Second Reading of the Draft Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers Reporting Work-Related Infringements of European Union Law (257 SE)
Session: 15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session.
Date: 2024-05-08 18:28
Total Speeches: 128
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 2h 36m
AI Summaries: 128/128 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The initial agenda item concerned the debate of the second reading of Draft Act 257, initiated by the Government of the Republic, regarding the protection of whistleblowers concerning violations of European Union law in the workplace. The purpose of the draft act is to establish the conditions and scope of protection for reporting violations learned about in the workplace, and to define the personal and substantive arrangements for whistleblower protection, including reporting channels and mandatory restrictions. The debate focused on reviewing the final text of the draft act and the proposed amendments, as well as the result of the involvement of various stakeholders—namely, what the scope of protection should be (including exceptions, such as violations of European Union law) and whether and how unified reporting channels could be established within state institutions and local governments.
The positions of the interest groups of the Isamaa and EKRE parliamentary factions, along with the impact of court cases, directives, and Supreme Court explanations, highlighted the main problems: whether to prohibit or permit anonymous reporting, what adaptations are necessary for local governments exceeding 10,000 inhabitants, how to define the scope of whistleblower protection, and what types of pressure measures are prohibited. Questions also arose regarding the substantive final goal of the law versus the broader Estonian legal environment, and how state institutions and local governments must create or jointly organize the channels. Finally, an understanding was reached that the committee had consolidated the text and made amendments, and a question was raised as to whether such consolidation was in accordance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court and the perspective of the Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act. The closed discussions concluded under this agenda item, and as a result of the votes on the final proposals, a decision was made to conclude the second reading.
Decisions Made 2
The Commission carried out a thorough substantive discussion and extensive stakeholder engagement. When the proposals were linked based on underlying substantive connections, it was affirmed that the objective was to ensure the law's compliance with the directives and prevent obstruction, but ultimately, a decision was reached to conclude the draft bill at the second reading plenary session (the protocols detailing the results of the reorganizations and votes are being compiled).
At the close of the day, the decision was made: the second reading of the bill was concluded, and the voting results confirmed that no proposals were adopted. The plenary then proceeded with other items on the agenda.
Most Active Speaker
Active participant: Urmas Reinsalu (Isamaa faction). He raised several procedural and substantive questions and issued a controversial and fierce challenge to the binding procedures of the draft bill; position: right-wing/legal-conservative (right).
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Parliament now moves on to the next item on the agenda, which is the second reading of Draft Act 257, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the protection of whistleblowers reporting violations of European Union law in the workplace. The presentation has been requested from our good colleague, Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee, Eduard Odinets, at the Riigikogu rostrum.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets presented the final text of Draft Bill 257 and the proposed amendments to the Riigikogu. He detailed the stakeholder feedback gathered during the committee's five sittings and explained how seven separate amendments were merged into a single proposal. He further clarified how this consolidated amendment specifies the scope, limitations, and reporting channels related to the protection afforded to those reporting violations of EU employment law.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker thanked the participants and invited questions, calling upon Urmas Reinsalu to take the floor.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu criticized the resulting confusion and the allegations of legal violations. He then discussed Isamaa's three proposed amendments and questioned how a Member of Parliament is expected to proceed when one proposal involves rewording a specific section while the second proposal, identical in substance, calls for the outright removal of those specific sections.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi said very briefly: "Thank you."
