Draft law amending the Emergency Situations Act (589 SE) - Third Reading
Session: 15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
Date: 2025-05-07 17:44
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 16
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 17m
AI Summaries: 16/16 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The present agenda item was the third reading of the draft law amending the Emergency Situations Act, initiated by the Government of the Republic. The draft’s purpose is to clarify the obligations of providers of vital services in crisis situations, focusing particularly on cybersecurity and risk management, and to improve preparedness in the area of civil protection. A broader discussion was also raised regarding the necessity of the systemic functioning of civil protection, including shelters and bomb shelters, and the obligations for public training. The question was brought up as to how quickly and to what extent the state, the public sector, and vital services should be prepared for crises, and the government and the Reform Party’s decision-making speed was criticized, as some political forces believe that this has left improvements to civil protection neglected.
Decisions Made 1
Bill 589 put to a final vote and passed; voting result: 70 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstentions. The bill was adopted as a law.
Most Active Speaker
The most active speaker was Lauri Läänemets (id 2JB0KzFPO7g), from the Social Democratic Party faction. He represented a left-wing (left) political position and drew attention to the critical consideration of the bill’s substantive and operational issues, demanding quicker action in the area of population protection and crisis preparedness.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The second item on the agenda concerns the opening of the third reading of the Government-initiated draft amendment to the Emergency Situations Act No. 589, and Lauri Läänemets will speak on behalf of the SDP faction.
Lauri Läänemets
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Läänemets emphasizes that this is an indispensable and important draft bill, and expresses his pleasure about it.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
He apologizes to his colleagues and asks that the hall calm down a little.
Lauri Läänemets
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The speaker asks whether the hall is aroused, and notes that the buzz does not subside.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi addresses his colleagues, mentions the leavers and the stayers, and asks the audience to listen to the presenter and to grant an additional three minutes and thirty seconds of time.
Lauri Läänemets
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Läänemets emphasizes that in Estonia the civil protection and hazard-warning system must be prepared quickly and shelters and hiding places must be built, but the adoption of this bill is dragging on due to the government's and the Reform Party's indecision, which endangers crisis preparedness.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The vice-chairman thanks and informs that, before Vladimir Arhipov's address, a question will be put to the chair of the meeting, and Kristo Enn Vaga is asked to come.
Kristo Enn Vaga
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kristo Enn Vaga raised the question about the current speaking format, stressed that he is the lead rapporteur for this draft and that speeches should be limited to the draft currently under consideration, and called his colleagues to order, proposing that the Monday open-mic format could be directed specifically at that draft.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi said that he is essentially in agreement with the draft bill under discussion, but the chair cannot foresee what the colleagues are talking about, and interrupting a speech is practically impossible, because the introduction may be too long and, in the end, the discussions will turn into disputes, and he will also present Peeter Ernits's question to the chair.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits said that he was not familiar with the draft's previous handling and was confused, but in the end he supported it and noted that he could talk about anything, including land and weather.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi says that although de facto things can be done, he does not think this is right; he points to the party most frequently mentioned in the Reform Party's hall, and EKRE is mentioned as well, and on behalf of the Estonian Centre Party faction, Vladimir Arhipov asks to deliver the speech.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov emphasizes that the aim of amending the emergency law is to specify the obligations for cybersecurity and risk management of essential services, but he reminds that there is a legal basis and that implementability as well as the competence and resources of supervision are important in order to avoid excessive bureaucracy, and the Centre Party supports the bill because it brings clarity and accountability in crisis situations.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi ended the negotiations, announced preparations for the final vote on Draft Bill 589 (amending the Emergency Situations Act), and asked for a position to be taken and a vote to be cast.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Seventy members of the Riigikogu voted for Bill 589, and there were no opponents or abstentions; the bill was adopted as law and the consideration of the second agenda item was closed; a question was put to the chair of the meeting, Kristo Enn Vaga.
Kristo Enn Vaga
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vaga noted that Lauri Läänemets was not present during the processing of the bill, and pointed out that the statement he made at the podium does not reflect reality.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This question did not belong to the chair of the meeting and was not procedural.