Plenary Sessions

The session commenced with a discussion of Draft Resolution 744 of the Riigikogu, "Appointment of Martin Triipan as a Member of the Supreme Court," presented by Villu Kõve, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Timo Suslov, representing the Constitutional Committee, introduced the committee's debate, noting that Martin Triipan's candidacy was supported by a majority in both the Council for the Administration of Courts and the Supreme Court's General Assembly. The committee unanimously decided to include the draft resolution on the plenary session agenda and proceed with the final vote.

Martin Triipan, the candidate for Supreme Court Justice, delivered a brief but substantial presentation, highlighting his 25 years of work as an attorney and the three principles that would guide him as a judge: thoroughness, speed, and cooperation. In the subsequent question-and-answer session, Triipan was posed a wide array of questions covering both ideological topics (e.g., the Istanbul Convention, the relationship between European Union law and the Constitution, the green transition) and practical issues within the legal system (judicial reform, procedural efficiency, access to legal aid). Triipan stressed the necessity of adhering to the Constitution and existing laws and confirmed that he would recuse himself from the deliberation of cases where he had previously been involved as a party to the proceedings (e.g., the Nursipalu case). Following the closure of debate, a secret final vote was conducted, resulting in the adoption of the draft resolution. At the close of the session, a technical failure occurred, preventing the vote on extending the session before the introduction of a new agenda item, necessitating the announcement of a short recess.

The Riigikogu session began with a vote on extending the sitting, which the Estonian Reform Party faction had proposed to extend until the agenda was exhausted, but no later than 2 p.m. The proposal found support (60 in favor, 4 against, 2 abstentions). Discussion then moved to Riigikogu draft decision 722 OE, submitted by the Isamaa faction, which proposed that the Government of the Republic close the temporary control line between the Republic of Estonia and the Russian Federation. The rapporteur, Helir-Valdor Seeder (Isamaa), emphasized that the main motives for the draft decision were ensuring security, conveying a political message, and better implementation of sanctions. He admitted that closing the border would cause inconvenience for residents near the border (e.g., in Setomaa), but argued that national security outweighed these problems. During the debate, the Centre Party and the Reform Party criticized the draft decision for being ill-considered and ignoring local residents. EKRE supported the draft decision but criticized Isamaa for offering half-measures, while simultaneously stressing the growing threat of Russification. The leading committee (the Legal Affairs Committee) sent the draft decision to the final vote, where it failed to gain support (20 in favor, 47 against).

The agenda item was the second reading of Draft Act 701 SE, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the amendment of the Chemicals Act. The objective of the draft act is to specify the provisions of the European Parliament and Council Seveso III Directive, which have been transposed into Estonian law, concerning the notification of the public, including neighboring undertakings, in the event of major accidents, and the cooperation between official authorities (the Rescue Board, TTJA). The draft act does not introduce new substantive requirements but makes the law legally clearer and reduces the administrative burden by requiring documents to be submitted electronically only in the future.

The Environment Committee discussed the second reading of the draft act and the sole amendment proposal submitted by Rain Epler. The proposal clarified that the undertaking shall carry out notification outside its territory through the Rescue Board, and is not obligated to notify persons directly. The Committee found the proposal entirely reasonable and that it brings the provision into compliance with the Directive, and decided unanimously to fully take it into account. The lead committee proposed concluding the second reading and holding the final vote on November 18.

As part of the agenda item, the second reading of Draft Act 676 amending the Waste Act, initiated by the Government of the Republic, took place. The report was presented by Yoko Alender, Chairman of the Environment Committee. The main objective of the draft act is the transposition of the Batteries and Accumulators Directive and the improvement of the recycling of valuable materials, such as rare earth metals, from electronic and battery waste.