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
They are asking for advice on whether they should vote for or against, given that they are in favor of one side but opposed to the other.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets confirmed that the committee acted lawfully, and that the binding, though not identical, proposals must be substantively related to one another. Furthermore, when voting for one amendment proposal, one must not fail to vote for the other.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi asks everyone for silence.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets stressed that there should be no shouting from the floor, and the right to speak will be granted when necessary, because if the chamber votes in favor of the first amendment proposal, does not vote on the second, and is unable to vote on the third, the resulting law could contain mutually contradictory provisions, which must not be allowed.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi asks the audience not to interrupt and to allow him to speak calmly.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets points out that if these submissions were made by the same presenter for a single purpose and are substantively related, it is entirely customary in the Riigikogu to consolidate them into one amendment proposal, and he requests that the explanatory memorandum be taken up and read.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi said that he would not open up excessive debate on procedural matters. The leading committee is authorized to send the proposed amendments to the floor, and neither the chairman nor the presidium will provide assessments regarding them. While dilemmas often arise during the final vote, a final decision must be made, and he will only accept two procedural questions.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder stated that the current explanation regarding the interpretation of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure is completely wrong and misleading, adding that various proposed amendments may contradict each other, and they must not and cannot be linked together for the purpose of avoiding obstruction. He maintained that suspending the second reading is possible, and the board should issue a clarifying comment to the members of the Riigikogu.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi confirmed that neither the board nor the presiding officer of the session can take substantive positions or assess whether the linking (of issues/votes) was justified or not, recalled the impact of the Supreme Court decision, and emphasized that it is better to submit more amendments to the floor and avoid excessive linking and wasting time taking breaks before the vote.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu expressed astonishment and concern regarding the proceedings of the bill, where Isamaa's three amendments have been merged into a "Brezhnev package" and may be substantively contradictory. He asked the presiding officer how one should vote in such a situation, given that one proposal amends a specific section while the other concerns different sections, and how members of the Riigikogu should act to prevent the contradictory law from entering into force.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi emphasized that as a member of the board, he does not provide substantive assessments and is prepared to bundle several mutually exclusive amendment proposals into a single vote if they are obstructionist in nature, and the committee rapporteur must focus on the discussion and answer questions as needed.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler criticizes the inconsistent application of the procedural principle and the unfairness of restricting debate. He cites the example that, during the previous agenda item, the Kovalenko-Kõlvart question was ignored, and yet the debate was immediately moved to a vote, which leaves it unclear when one is permitted to ask questions and when one is not.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi confirmed that he does not provide substantive evaluations of specific linkages, has been liberal in handling procedural issues for the Center Faction (not for Anastasia), and called for the committee's report to explain the basis of the three proposed amendments and allow the discussion to continue.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik asks what your vision is for reducing European Union bureaucracy in Estonia, criticizing the whistleblower law, which increases bureaucracy and burdens entrepreneurs.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets emphasizes that although it is important to follow the European Union directive and protect whistleblowers, the implementation of this is very minimal. Furthermore, if three interconnected amendments are voted on as a single package, the text of the law would remain as it is, rendering the entire bill meaningless. However, the committee deemed it necessary to help the submitters achieve their actual goal.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu criticizes the inadequacy of the rapporteur's handling and asks a fundamental question: how a member of parliament should act if they support one amendment but do not support another, while discussing the alternatives—changing the title of the law, changing its content, or retaining it.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asks Urmas Reinsalu to take the floor.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas addresses the questioner and announces that it is now the questioner's time.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets emphasized that a Member of Parliament cannot choose between proposals No. 1, 2, or 3. In the plenary session, the vote is only for, against, or abstained on a single amendment—which is amendment No. 1, submitted by one presenter and drafted by the committee. The points of this amendment are substantively interconnected, and it is not possible to vote on them separately because they serve a single objective. Therefore, there is no point in seeing a bogeyman here when that bogeyman is not actually present.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asked Urmas Reinsalu to raise a procedural question.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu criticized the session leadership and the restrictions placed on the opposition's rights, questioning whether the opposition has the right to submit individual amendments and how a Member of Parliament should proceed with contradictory proposals in light of the Supreme Court rulings. He warned that this sets a precedent and could constitute an obstruction by counter-voting, adding that he had tried three times to get a response, but no one answered.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas stated that the bundling of amendments is neither good practice nor a precedent, and that as a member of the Riigikogu, one must act according to their conscience, even though the Bureau has determined that this falls within the committee's competence.