[ad_1]
In times of crisis, legislation sometimes moves especially quickly; This is also the case now – the amended Infection Protection Act will be sealed today. But the political dispute over paragraph 28a is unlikely to end there.
By Kerstin Palzer, ARD capital studio
The grand coalition wants to introduce an amendment to the Infection Protection Act by the Bundestag as quickly as possible. The first reading was on November 6, now the second and third readings are done on a date. In the afternoon there follows a special meeting of the Federal Council, which must also be approved. Maybe the federal president should sign it all at night. The prescribed procedure for changing the law cannot be followed much faster.
One reason for the rush: Several courts have reversed individual crown measures in countries. The most prominent example was the accommodation ban. The judges decided that the violations of people’s rights were disproportionate or not sufficiently justified.
Parliamentarians demand a voice
The fact that the chancellor and prime minister regularly agreed to restrictions during the Crown crisis and implemented them by ordinance in the countries also attracted increasing criticism. Parliaments, for example, felt left out.
Until now, states have relied on the general clauses of the Federal Infection Protection Act, which did not foresee such a pandemic. Now more precise and precise specifications will be inserted in a new paragraph 28a. List possible known measures, from mask requirement to contact restrictions to store closings, individually and create a legal basis for them.
Moderate criticism of the Greens
So the federal government is now trying to do better. But the opposition does not think they are doing well.
The Greens remain relatively cautious. Factional leader Anton Hofreiter believes the Chancellor and Prime Ministers wreaked havoc on his group over the Corona situation on Monday night. But he appreciates the current bill on the Infection Protection Law quite positively. “We have been demanding for months that there be improvements in terms of legal certainty. One of the biggest problems would be if the measures were gradually brought to court due to insufficient legal standing,” Hofreiter said, also in the face of the persistently high number of new infections.
Strong criticism of the Left Party, FDP and AfD
The Party of the Left, on the other hand, made its criticism clearly. You definitely don’t want to agree with the vote and doubt that this will lead to a clear legal basis at all. “Rather, the government bill continues the concentration of decision-making power in House Spahn,” complains party leader Katja Kipping. “Since the measures and their prerequisites remain undefined, the decision-making power is concentrated in the government. According to this bill, the parliament remains outside.”
The FDP is equally negative. Party leader Christian Lindner considers that the violation of fundamental rights through the Infection Protection Act is too great and, therefore, the whole law is “constitutionally questionable”. The grand coalition bill has the “character of a blank check for administrations.” Lindner also criticizes that the number of infections should be applied as the limit of evaluation for corona measures.
Therefore, the manager of the FDP parliamentary group, Marco Buschmann, also demands that one no longer adhere to the seven-day incidence of 50 or 35 new infected people per 100,000 inhabitants as soon as one can be vaccinated against the crown. “If we have protected people who suffer from infections in particular, who will be the first to end up in intensive care units, with such intensity that they can no longer become infected, then we have a completely different risk situation and therefore already it is clear that Clause 28 has its expiration date on its forehead. “
With the new bill, the AfD sees the danger of far-reaching restrictions on fundamental rights. He speaks of “passages that recall the worst moments of the dictatorship”, but has not yet explained what passages are from his point of view.
Satisfied GroKo groups
The CDU, on the other hand, is “very, very satisfied.” The group’s leader, Ralph Brinkhaus, believes that the prerequisites have now been met to be able to react “appropriately, proportionally, but also flexibly” to the corona pandemic. But he emphasizes that it was the same before. It has only gotten better now, showing that Parliament is “in the driver’s seat” in dealing with the corona pandemic.
Coalition partner SPD is also very satisfied with the new version of the Infection Protection Act. After all, it is “a poison to the confidence of the people when the courts lift the measures of the crown,” said the spokesman for legal policy of the SPD parliamentary group, Johannes Fechner. He emphasizes that it is now stipulated that all ordinances to protect against the pandemic “must be limited in time and must be justified.” The new draft limits the often criticized patchwork of measures against the corona pandemic and leads to greater uniformity.
However, the Social Democrats would have liked that if the schools and kindergartens had been closed, the obstacles to the State’s right to intervene had been raised a little higher. But obviously that was not going to be done with the Union, it is said from the parliamentary groups.
