German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/222, pp. 28165-28166.
Right honorable Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.
According to applicable law, insolvency insurers, who offer
and provide package tour insolvency protection, can limit liability to 110
million euros per fiscal year. We all know that this regulation was relevant in
September and October of 2019 when the German affiliates of Thomas Cook moved
to open insolvency proceedings and the liability for that ultimately provided
that the taxpayer need answer for a sum of approximately 160 million euros. For
this reason is it already long urgently necessary that finally a new draft law
be put forward and we expressly welcome that the Federal government now finally
follows up.
We in the Tourism Committee, in good time and, before all,
across delegations, had demanded a new regulation and had already debated on
the draft presented, and in that regard conversed with many experts. I
therefore find it quite particularly unfortunate that the Federal government
plain and simple tossed to the wind the relevant information and suggestions of
the industry representatives and of many experts.
The federal association of the mittlestandische economy indicated in its comments thereto that,
with a giving of security of 7 percent of turnover and a remuneration of 1
percent of turnover, many firms in the future must pay twice as high a
contribution to the travel insurance fund as previously was to be paid for the
insolvency insurance. With the new regulation, the strived-for improvement of
the insolvency insurance for customers of the larger travel firms could thereby
lead to an increased cost for small and mid-sized travel firms.
The international bus tours association, the RBA, sees it similarly and in its
comments for the draft papers spoke of the accident risks of large international
concerns which, by means of the mechanisms of the travel insurance fund, would
in fact be shifted onto the mittlestandische
and, before all, family-led travel firms. With this draft are thus once again
the small and mittlestandische firms
encumbered and their considerations ignored. These proceedings would even in
normal times be feeble of the Federal government, yet in one of the greatest
crises of the tourism industry, in which many diligent businessmen and employees
are plain and simple at an end, the government’s behavior is a scandal, ladies
and gentlemen.
I would have gladly spoken personally with Herr State Secretary Bareiss – he at least is the Federal government’s tourism commissioner – yet he once again is not here.
Paul Lehrieder (CDU/CSU): He is here! He is sitting in the back!
It may be, he sits somewhere in the back. – Ach, Herr Bareiss, I greet you! You after all know the situation of the branch. It is your duty that the Federal government stands up for those in the tourism industry. Perhaps today you take an extra backward place, because you no longer fight at the front, Herr Bareiss.
Volker Ullrich (CDU/CSU): That is an awful thing to say!
– Yes, but apparently on point. Since Herr Bareiss is part
of the government and should himself stand up for the government, but
apparently he does not ordinarily do that.
Let us come back to the draft law. The apportion limit of 3
million euros of turnover, under which there is the possibility to separate
oneself from the compulsory membership in the fund and in another way insure
oneself, is held by many experts to clearly have impinged too deeply. We should
finally for once discuss whether we could not raise that 10 to 15 million
euros.
Yet it truly lies in the rush, and the many open questions,
and, before all, the ignoring of the experts’ complaints, that the Federal government
for very long has done nothing and now suddenly takes note that urgent action
is needed because otherwise by the end of the year we may have a giant problem.
In many other places is indicated that the draft law has
been knit with the hot needle and shall now be quick whipped through the
parliament. The GmbH [limited
liability company] which shall manage the fund remains vague. No one know quite
exactly how the arrangement of details will function. Has then the ominous
adviser some possibility of influence or will one or another figurehead be
installed there, who only advises and in the end costs money? How does the BMJV [justice ministry], for instance
the Federal Office for Justice, actually undertake the supervision? And, before
all: How so is it figured in the draft that, with only half a position, the
supervision of a fund with 750 million euros shall be conducted? And here I am
very anxious as to how you will explain this disproportion to us in the further
consultations.
On the whole, you see, ladies and gentlemen: The draft
leaves open important questions, ignores essential complaints of the tourism
people concerned and appears to me to be not yet fully thought through. I am
therefore glad of further consultations in committee and hope that in the future
you let sensible suggestions influence your work.
I thank you for your attention.
[trans: tem]