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler criticized the presiding officer of the session, arguing that the proposals are substantively linked due to the same draft bill, and asked whether the committee had decided that Ants Frosch and Kert Kingo, along with Siim Pohlak and Rain Epler, had submitted one and the same proposer.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Kert Kingo and Ants Frosch are not the same presenter.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas called Varro Vooglaid to the stage.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid accuses the opposing side of acting arbitrarily and violating the principles stipulated in the Rules of Procedure Act, and asks them to demonstrate using a simple example how logically impossible it is to pose a single question and answer it only with yes or no.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets stated that he would not answer the question of whether he travels by bus or by car, explaining that he first needs to decide whether he will go to Kohtla-Järve at all, and consequently, the remaining questions become pointless for him. He added that Isamaa’s primary goal is to repeal the law.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas emphasized that there was no option to sit on the fence, and requested the presenter to answer the question and then proceed to the next one.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets claims that the purpose of the proposals is to render the entire draft bill meaningless, ensuring that Kohtla-Järve is never reached and the law cannot be proclaimed. Consequently, the only question is whether or not they go there—if the chamber votes against going there, the draft bill becomes pointless and enforcement will be impossible.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Jüri Ratas invited Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart to speak, Urmas Reinsalu is speaking in the chamber, and the presiding officer is ringing the bell.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart emphasizes that she does not support the bundling of substantive amendments, recalls heated debates, notes that a separate vote on the title of the amendment would be intentional and possible, and asks since when committee chairmen have started assisting the submitter of amendments, which should remain within the submitter's discretion.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets stated that when handling amendments, the committee should make maximum improvements to the draft bill, ensure clarity, and take into account the interests of the opposition, so that the fulfillment of the mandate of Riigikogu members is better guaranteed, and if the plenary supports this, the submitter's objective will be achieved.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asked Urmas Reinsalu a procedural question.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu stated that Isamaa’s claim about the repeal of the law is misleading, emphasizing that the amendments are not aimed at annulling the law. He asked the presiding officer for clarification and proposed a recess before the vote, along with bringing the committee back into alignment with the three amendments.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Rüri? Wait—the correct name must be Jüri Ratas. We'll output: "Jüri Ratas said that after reviewing the amendments, the Legal Committee has the right to propose interrupting the second reading, and there is no second of other options." Hmm, "there is no second of other options" is awkward. Let's craft a clean version: "Jüri Ratas said that after reviewing the amendments, the Legal Committee has the option to propose interrupting the second reading, and there are no other options." That is good. Let's finalize this. Jüri Ratas said that after reviewing the amendments, the Legal Committee has the right to propose interrupting the second reading, and there is no other option.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder complained that the Riigikogu must focus on procedure, not the substance of the bill, and asked where the new interpretation came from—that all related and mutually exclusive amendments must be bundled together—and how they should now proceed.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets said that these three amendments are substantively related and must not be voted on separately, because separate voting would render the draft bill meaningless. Therefore, they must be tied into one package and voted on as a whole—a situation which the unified opposition of the Isamaa faction interprets as an attempt to derail the entire bill. The final decision will become clear during the votes, including the third reading.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Chairman announced a procedural matter and addressed Helir-Valdor Seeder with a request.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder stated that the chairman of the lead committee is incapable of clarifying the situation, and that the entire state of affairs is completely abnormal and, naturally, also unlawful. He therefore proposed halting the deliberation of the draft bill today and only resuming once comprehensive answers have been provided—answers which are in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas said that the bundling of amendments is not a good precedent, especially when there are few of them. He asked whether the committee chairman had provided answers that met the expectations of the Speaker of the Riigikogu, and noted that the issue is very subjective and that he currently sees no need to call a recess.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal emphasized that although the committees have broad mandates, the Riigikogu Board must monitor the exceeding of these limits within the framework of the current Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, as well as the immediate interruption of the reading, and the proposal by Helir-Valdor Seeder, who supported controlling the exceeding of the committee's mandate.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Ratas notes that the coalition is facing obstructionist amendments, and the merging of three proposals is being discussed. However, he does not understand the rationale for linking them, stressing that this falls under the competence of the leading committee, not the Bureau.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler thanked the presiding officer, confirmed that Ants Frosch and Kert Kingo are not the same person, and asked Odinets how proposals submitted by different parties were consolidated into one, pursuant to § 102, subsection 2.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets asserts that the bundling of proposals from EKRE and Isamaa occurred on entirely separate grounds. He argues that EKRE's draft legislation is obstructionist and contradicts the directive, which is why the committee combined them into a single proposal—to allow the chamber to vote on amending the required population size for local municipalities. Even if the reading of the bill is suspended, these specific proposals cannot be introduced into the draft legislation because they violate the objective of both the law and the directive. Furthermore, the committee has already reviewed and voted on these matters, basing its decision on Supreme Court rulings and the rights of other members of the Riigikogu.