by 38% the budget presented by this CEP-HRC, which amounted to around 850,000 francs in total. Discussions and exchanges around the budget had delayed the start of the CEP’s work by five weeks, even though Vaud law clearly stipulates that it is up to the CEP to determine the means it needs to carry out its mandate.
Therefore, COFIN itself proposed its solution for a reform of the financing methods of a CEP. His motion, defended by the PLR Gérard Mojon and taken into immediate consideration in June 2023, suggests that the financial envelope must be decided directly by the Grand Council at the same time as it decides the mandate of a CEP. But she wants the Council of State to be consulted and for COFIN to draw up a written notice before the debates at the plenum.
Counter-project
The Thematic Commission on Institutions and Political Rights (CIDROPOL) responsible for examining this reform was not convinced by the motion, in contradiction with the independence of the CEPs, according to it. She therefore put forward a counter-proposal to the text.
CIDROPOL believes that “the most effective way to avoid the turbulence that we experienced in the case of the CEP-HRC is to create a legal basis giving the Office of the Grand Council the competence to grant the financing necessary for the operation of “a CEP without possible interference from other commissions of the Grand Council and the Council of State”. However, it is not opposed to a simple technical notice from COFIN to the Bureau.
Principle of confidentiality
Its president Alexandre Démétriadès (PS) as well as several deputies pleaded for a solution which respects the “full and complete independence” of the CEP, its confidentiality, the strict separation of powers and the speed of the needs of the financial means of the CEP to accomplish his tasks.
Several elected officials feared that a debate at the plenum would expose too many details about the confidential work of the CEP and would require justifying each amount of its budget. Not to mention the risk that a decision of the Grand Council will result in a decree which, formally, can be challenged by a referendum. Which would delay its entry into action.
After some friction and attacks, the deputies finally favored in the second debate also the solution recommended by CIDROPOL. The left and the liberal Greens overwhelmingly supported the counter-project while the right, especially the PLR, appeared once again divided. It was accepted by 81 yes, 52 no and six abstentions. In the final vote, all the modifications were approved by 90 deputies against 30 no and twelve abstentions.
This article was automatically published. Source: ats