In preparation for the second reading, the Environment Committee reviewed four amendments focusing on electronic waste and the responsibility of digital platforms. The most significant amendment concerned digital platforms (e.g., Temu and other resellers operating outside the EU), creating the possibility for them to register as producers and fulfill Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) obligations on behalf of their thousands of merchants. This should introduce greater fairness into the system and increase the volume of materials entering the recycling stream. The report also emphasized the need to improve the fulfillment of battery collection targets (the goal is 65%, up from the current 40–42%) and to expand awareness campaigns regarding collection points in major shopping centers. The Environment Committee unanimously supported all amendments. Discussions were not opened, and all four amendments submitted by the lead committee were fully taken into account. The second reading of the draft act was concluded.

The sitting continued the first reading of Riigikogu draft resolution 679, submitted by the Estonian Centre Party faction, which concerned a proposal to the Government of the Republic to urgently develop the suspension of e-voting. Ando Kiviberg, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, answered questions from Riigikogu members, emphasizing that the committee had forwarded the recommendations contained in the ODIHR report to the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs for the initiation of necessary amendments. The discussion focused on the crisis of confidence in e-voting and the security of the system. Opposition politicians (including Rain Epler, Arvo Aller, Evelin Poolamets, Mart Helme, and Martin Helme) sharply criticized the system's lack of transparency, the violation of security measures, and the fact that nearly half the population does not trust e-elections, which undermines the legitimacy of democracy. Kiviberg conveyed the position of Arne Koitmäe, head of the Electoral Service, that e-voting is verifiable and complies with legal requirements, and that ODIHR has not deemed the system untrustworthy. During the debates, the Centre Party, EKRE, and Isamaa supported the suspension of e-voting in order to restore the trustworthiness of elections. The draft resolution was put to a final vote, where it required an absolute majority of the Riigikogu membership.

The session proceeded to the second item on the agenda, which was the third reading of Bill 687, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning amendments to the Vital Statistics Procedures Act, the Population Register Act, and the State Fees Act. The Presiding Officer opened the negotiations for the parliamentary groups. Although Rain Epler registered his wish to speak, he immediately withdrew it. As no further requests to speak were submitted, the debates were swiftly concluded. Upon the proposal of the lead committee, the final vote on the bill commenced. As a result of the vote, the bill was adopted as an Act by a large majority of votes.

The Riigikogu debate focused on Interpellation No. 806, submitted to Prime Minister Kristen Michal by members of the Riigikogu (including Jaak Aab, Riina Sikkut, and Lauri Läänemets, among others), concerning the lowering of the gambling tax on online casinos. Jaak Aab, the proposer of the interpellation, emphasized that the government's plan to slash the tax rate on remote gambling by one-third is contradictory, especially considering that, at the same time, a VAT exemption for foodstuffs is not being supported. Aab highlighted the risks of increased gambling addiction, a rise in the number of debtors, and damage to the country's reputation. He referred to earlier positions held by Ministry of Finance analysts who doubted the growth of tax revenue, as well as the concerns of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) regarding the complexity of controlling money laundering when companies' legal entities are located in third countries.

Prime Minister Kristen Michal responded that the draft bill was initiated by members of the Riigikogu, not the government, and its goal is to bring the accounting and tax revenue of remote gambling companies operating in Europe to Estonia in order to increase funding for culture and sports. He confirmed that additional resources have been planned for the Tax and Customs Board and the FIU to mitigate risks and check the backgrounds of license applicants. During the debate, the opposition (Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, Peeter Ernits, Helle-Moonika Helme) sharply criticized the government's priorities, calling the policy an attempt to turn Estonia into "Europe's prison and casino hub" and pitting the concessions made to casino businessmen against the cost-of-living difficulties and tax hikes faced by ordinary people.

The item on the agenda addressed the interpellation submitted by members of the Riigikogu to Prime Minister Kristen Michal concerning the attack drone explosion in Koruste village, Elva municipality, Tartumaa County, in August 2025. The interpellation was introduced by Mart Helme, who emphasized the inadequacy of the explanations provided to the public and raised questions regarding Estonia's air surveillance capability and the incident's connection to the war in Ukraine. Helme highlighted the suspicion that the drone was Ukrainian, targeting Russian strategic objects, but ended up in Estonia due to jamming.