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asked Rain Epler to present a procedural question.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler notes that last week the representative of the Social Democrats at the podium spoke about something entirely different, and today he also asked about the first half of Section 102, Subsection 2, but Odinets spoke about something else entirely. He concludes by asking the Chair whether the microphones are working and whether he is being heard at the front of the chamber.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas expresses his thanks, notes that this is a procedural matter, and invites Mart Maastik to speak.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Maastik criticizes the bundling together of the legal committee’s three amendment proposals, noting that this has sparked a major debate and that it would have been more sensible to vote on them separately so they could have gone home ages ago.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets stated that the commission held a thorough discussion regarding the amendments, analyzed their objectives and interconnections, and cannot vote on them individually, because they must strictly adhere to the Rules of Procedure Act and other fundamental principles.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas called upon Rain Epler to ask a procedural question.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler is questioning whether amendment proposals can truly be voted on individually and if there is a genuine impediment to that, while debating Odinets's assertion.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas announced that the proposed amendments would be voted on individually (the first, the second, the third) and must not be voted on jointly. He then called upon Kalle Grünthal to raise a point of order.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal asked the presiding officer of the session that when the turn for his question arrived, both his question and the rapporteur’s answer should be heard, and only after that should the procedural question be raised. This is because, otherwise, it would indicate whether the committee, despite its broad powers, has acted in compliance with the law on working procedures and internal rules.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas offered his thanks and stated that he would hear out the questions and answers from all Riigikogu members, before calling upon Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The rapporteur believes the biggest problem with the draft bill is that the protection afforded to whistleblowers applies only in very specific EU sectors (environment, transport safety, financial markets), and corruption and internal misconduct are not included. The list remained unchanged despite consultations with stakeholders, and the members of the committee are voting exactly according to the government's initial recommendation, thereby leaving the draft bill in its original form.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets emphasizes that the involvement of stakeholders is extremely important, and although the committee has discussed and expressed its views, and sometimes not all proposals are accepted, this does not mean the work is meaningless. He calls on interest groups to actively voice their opinions and attend.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid slams the opposition's narrative as irrational, asserts that the proposed amendments can be voted on separately, and demands clarification on how proposals from different submitters can be consolidated under Section 102, Subsection 2 of the Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Ratas invites Varro Vooglaid to speak.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets emphasizes that the submitted amendments were clearly drafted for the purpose of obstruction and are interconnected, meaning they could be consolidated into a single amendment. However, the committee and the plenary are currently focusing more on handling procedural matters rather than engaging in substantive discussions, primarily because many of the proposals conflict with the directive or the law.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Varro Vooglaid asked to raise a procedural question.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid says that he asked how it is possible to consolidate amendment proposals from different presenters, given that the Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act stipulates that this can only be done with the same presenter. He feels that his question remained unanswered because the discussion focused instead on the substantive quality, sincerity, and obstruction of the amendments. He asks if they agree with him and what should be done next, emphasizing that he has two questions and cannot ask any more.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Ratas explained that if you are not satisfied with the respondent's answer, the manager cannot do much within the scope of our house rules and work procedures.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal stressed that the proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law and within the framework of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act. He explained the effect of the provision in Section 102 concerning the bundling of interconnected amendments and posed the question of which norm permits action contrary to Section 102, subsection 2.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
The constitutional norm calls upon everyone to ensure that the work of the Riigikogu is guaranteed and functional, and that parliamentary debate proceeds normally.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invited Rene Kokk to speak.
AI Summary
Rene Kokk calmly asks what the combined amendments proposed by Rene Kokk, Leo Kunnas, Alar Laneman, and Evelin Poolamets are based on, and which specific section of the law they rely upon, in order to avoid being accused of obstruction.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets explains that the proposals put forth by the authorized representatives of the initiators are designed solely to obstruct the bill's adoption. Furthermore, they are unequivocally tied to a single amendment; if that amendment gains support in the plenary session, the legislative process for the bill will halt, and the true underlying motive will be revealed.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that Kert Kingo had raised a point of order.
Kert Kingo
AI Summary
Kert Kingo expresses profound confusion and concern regarding the substance of an MP's work, requesting clarification on what the actual role entails and what specific activities are incumbent upon a member of the Riigikogu.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas affirmed his conviction that the work of a Riigikogu member is to stand for the welfare of the Estonian state and its people, primarily in the field of lawmaking, and referred to Kert Kingo’s expertise in this area.
