Icon: enlarge
Bundestag debate (archive photo): How much can parliament have a say in corona policy?
Photo: JOHN MACDOUGALL / AFP
For a long time, the SPD held back from public criticism of the federal government's corona crisis management.
There has been resentment in the Bundestag parliamentary group for some time about the behavior of the government, especially Jens Spahn.
A planned law by the CDU health minister is now causing the comrades to abandon their reluctance.
In order for citizens to accept the Corona measures, the decisions would have to be made transparently and comprehensibly, says Carsten Schneider, First Parliamentary Managing Director of the SPD parliamentary group, SPIEGEL.
"That wasn't always the case in the last few days."
Extending or unconditionally extending a regulation regime for the health minister would not meet the current requirements, according to Schneider: "We therefore want to concretise the legal basis and restrict the executive's leeway again."
In detail, it is about some of the special rights that Spahn were granted due to the corona crisis - and which the Minister of Health wants to keep permanently.
SPIEGEL has a current version of the bill.
As the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" first reported, the Ministry of Health could forbid rail, bus and flight companies to transport people from risk areas.
It would also be possible to oblige companies to report passengers suspected of being infected to the authorities.
"An indictment of democracy"
Not only the opposition, but also the SPD strictly rejects such a regulation.
The Social Democrats have stopped Spahn's draft law in the cabinet for the time being, as it was said from coalition circles.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Health did not confirm this when asked.
The ministerial draft is still being voted on within the government.
Icon: enlarge
Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU): Dispute over special rights in the corona crisis
Photo: Jörg Carstensen / dpa
It is said from the Union that the debate on the draft law is weird anyway.
So he provides that the period of validity for the ordinances is limited to one year.
In addition, the Federal Council must agree;
the Bundestag could at any time repeal the ordinances of the minister or change the period of validity.
"At the moment, the Bundestag has almost been disempowered in decisions that have led to unprecedented restrictions on freedom and fundamental rights."
Andreas Mattfeldt, CDU member of the Bundestag
This does not appease the critics, the discussion about the role of Parliament remains.
The tone is getting sharper in the Bundestag.
Even members of the Union criticize that the government is expanding its power too much.
"For democracy, it is an indictment that MPs have not been properly involved in decisions on pandemic policy measures for such a long period of time," said CDU MP Andreas Mattfeldt to SPIEGEL.
"At the moment, the Bundestag has been almost deprived of its power in decisions that have led to unprecedented restrictions on freedom and fundamental rights. We cannot accept that for such a long period of time."
Bundestag President Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) also wrote in a letter to the parliamentary group chairmen that the Bundestag must "make its role as legislator and public forum clear" - "in order to avoid the impression that fighting pandemics is solely a matter for the executive and judiciary".
The crisis managers in the federal government reject the criticism: Involve parliament, but this is the time of the executive.
But there is a huge problem in the fight against the virus.
Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) was prompted to make an urgent appeal to citizens at the weekend.
In her podcast, she asked citizens "to stay at home wherever possible".
Apparently, the resolutions of the Prime Minister's Conference last week were not enough for Merkel.
In fact, the regulations of the individual countries are so different that hardly anyone can see what applies.
The ban on accommodation?
Has already been cleared in most countries.
The curfew?
Has already been partially overturned by a court in Berlin, other countries are still introducing it.
There is disagreement about the mask requirement in public places - as well as about the question of where and how many people are allowed to meet privately.
A clear majority of the population still supports restrictions on life in order to fight the pandemic.
But politics is jeopardizing this support with its non-transparent and inconsistent approach.
How could Parliament be strengthened?
In addition, administrative courts are now increasingly overturning corona rules.
Often on the grounds that clear evidence has not been provided that the measures really help to contain the pandemic.
There is also a debate about whether federalism has reached its limits in fighting pandemics.
Even Bavaria's Prime Minister Markus Söder sees it that way, while Chancellor Angela Merkel opposes it.
According to a current SPIEGEL survey, a majority of Germans are dissatisfied with the federal states' corona policy.
The legal basis for the corona decrees of the federal states is the Infection Protection Act - a federal law.
However, it does not explain exactly what the countries can actually do.
In view of the serious restrictions on freedom associated with the measures, many MPs would like more participation and more precise specifications.
"We need area-specific authorizations to intervene that are sufficiently determined in terms of content, purpose and extent," said Bundestag Vice President Thomas Oppermann (SPD) to SPIEGEL.
Legal scholar Joachim Wieland, member of the North Rhine-Westphalian Constitutional Court, also sees opportunities here to strengthen parliament.
"The current regulation in the Infection Protection Act is not geared to the current pandemic situation. In view of the importance of the measures, one could consider specifying the content of the measures in the law," Wieland told SPIEGEL.
At least the risk that administrative courts stop Corona regulations would be off the table, according to Wieland.
Anyone who complains against the specific measures would then have to go to the Federal Constitutional Court.
"After six months the time has come to formulate the legal basis for the corona regulations of the federal states more precisely," says Konstantin Kuhle, domestic policy spokesman for the FDP parliamentary group.
Greater involvement could help ensure that the measures are also accepted by the population.
After all, it is also the task of parliamentarians to bring the measures closer to the population.
"But it is simply not possible that you as a representative of the people have to justify yourself for completely incomprehensible corona ordinances that are collected by the courts the next day and that you only find out about from the newspaper," Kuhle told SPIEGEL.
In any case, the SPD parliamentary group has decided to have a greater say in the fight against Corona.
Fraction manager Schneider has already announced that in the next week of the Bundestag session, the measures and their legal basis will be discussed in principle.
Icon: The mirror