Prime Minister Michal responded to 11 questions, confirming that the drone did not launch from Estonian territory and that Ukraine has not been granted permission to use Estonian airspace for offensive operations. Michal blamed Russia for the incident and, regarding the shortcomings in drone detection, referred to the 2019 decisions to cut the border construction budget, indirectly blaming former Finance Minister Martin Helme. In the subsequent debate, EKRE members (Martin Helme, Mart Helme, Rain Epler, and others) accused the government and the Reform Party of incompetence in developing national defense, particularly air and drone defense, despite the increased defense budget. Mart Helme and Peeter Ernits speculated that Estonia might have been aware of Ukrainian drones flying toward Russian targets, referencing the simultaneous closure of Tallinn Airport. The Prime Minister defended the government's actions, emphasizing historically large defense investments and rejecting accusations of avoiding responsibility.

The Riigikogu debated an interpellation (No. 814) submitted to Prime Minister Kristen Michal concerning the intention to deploy the defense forces to Ukraine, which was filed by Varro Vooglaid and other members of the EKRE faction. The impetus for the interpellation was a statement by Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, in which he confirmed Estonia's readiness to contribute up to a company-sized ground combat unit to ensuring Ukraine's security.

The rapporteur for the interpellators, Varro Vooglaid (pid: _wD0jSQ0aWg), emphasized that pursuant to § 128 of the Constitution, the sole right to decide on the use of the Defense Forces belongs to the Riigikogu, not the government or the foreign minister. He criticized the public confirmations made by the government representative in a situation where Parliament had neither adopted the relevant decision nor even discussed it. Vooglaid asked whether the government considers Tsahkna's confirmations binding, whether a risk analysis has been conducted, and whether the government relies on the blanket authorization (up to 100 defense personnel) granted annually by the Riigikogu when deploying the Defense Forces.

Prime Minister Kristen Michal replied that Estonia has informed its allies of its readiness to contribute training instructors and staff officers within the framework of a coalition of the willing, but repeatedly stressed that any deployment of a unit to Ukraine requires a mandate from the Riigikogu before the operation is launched. Michal rejected the interpellators' question about seeking Russia's consent, deeming it "bizarre" and noting that one does not need to ask the aggressor state for permission to support Ukraine. He affirmed that the government has no plans to abandon support for Ukraine. During the debate, the interpellators (especially Martin Helme and Mart Helme) accused the Prime Minister of evading answers and violating the constitutional order, stressing that sending Estonian soldiers to Ukraine would mean Estonia entering the war with Russia, which EKRE considers irresponsible. The Prime Minister concluded the discussions by suggesting that the interpellators' views on the necessity of Russia's consent resemble the positions of Russian officials (Peskov, Lavrov).

The agenda item was the presentation by Erkki Keldo, the Minister of Economic Affairs and Industry, regarding the implementation of the national long-term development strategy, "Eesti 2035," during 2025. Minister Keldo provided an optimistic overview of the Estonian economic recovery, highlighting improved confidence and growth in exports. The strategy centers on ensuring security (allocating at least 5% of GDP to defense spending), reducing bureaucracy (with the goal of moving toward a real-time economy, saving entrepreneurs 132 million euros over five years), and promoting investments, including the creation of a 100 million euro support measure for major investments.

The ensuing discussion addressed several important topics, such as regional policy (directing business subsidies outside major growth centers), solving the problem of youth unemployment through educational reform and more flexible labor laws, and increasing investments in research and development (R&D). The energy sector generated criticism and questions, particularly concerning the speed of renewable energy development and the opposition of local communities to planning proposals. Also debated was the impact of abolishing the tax notch and cancelling the planned income tax hike on domestic consumption and the middle class. During faction negotiations, representatives debated the Minister’s optimism and the competitiveness of green energy, citing both the causes of the economic downturn and risks related to national defense.