AI Summary
Rene Kokk asks the Deputy Chairman whether such linking (of items) is lawful, and whether he and Leo Kunnas are the same proposers as Alar Laneman and Evelin Poolamets, noting that the answer was not received from the rapporteur.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Ratas acknowledged that a conflict exists between the opposition and the coalition over the issue of tying draft legislation to a confidence vote, stressing the Riigikogu's right to self-organization. He noted that the Council of Elders has failed to provide a solution, and thus the decision falls to the steering committee.
Evelin Poolamets
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He asked why the bill in question was not tied to a vote of confidence, considering the ongoing dispute regarding the proposed amendments.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets stated that the decision concerning the bill tied to the vote of confidence is not up to the committee or the parliamentary factions, but is instead a collective decision of the Government of the Republic, and if the government has not made that decision, the bill does not constitute a question of confidence.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Ratas asked Kalle Grünthal to take the floor.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal emphasized that § 102, subsection 2 stipulates that only amendments submitted by the same proposer may be bundled together, and he requested the exact section that grants the committee the right to bundle amendments from different proposers – the section, not the law.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets emphasized that the Constitution and the work of the Riigikogu are paramount, and the committee was obliged to deliberate the opposition's proposals, even though none of those 200 amendments complied with the law. He stressed that this was done in good faith and with respect for the opposition.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas requested Kalle Grünthal to ask a procedural question.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal stated that the applicable law, especially the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act and its § 102 subsection 2, does not permit the bundling of amendments proposed by different individuals, and the committee's actions are unconstitutional and in conflict with the law. Therefore, the proceedings in the Riigikogu must be suspended and brought into compliance with the law.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas said that the presiding officer has the right to call a recess of up to 30 minutes, but it is not being called at the present moment, even though it was requested, and he is considering it.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets stated that the consolidation of the proposed amendments into a single list is an exceptional solution, which is based on the parliament's right to self-organization, ensuring its operational capacity and expediency, and which is justified by the internal contradiction with the directive, the rational use of the Riigikogu's working time, and the safeguarding of the rights of other Riigikogu members.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Kert Kingo was called upon at the beginning of the speech.
Kert Kingo
AI Summary
Kert Kingo criticizes the new political culture where laws are rammed through and amendments are manipulated, comparing EKRE's 200 amendments to the Social Democrats' number of amendments, which is 250 times greater. She simultaneously questions how these situations differ and why the work of the Riigikogu should suffer as a result.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets stated that he is not aware of the situation in the Riigikogu four years ago, and he manages the committee's work solely based on the current circumstances.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Jüri Ratas called upon Kert Kingo to speak.
Kert Kingo
AI Summary
Kert Kingo criticized the current government, arguing that the work of the Riigikogu has been obstructed because of it, and calling their actions absurd. She pointed out that the previous government, which included EKRE, processed roughly 50,000 proposed amendments, but now the number stands at only about 200.
Eduard Odinets
AI Summary
Eduard Odinets says that absurdity is a personal assessment, which he does not share. Since he does not know the details of how those 50,000 amendments were resolved and processed, he cannot compare those situations or comment on how it was handled back then. He emphasizes that he was not a member of the Riigikogu at the time, and we are proceeding according to the current situation, established practice, Supreme Court rulings, and common sense.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas opened the proceedings, asking whether [she] was representing the Eesti 200 parliamentary group or speaking as a member of the Riigikogu. The representative of the Eesti 200 faction, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, replied that she was representing Eesti 200 and requested eight additional minutes of time.
Liisa-Ly Pakosta
AI Summary
Liisa-Ly Pakosta emphasized that Estonia is transposing the Whistleblower Protection Directive as narrowly as possible to ensure legal certainty and avoid excessive administrative burden, and confirmed that although the draft bill is not ideal, it adheres to the directive's objectives within a narrow scope.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas thanks [the assembly] and requests that Henn Põlluaas represent the EKRE faction at the Riigikogu rostrum.
Henn Põlluaas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Henn Põlluaas warns that a culture of informing, similar to the example set by Pavlik Morozov, coupled with the enforcement of the EU directive, could fracture trust and lead to the emergence of an Orwellian dystopia, which is why Estonia must remain free and democratic.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas poses one simple question in his speech: "How much?"
Henn Põlluaas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
This is a brief note regarding the three-minute duration.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Jüri Ratas made a one-word request: "Please!"
