Second Reading of the Bill on the Amendment of the Electronic Communications Act and the Nature Conservation Act (392 SE)
Session: 15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
Date: 2024-04-03 20:34
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 40
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 35m
AI Summaries: 40/40 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The Riigikogu debated the second reading of Bill 392, initiated by the National Defence Committee – the Act amending the Electronic Communications Act and the Nature Conservation Act. In the speeches delivered, it was emphasized that the Kevadtorm exercises, or the large-scale concert in Western Estonia and the islands, and the use of coastal and shore restricted zones require regulation that allows for more flexible and faster reaction. The first reading ended on March 12, and the deadline for amendments was March 21. The Environment Committee submitted two amendments, the goal of which was to significantly shorten the bill and remove certain points concerning the principles of the Nature Conservation Act, which could lead to longer disputes and delays. During the inter-committee proceedings, ministries and parties met to find solutions and clarify which points were urgent and which questions could be postponed until subsequent amendments to the Nature Conservation Act. The amendments ready for the final vote were prepared during the First Reading, and by the Second Reading, the contradictions had been mitigated—the goal is to enforce the bill on May 1. The second reading was concluded, and the final vote is planned for the plenary session on April 9.
Decisions Made 3
The Environmental Commission submitted two amendments, both of which concerned the streamlining of the draft's provisions and the conciseness of the text: subsection 2, along with subsections 3 and 4, were removed from Section 2. The aim of the amendments was to make the draft shorter and clearer due to the urgency of Kevadtorm.
The amendments were adopted during the plenary vote, based on the results: Amendment No. 1 was adopted with 47 votes in favor and 14 against; Amendment No. 2 was adopted with 48 votes in favor and 14 against. Consequently, the bill became significantly shorter and was submitted for the final vote.
The second reading was concluded, and the consideration of the bill for the report and the final vote was referred to the plenary session. The planned final vote is scheduled to take place on April 9th during the current mandate period, and the bill will enter into force in accordance with the procedure. (Minor clarification: the dates are subject to confirmation depending on the plenary status.)
Most Active Speaker
The most active speaker, Leo Kunnas (pid 4YTuQLAmSvU), a member of the EKRE faction, aligns with the right-wing political orientation. His participation encompassed several questions and viewpoints concerning the urgency of the draft bill, the thematic perspective on defense readiness, and the impact of parameters within the context of nature conservation. Demonstrating marginal activity, he presented consistent positions and guided the discussion within acceptable boundaries.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Today, the second reading of Bill 392, initiated by the National Defence Committee, which amends the Electronic Communications Act and the Nature Conservation Act, is being debated, and the report on it will be delivered from the Riigikogu podium by Igor Taro, Chairman of the Environment Committee.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
This draft bill would amend the Electronic Communications Act and the Nature Conservation Act, allowing the Defence Forces to notify the public about the situation in danger areas via text messages and operate within the shore protection zone during the Spring Storm exercise. Between the two readings, the bill has been significantly shortened by two amendments proposed by the Environment Committee; the completion of the second reading and the final vote are scheduled for April 9th.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman thanks the presenter and asks Leo Kunnas to ask a question.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Leo Kunnas asks why the sections concerning the use of the building restriction zone have been omitted during a state of heightened defense readiness, mobilization, emergency situation, or state of war, and why, in such a situation, requesting permits from the Environmental Board would not be reasonable or possible, and what he views as ambiguities that would require additional time for discussion.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The proposal was to withdraw the three points collectively, not just the one about which questions had arisen, because although everything appeared to be in order on paper, the terrain revealed hills and valleys, and consequently, the environmental commission saw no reason to oppose the Ministry of Defence’s proposal.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
This is a brief address expressing gratitude and making a request to Rain Epler.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler continues Kunnas’s question, noting that the landscape appeared flat on the map, but in reality, hills and valleys emerged. Two-thirds was indeed flat, but a single hill or valley raised questions. He and Leo are discussing why two specific points were removed—points that initially hadn't caused any issues—and why the discussion must now address the matter of obtaining consent from the Environmental Board during a state of war.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The committee discussed amendments to the draft bill, and the Ministry of Defence's position was that the section being removed does not concern Kevadtorm, meaning there is no urgency, and we therefore had no reason to challenge it.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar invites Arvo Aller to speak.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller points out that the initiative originated in the Riigikogu National Defence Committee, and the Environmental Committee is acting as the lead committee handling the amendments to the Nature Conservation Act. He then inquires whether the Ministry of Defence was consulted in advance, why two amendment proposals were made while three specific points were excluded, and what the final voting result was.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
All votes and decisions in the committee were unanimous, and due to the urgent nature of the draft bill, two issues were separated so that the legislative amendment could be finalized on May 1st during the Spring Storm exercise, as the two weeks allocated to the ministries were insufficient.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar asked Rain Epler to come up onto the stage.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler asked whether actions taken in a critical situation without a permit from the Environmental Board could lead to subsequent proceedings once the situation has been resolved or has calmed down.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro said that we are all equally guardians of the constitutional order, and in a state of war, peacetime proceedings are suspended and wartime action begins. However, he believes that the necessary amendments will soon make their way to the Riigikogu, because national defense issues require resolution.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman gives thanks and invites Priit Lomp to speak.