The Riigikogu debated Draft Riigikogu Resolution 679, "Proposal to the Government of the Republic to urgently develop the suspension of e-voting," submitted by the Estonian Centre Party faction. The draft resolution was introduced by Vadim Belobrovtsev, who emphasized that e-voting should be suspended until deficiencies in the control systems are rectified. As the primary motivation, he cited the recent OSCE/ODIHR report, which pointed to serious shortcomings in the system's reliability, transparency, and the assurance of voter confidence, particularly concerning the secrecy of the vote and the prevention of undue influence (e.g., in nursing homes). Belobrovtsev noted that confidence in e-elections in Estonia has dropped significantly (42% do not trust them) and that Estonia belongs to the group of countries regularly using e-voting, alongside Russia and Venezuela.

Ando Kiviberg, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, provided an overview of the committee's discussion. He confirmed that the Electoral Service found no anomalies during the recount of local government elections and that the ODIHR report was a legal, not a technical, assessment. The committee has approached the Ministry of Justice to ensure the recommendations are addressed. During the debate, opposition politicians (the Centre Party and EKRE) emphasized the complexity of challenging e-election results and the system's lack of transparency. The adoption of the draft resolution requires a majority vote of the Riigikogu membership (51 votes). The debate was concluded before the final vote and will resume on Monday.

The Riigikogu continued the first reading of Draft Act 682 on the Ratification of the Agreement between the Republic of Estonia and the Kingdom of Sweden on the Enforcement of Prison Sentences, initiated by the Government of the Republic, which had begun at the previous sitting. Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa-Ly Pakosta returned to the rostrum to answer numerous questions from Riigikogu members. The debate was extremely polarized and focused primarily on the economic viability of leasing out Tartu Prison, risks to internal security, and national dignity. The opposition parties (SDE, EKRE, Isamaa, Centre Party) sharply criticized the plan, calling it irresponsible, especially considering the government's low support and the opposition from the city of Tartu. They emphasized that the plan reduces security in Southern Estonia, burdens the healthcare system, and is fundamentally wrong. Minister Pakosta and the coalition (Reform Party, Eesti 200) defended the draft act, stressing that the agreement is economically beneficial for Estonia (it covers the maintenance costs of the empty prison complex and generates revenue), creates new jobs in Southern Estonia, and strengthens internal security through Swedish-funded training. Valdo Randpere, the rapporteur for the lead committee (the Legal Affairs Committee), confirmed that the topic had been thoroughly discussed in the committee and proposed concluding the first reading. The opposition submitted a joint proposal to reject the draft act, which was voted down. The first reading was concluded.

During the first reading of the draft act [726], initiated by the Government of the Republic, which seeks to amend the Code of Enforcement Procedure and the Act on the Implementation of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Enforcement Procedure, the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, introduced the main objectives of the bill. The central amendment of the bill is the interfacing of the Enforcement Register with the Data Tracker, which will be made mandatory for all databases. This step is intended to increase public trust in the register by guaranteeing people the right to see which state authorities (bailiffs, PPA [Police and Border Guard Board], etc.) have made inquiries regarding their bank account data.

Another significant amendment concerns the public disclosure of debtor data. The bill reverses a previous decision to make all debts public, stipulating that only the debts of legal persons will remain publicly visible. The blanket public disclosure of debts owed by private individuals (approximately 70,000 people) will be revoked to prevent stigmatization and difficulties in finding employment. During the debate, Riigikogu members raised questions regarding the technical quality of the bill (contradictions concerning the repeal and amendment of provisions) and the exemptions granted to the Estonian Internal Security Service and the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service from the Data Tracker notification obligation. Varro Vooglaid (EKRE) criticized the blanket exemption granted to security institutions and the lack of discretion afforded to banks when releasing extensive account data, proposing on behalf of his faction that the bill be rejected. The proposal did not receive support, and the first reading was concluded.

The agenda item was the third reading of Draft Act 655, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the amendment of the Building Code and other acts. The Presiding Officer of the sitting opened the debates, but as the members of the Riigikogu did not express a wish to speak, the Chairman immediately closed them. Upon the proposal of the lead committee, the final vote on the bill commenced. Members of the Riigikogu participated in the final vote, resulting in the bill being adopted as law by a large majority.