Henn Põlluaas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Henn Põlluaas criticizes the coalition's "informant structures" and the imposition of EU directives, accusing it of creating an Orwellian dystopia, and calls for the halting of the second reading of the draft Whistleblower Protection Act concerning violations of EU law in the workplace.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas thanked Kalle Grünthal and invited him to the Riigikogu podium for his forthcoming address, adding that the situation would be monitored on an ongoing basis.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal accused the Riigikogu of violating laws during the processing of the draft bill, noting that the Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act had not been applied. He specifically mentioned that the committee had merged amendment proposals from different submitters, which Section 102, Subsection 2 prohibits, and he labeled the situation a disgrace. He concluded by quoting a man from Võrumaa: "There are 100 bags of shit here in the Riigikogu."
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas concluded his address, inviting Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart to the podium as the faction's representative, requesting three minutes of additional time, and stressing the importance of maintaining dignity at the Riigikogu podium.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart criticized the rapid processing in the Riigikogu of three bills derived from the EU—the hate speech bill, the whistleblower protection bill, and the Competition Authority bill which grants powers to issue massive fines. She argued that these proposals burden businesses and state institutions, fail to solve real problems, are simply pure copying without the necessary analysis, and that the legislative proceedings should therefore be halted.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announces that he will not close the debate, invites Helir-Valdor Seeder, the representative of the Isamaa faction, and asks the technical staff to remove Siim Pohlak’s name so that no one makes a mistake in the speaking order.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
He thanks them and asks how the developments have progressed, and whether the same result can be represented by two times 8 or one time 16.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas said that if anyone wishes to speak on behalf of the faction and themselves, they immediately have 16 minutes available.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder thanks the listeners.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asks if anyone has a request.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The speech was a mere request and consisted only of the word, "Please."
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
He apologized and said he waited because he saw Siim Pohlak's name on the screen.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Jüri Ratas admits that it was his mistake.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder said that the draft bill has been under procedure since 2018, and the discussions between the coalition and the opposition, along with three independent amendments, have been forcibly merged, which is why the procedure should be halted and discussions should continue in order to find a solution that is more suitable for Estonia and in compliance with the European Union. Furthermore, he criticized the anonymous reporting law as one that diminishes public morale.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas declared the debate closed and proceeded to review the amendments to the draft bill. The first proposal comes from the Isamaa parliamentary group, and the leading committee recommends that it be rejected.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
He said that he couldn't immediately advise on how to vote on this bundled omnibus amendment package, but requested that we vote in favor of it exactly as it is drafted, and make use of the opportunities generously provided to us by the coalition.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas announced the preparation for the vote, submitted Amendment Proposal No. 1 on behalf of the Isamaa faction, and stated that the responsible committee intended to reject it, asking the body to take a stance and proceed to a vote.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that the result of the vote was 14 in favor, 48 against, with no abstentions, and the proposal was not supported. Furthermore, amendments No. 2–4 were submitted by the Legal Affairs Committee, and the lead committee wishes to fully adopt them, whereas amendment No. 5 was submitted by the lead committee along with a list, regarding which the position is to reject its consideration.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Helle-Moonika Helme thanks [them] and notes that the control panel is a bit stiff and unresponsive, and she tried to press it.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asks what is wrong with that console, saying that he cannot hear.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
I pressed it, but the word didn't go in.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Jüri Ratas emphasizes that something needs to be pressed.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He thanks the Chair for the floor, confirms his intention to vote on the amendment, and requests a ten-minute recess beforehand, provided the presiding officer grants permission.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas asks whether there is acceptance or not, Helle-Moonika Helme nods, and a ten-minute recess is then announced.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar informed the Riigikogu that the recess requested by the EKRE faction had concluded. He is now putting Amendment Proposal No. 5 to a vote, which the lead committee recommends rejecting, and he asks [the members] to take a position and cast their votes.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Speaker of the Riigikogu announced that 18 members were in favor of the proposal and 48 against it, that amendments No. 6 and 7 are fully incorporated, and that the leading committee proposed concluding the second reading. Furthermore, the parliamentary factions of Isamaa, the Estonian Centre Party, and EKRE submitted a motion to interrupt the second reading of Bill 257, the draft Act on the Protection of Persons Reporting Breaches of Union Law in the Field of Employment.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Riigikogu voted 18 in favour, 50 against, with no abstentions; the proposal failed to gain support, and the second reading of Bill 257 was concluded.