Priit Lomp
AI Summary
Priit Lomp stated that the Economic Affairs Committee is discussing the infringement of privacy, but emergency alerts are sent out anonymously, relying on mobile operator mast networks. Furthermore, the proceedings will not be halted to ensure the rapid execution of the Kevadtorm exercise; rather, the discussion will simply continue.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro stated that the Economic Affairs Committee sought the opinion of the Legal and Analysis Department, which stresses that the location tracking of individuals during exercises should be an exception, and that limiting this practice in the draft bill is justified. Furthermore, the use of threat alerts infringes upon privacy, and the collection and use of such data must only occur to a limited extent and when there is a genuine need – an assessment also provided by the Data Protection Inspectorate.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The presenter called Arvo Aller to the stage.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller stated that the first amendment proposal removes the text that would waive the requirement for the Environmental Board's consent when utilizing the restricted zone for the purpose of heightened defense readiness. He then asked what would happen if consent is absent—specifically, whether fines or legal proceedings could commence after the state of emergency ends, and whether the resulting revenue would reach the state treasury.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro stated that he would not engage in far-reaching speculation regarding an unrealistic scenario where changes have not yet taken effect and someone has already acted. He added that such incidents during martial law typically turn into procedural matters—which is the least of society’s concerns.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar calls upon Meelis Kiili.
Meelis Kiili
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Meelis Kiili asked whether the draft legislation should have been referred to the National Defence Committee session, given that the National Defence Committee was the initiator and the proposed amendments came through the processing committee, and whether that action would have been lawful.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
The Riigikogu Board designated the Environment Committee as the lead committee for this draft bill because the largest number of amendments relates to the Nature Conservation Act. Furthermore, throughout the proceedings, efforts were made to be as inclusive as possible, and the representative of the initiator, Raimond Kaljulaid, who introduced the bill, was present at all sessions of the Environment Committee and was aware that these were proposals originating from the Ministry of Defence.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar calls Mario Kadastik.
Mario Kadastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mario Kadastik emphasized that in the case of emergency alerts, the locations of individual phones are not tracked; rather, the message is sent to all devices connected to the cell tower. Since no single device is identified, there is no violation of privacy, which is why the adoption of the law is currently reasonable, and research will continue in the background.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro stated that the regulation primarily applies to peacetime, not wartime, and both the legal and analysis department and the Data Protection Inspectorate have been extremely cautious, opting for less regulation rather than more.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar calls upon Henn Põlluaas to speak.
Henn Põlluaas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Henn Põlluaas stresses that national security and the training of the Defense Forces are paramount, and when the fate of the country hangs in the balance, there can be absolutely no impediments. Furthermore, he suspects the government is acting in someone else's interest—perhaps even Putin's.
Igor Taro
AI Summary
Igor Taro stated that the draft bill only regulates peacetime exercises and does not affect the wartime situation. He recalled that they had visited Ukraine together with the Speaker of the Riigikogu, and confirmed that there is no reason to fear that anything would be left undone during wartime.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanked the rapporteur, stated that there were no further questions, opened the debate, and invited Tiit Maran to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Tiit Maran
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Tiit Maran noted that due to Kevadtorm, an extraordinary procedure is necessary for amending the draft bills concerning the Electronic Communications Act and the Nature Conservation Act. However, he emphasized that not all topics are urgent, and these can be addressed slowly if necessary, allowing other issues to be resolved within the framework of the draft amendments to the Nature Conservation Act.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas thanks the assembly and invites Leo Kunnas to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Leo Kunnas stated that the EKRE faction supported the draft legislation but would not support the proposed amendments, arguing that the provisions are clear and that hesitation is unwarranted. He added that the non-application for permits should remain exactly as written in the original bill, which we had previously supported by consensus in the National Defence Committee, based on the Ministry of Defence's proposal.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas concluded the debate, began the review of the amendments to Bill 392, and requested assistance and cooperation, informing at the same time that the first amendment originated from the Environment Committee and the leading committee intends to take it fully into account.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme thanks [voters] and asks them to vote for the EKRE faction.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that Amendment Proposal No. 1, submitted by the Environment Committee, would be put to a vote, and asked his colleagues to take a position and cast their votes, noting that the lead committee wished to accept the proposal fully.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The motion was supported by a vote of 47 in favor, 14 against, with no abstentions; Amendment No. 2 was submitted by the Environment Committee, and the lead committee recommends full consideration.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He thanks them and asks the EKRE faction to vote in favor of it.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas began preparations for the vote, presented Amendment Proposal No. 2, which was submitted by the Environment Committee, and requested the lead committee to take a stand and vote.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that the second reading of Draft Act 392 has been concluded, resulting in 48 votes in favor, 14 against, and zero abstentions, the proposed amendments have been reviewed, and the consideration of the sixth item on the agenda has been completed.