The agenda item was the second reading of Draft Act 663, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the accession to the Convention establishing the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities. Urve Tiidus presented the report on behalf of the Economic Affairs Committee, explaining that the first reading of the draft act took place on October 8, and no proposals or opinions were received by the deadline for amendments (October 22). Therefore, the leading committee made a consensus proposal to conduct the final vote during the second reading, pursuant to Section 115 of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act.

During the questions round, Helir-Valdor Seeder inquired whether the adoption of the draft act would contribute to the restoration of the border buoys in Narva, to which the rapporteur replied that international agreements should, in any case, benefit navigation. During the debate, Peeter Ernits took the opportunity to speak more broadly about Estonia's maritime policy and the program for bringing ships under the Estonian flag, noting that the grand plans had not been fulfilled. Signe Riisalo raised a procedural question regarding the irrelevance of Ernits's speech to the topic, which the chairman resolved by explaining that all members have the right to speak during the second reading. Since no amendments were submitted, the final vote was held, resulting in the draft act being adopted as law.

Under agenda item No. 5, the second reading of Draft Law 718 was discussed. This draft, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerns the ratification of the Agreement between the Republic of Estonia and the Principality of Liechtenstein for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital, and the prevention of tax evasion and fiscal fraud. Annely Akkermann, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented the report of the lead committee. She confirmed that the draft generally follows the Model Convention of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and that no amendments had been received for the draft. The Finance Committee proposed concluding the second reading and proceeding to the final vote on the draft law. Since there was no desire for debate, the draft law was immediately put to the final vote. The draft was adopted as law by a large majority, after which the agenda item was concluded.

The second reading of Draft Resolution 703 of the Riigikogu, submitted by the Government of the Republic, was on the agenda. It concerned the extension of the term for using the Defence Forces in fulfilling the international obligations of the Estonian state in the European Union military operation EUNAVFOR Med/Irini. The rapporteur was Alar Laneman, a member of the National Defence Committee. He explained that the leading committee discussed the draft resolution at two sittings, and no amendments were submitted. The committee only made linguistic clarifications, harmonizing points 1 and 2 of the draft. According to the draft resolution, Estonia will continue contributing to the operation, increasing the maximum limit of Defence Forces personnel from three up to six servicemen. Since there was no desire for debate and no amendments were submitted, the leading committee proposed conducting the final vote on the draft resolution. In the final vote, 66 members of the Riigikogu supported the draft, 0 were against, and 1 abstained. The draft resolution was adopted.

The agenda item was the second reading of Draft Resolution 704 OE of the Riigikogu, initiated by the Government of the Republic, which concerned the extension of the term of use of the Defence Forces in fulfilling the international obligations of the Estonian state within the framework of the European Union military operation EUNAVFOR Aspides. The presentation was given by Kalev Stoicescu, Chairman of the National Defence Committee, who confirmed that the processing of the draft resolution had proceeded without hindrance. No proposals were received by the deadline for submitting amendments, and the lead committee approved the text of the draft resolution by consensus.

The National Defence Committee proposed concluding the second reading and immediately submitting the draft resolution for the final vote. As no requests to speak were presented during the open deliberations led by the chairman of the session, and there were no questions for the rapporteur, the final vote was conducted. 66 members of the Riigikogu voted in favor of the draft resolution, 0 were against, and 1 member abstained, resulting in the adoption of the decision. The resolution grants permission to deploy up to three servicemen in operation EUNAVFOR Aspides during the next calendar year.

The Riigikogu debated the second reading of Draft Resolution 705, submitted by the Government of the Republic, concerning the use of the Defense Forces in international military operations for the first time, contributing up to 100 servicemen. Leo Kunnas, Vice-Chairman of the National Defense Committee, announced that no amendments had been submitted to the draft, and the committee had consensually approved the text, proposing to conclude the second reading and put the draft to a final vote.

