Tino Chrupalla
Re-Introduction of Meister Requirement
German Bundestag, June 28, 2019,
Plenarprotokoll 19/108, pp. 13473-13474
[Tino
Chrupalla is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the eastern
German state of Saxony. He is a business owner and Meister painter. He here introduces an AfD draft law to
restore the Meister requirement for the skilled trades in Germany. Former Commissioner
for Refugees, Immigration and Integration Aydan Özoğuz,
a member of the SPD, in 2017 publicly stated that, besides the German language,
she was unable to identify or define a German culture.]
Right honorable Herr President. Honorable
members. Dear Handwerker [tradesmen,
mechanics].
I am glad that today we again discuss Handwerk. The AfD’s draft legislation
looks forward to the re-introduction of the Meister
requirement for all trades and the repeal of the 2004 Handwerk supplementary law. In committee we have heard that the
abolition of the admission requirement was the break with a proven tradition.
Herr Schwannecke even spoke of a bond that
would here be broken, in truth a bond that guaranteed that knowledge would be
tested and re-transmitted through the centuries, whereby the Meister felt themselves obliged to train
the young comrades of the next generation, a bond that was the guarantee for
quality, performance and reproduction. This bond would be broken as the experts
quite rightly stated. We have also heard that it consequently comes to massive
repudiations in the Handwerk.
Many Handwerker
see that exactly so in other respects. At the beginning of June there was at
the Economics Ministry a hearing of business representatives. It was confirmed
that there are massive flawed developments. Of 32 trades represented there, 29 supported
the demand to re-introduce the Meister
requirement. They based that on the securing of quality, skills and training
and the protection of consumers and cultural values. That you hear not so
gladly, apparently we have no proper culture besides our language. In any other
country would such a statement be a life-long disqualification for all public
office. But in the BRD [Federal Republic of Germany] it is otherwise. You have
been very lucky there, Frau Özoğuz.
Ulli
Nissen (SPD): He still cannot pronounce that!
It is however in my view on a more important
point (which in these debates is much too seldom considered), that the Handwerk is very tightly interwoven with our
cultural values.
In regards just culture and language: at least still allow us our
ideas which have been established for centuries. Why should the Meister now be re-designated as “Bachelor
professional”? When apparently our language is our only cultural value, then at
least still allow this.
Martin Rabanus
(SPD): Oh, man!
Helin
Evrim Sommer (Linke): I’m about to cry!
Last Wednesday’s committee hearing besides took
place at the suggestion of the AfD. The colleagues of the other parties meanwhile
were also very eager to inform themselves of Handwerk. That is an
interesting development when one considers that there was not a single syllable’s
mention of Handwerk in the 2018
yearly economic report. One can see how great the Minister for the Economy’s interest
in Handwerk is: Herr Minister
Altmeier today yet again shines in absentia!
For 15 years you have ignored the troubles of the Handwerker and now you conduct
yourselves as if you had always been the spokesmen for Handwerk in the Bundestag. That is really ridiculous. The return of
the Meister requirement in recent
years was always sold to us as unrealistic. It would arouse the appearance that
the EU legislation stood in the way; it was anyway Europa-unfriendly to have one’s
own training system.
That was however decisively refuted on Wednesday. The experts
message was clear: in terms of constitutional and EU law, the re-introduction
is generally not a problem. Securing quality and consumer protection are of
legitimate public purpose in EU legislation. We thus now have it in black and
white in this opinion of Dr. Burgi of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität,
Munich. He has herein emphasized that from the juridical standpoint, it is
relatively uncomplicated to undertake the alteration of the law.
Gabriele
Katzmarek (SPD): Each can always read that as he will.
I will now go no further into the motions of the other
delegations. You yourselves can imagine what I think of the motion of the
Greens. The Greens want to create – quote – “For Handwerk additional economic opportunites by means of the energy
transformation” [Energiewende].
I genuinely ask myself, what shall that mean? A new packaging ordinance
or a new industrial waste ordinance? Yet it is certainly the EEG [Renewable Energy
Law] that happens to additionally burden the Handwerk, in contrast to big industry which is largely excused from
these orders; and for that are you, along with others, responsible.
I therefore demand that you as quickly as possible convert our
draft law and repeal this serious breach of tradition. The hearing on Wednesday
in any case confirms: there are no reasonable grounds to wait yet longer.
In conclusion, I am in favor of passing on to the following
generations authentic values [echte Werte]
and not just limits [Grenzwerte].
Many thanks.
[Translated by Todd Martin]