During the debate, the question of the draft's constitutionality was repeatedly raised. MPs Rene Kokk and Varro Vooglaid argued against delegating the authorization to the Government of the Republic, emphasizing that Article 128 of the Constitution grants the right to decide on the use of the Defense Forces solely to the Riigikogu. They highlighted that the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act allows for convening extraordinary or supplementary sessions quickly enough (even by the next day), meaning there is no real need to give the government blank authorization. Additionally, granting decision-making power to a government with low public support was criticized. Leo Kunnas admitted that he lacked arguments to refute the possibility of quickly convening the Riigikogu. Alar Laneman defended the draft, citing the state's capability to act in unforeseen circumstances and the need for strategic depth. In the final vote, the draft was adopted as a resolution with 52 votes in favor, 6 against, and 1 abstention.

The agenda item concerned the second reading of Draft Resolution 706, submitted by the Government of the Republic, which extends the term for the use of the Defence Forces in the European Union Military Assistance Mission in Mozambique (EUMAM Mozambique). Enn Eesmaa, a member of the National Defence Committee, reported that the lead committee had approved the draft resolution unanimously and proposed concluding the second reading and submitting the bill for final vote, as no amendments had been submitted. The draft resolution extends the term for the deployment of up to three servicemen until December 31, 2026.

During the debates, Rain Epler spoke, explaining the background of the mission, which is linked to the gas deposits discovered in Mozambique's Cabo Delgado province and the local population's insurgency due to the unequal distribution of revenues. Epler criticized the mission as an example of European hypocrisy, where the need for fossil fuels outweighs previously emphasized human rights protection, given the cooperation with a corrupt government. In the final vote, the decision was adopted with 53 votes in favor.

Item number ten on the Riigikogu agenda today was Draft Resolution 707 of the Riigikogu, submitted by the Government of the Republic, concerning the use of the Defence Forces for the fulfillment of the Republic of Estonia's international obligations within the framework of the United Kingdom's Joint Expeditionary Force. The report for the second reading of the draft resolution was delivered by Kristo Enn Vaga, a member of the National Defence Committee. The rapporteur explained that no amendments had been submitted during the period between the first and second readings of the draft resolution. The National Defence Committee discussed the draft resolution on October 20 and November 3, and approved it unanimously, proposing that the draft be moved to the final vote. Following the presentation, no debate was opened, as there were no requests to speak. They then immediately proceeded to the final vote on the draft resolution, as a result of which the draft was adopted as a decision.

Today’s agenda item focused on the second reading and final vote of Draft Riigikogu Decision 708, submitted by the Government of the Republic, concerning the extension of the term of use of the Defence Forces in fulfilling the international obligations of the Estonian state within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission in Iraq. Peeter Tali, a member of the National Defence Committee, reported that the lead committee had approved the draft decision consensually, and no amendments had been submitted. The draft decision extends the term of use for up to three defence personnel until December 31, 2026. During a brief round of questions, Peeter Ernits raised the issue of the low level of debate regarding the Iraq mission compared to the Mozambique mission, to which Tali responded that the mission in Iraq is clearly a NATO mission. Since no further debate was requested, the session proceeded immediately to the final vote, where the draft decision was adopted by a large majority.

Agenda item number 12 concerned Riigikogu draft resolution 709, submitted by the Government of the Republic, regarding the use of the Defense Forces in fulfilling the international obligations of the Estonian state within the composition of the readiness units of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The draft resolution was introduced by Kalev Stoicescu, Chairman of the National Defense Committee. He announced that following the first reading on September 24, no amendments had been submitted to the draft resolution. The National Defense Committee discussed the draft resolution at two sittings and approved it unanimously on November 3. Stoicescu emphasized that the contribution of Estonian defense personnel to NATO high-readiness units (ARF – Allied Reaction Force and SNF – Standing Naval Forces) is directly in the interest of Estonian security, supporting the rapid launch of collective self-defense operations. Since no debate was requested and there were no amendments, the lead committee proposed concluding the second reading of the draft resolution and proceeding to the final vote. In the final vote, the resolution was adopted with 58 votes in favor and 3 against.

Draft Resolution 710 of the Riigikogu, submitted by the Government of the Republic, was item 13 on the agenda. It concerned the extension of the term for the use of the Defence Forces in fulfilling the international obligations of the Estonian state in the UN peacekeeping operation in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The draft resolution was introduced by Meelis Kiili, a member of the National Defence Committee. He noted that the first reading of the draft took place on September 24, and no proposals were received by the deadline for submitting amendments. Kiili emphasized that the UN Security Council has extended the UNIFIL mandate until December 31, 2026, and Estonia will continue its contribution with up to three members of the Defence Forces next year as well.

The lead committee (the National Defence Committee) decided unanimously to propose to the Riigikogu that the second reading of the draft resolution be concluded and that it immediately be put to the final vote. Following the presentation, debate was not opened, as no requests to speak were submitted. The draft resolution was put to the final vote, where it was adopted with 55 votes in favor, 2 against, and 1 abstention.

The agenda item concerned Draft Resolution 711 of the Riigikogu, submitted by the Government of the Republic, which addressed the extension of the term of use of the Defence Forces in the UN peacekeeping operation UNTSO (The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization) in Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Kristo Enn Vaga, a member of the National Defence Committee, introduced the second reading of the draft resolution, noting that no amendments had been submitted, but the committee had made linguistic clarifications to the text. The committee unanimously approved the draft resolution and proposed concluding the second reading and submitting the draft for a final vote. The draft resolution extends the term of use for up to six Estonian servicemen until the end of 2026. During the debate, Rain Epler raised a question regarding the operation's designation as "post-conflict," to which Vaga explained that this is the official UN designation for the mission, which began in 1948. During the negotiations, Peeter Ernits analyzed the voting results of previous missions, highlighting the differing geopolitical interests of the political parties. The draft resolution was adopted in the final vote.

The agenda of the Riigikogu included the second reading of Bill 664, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the amendment of the Military Service Act and related legislation. Peeter Tali, a member of the National Defence Committee, presented the bill's objectives, which were responding to the changed security situation, alleviating the personnel shortage in the Defence Forces, and reducing bureaucracy. Tali emphasized that wars are primarily won by reservists and praised the Minister of Defence for increasing the wage fund.

The report introduced seven amendments submitted by members of the Riigikogu and the National Defence Committee. The most significant changes included harmonizing the career models for reservists and active servicemen (abolishing the double age requirement for rank advancement for reservists), raising the Estonian language proficiency requirement for conscripts to the B1 level to ensure safety, and simplifying the reimbursement of conscripts' travel expenses. The possibility of paying active servicemen a bonus for the time served was also added, aimed at motivating and retaining them. The National Defence Committee approved all amendments and proposed that the Riigikogu conclude the second reading. Debates were not opened, and all amendments were taken into account fully or substantially.

The item on the agenda was the second reading of Draft Law 654, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the amendment of the Competition Act. The report was presented by Marek Reinaasa, Chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee. The committee had reviewed the draft law on October 23rd, and two amendment proposals (both submitted by the lead committee) were presented, which received consensus support and were fully incorporated. The substantive amendment involved taking foreign subsidies into account when assessing mergers if those subsidies distort the European Union's internal market. Reinaasa explained that upon the adoption of the law, the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority would become the contact point for the European Commission in Estonia.

During the debate, questions were raised regarding the practical impact of the amendment (Aivar Kokk), and the definition of concentration was clarified in the meaning of Article 20 and Article 21, paragraph 5 of the regulation (Peeter Ernits). The effectiveness of the directive against subsidies from major powers and the possibility of retaliation were also discussed (Rain Epler). Reinaasa confirmed that the fines amount to 5–10% of global turnover, which is sufficiently deterrent. The lead committee proposed concluding the second reading of the draft law, which was done, and the third reading was scheduled for November 12th.

The Riigikogu debated the second reading of Bill 677, the act amending the Motor Vehicle Tax Act, which was initiated by the Finance Committee. The main objective of the bill was to bring the tax law into compliance with the Constitution, taking into account the remarks made by the Chancellor of Justice. The amendments concern shortening the taxation period in cases where the vehicle is removed from the traffic register (due to destruction, theft, or export from the country). The changes will be applied retroactively starting from January 1st of this year. Annely Akkermann (Reform Party), Chairman of the Finance Committee, stressed that this was a necessary correction of errors and that adapting tax legislation is routine work.

The debate was extremely critical. Opposition parties (EKRE, Isamaa, Center Party) accused the coalition of stubbornness, noting that the same flaws had been highlighted during the initial handling of the bill but were forcefully rejected. Critics argued that the amendments were only being made because the Chancellor of Justice intervened to prevent a constitutional crisis. The opposition repeatedly demanded the complete repeal of the motor vehicle tax, citing its unfairness, low revenue collection (half of what was forecast), and negative impact on rural life and the behavior of car buyers. Akkermann defended the tax as a fair way to collect money to cover the costs of roads and traffic management, noting that social benefits had already been increased using the tax revenue.

The Riigikogu debated the second reading of Bill 694, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the Motor Vehicle Tax Act and amendments to the Traffic Act. Annely Akkermann, Chair of the Finance Committee, presented the content of the draft legislation, which stipulates an annual tax reduction of 100 euros for families with children for every child under the age of 18, applied retroactively starting in 2025. Furthermore, the tax rate for M-category minibuses with more than seven seats will be significantly reduced by applying the N-category tax rate, which supports large families and people with disabilities. Akkermann explained that the amendment affects 150,000 taxpayers and provides families with a total of over 16 million euros. The opposition sharply criticized the bill, calling it a cosmetic fix that does not compensate for earlier cuts to family benefits, and demanded the complete abolition of the car tax. The lack of specific provisions for people with disabilities was particularly highlighted. Amendment Proposal No. 3 by the Social Democratic Party faction, which provided for tax exemption for individuals with severe or profound disabilities, was rejected in the vote. The lead committee made six consensual amendments to the bill, and the second reading was concluded.

The Riigikogu debated the second reading of Draft Act 733 on the state's 2025 supplementary budget, initiated by the Government of the Republic. Annely Akkermann, Chair of the Finance Committee, provided an overview of the committee's work, which took place on October 23 and November 3. According to the draft bill, expenditures will be reduced by 19.9 million and investments by 12 million, while financing transactions will be increased by 72.3 million euros. The reduction in expenditures is primarily due to the refinement of project timelines and the reallocation of funds to subsequent years. In addition, the budget of the Ministry of Defence will be increased by 39 million for assisting Ukraine and for defense procurements.

The committee discussed the amendment proposal submitted by Isamaa, which aimed to further reduce central government expenditures by 200 million (excluding national defense and the salaries of teachers, police officers, and rescue workers). The Finance Committee decided not to consider the proposal, as it did not comply with the requirements of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, lacking a precise numerical formulation within the budget framework. Aivar Kokk raised a question regarding the revenue forecasts for the motor vehicle tax registration fee, to which Akkermann replied that the Ministry of Finance would submit an amendment proposal concerning the reduction in revenues for the third reading. The leading committee proposed concluding the second reading and shortening the deadline for submitting amendments due to the need for a faster procedure.

The Riigikogu debated the draft resolution on the approval of the State's 2024 consolidated annual economic report, submitted by the Government of the Republic, during its first reading. Minister of Finance Jürgen Ligi presented the report, noting that 2024 was a difficult year for the economy, particularly concerning consumer confidence, although fundamental indicators were improving. The statistical deficit of the general government sector reached 601 million euros (1.5% of GDP), which was smaller than expected thanks to good tax revenue collection and cost savings. During the year, a negative supplementary budget was adopted, and a security tax was introduced, and the VAT rate was raised, the main impact of which will manifest in the coming years. The National Audit Office audited the report and found that it fairly reflected the state's financial position, but made remarks regarding the accounting of Ministry of Defence inventories and deficiencies in the internal control systems of the Centre for Defence Investments and the Defence Forces, noting that this is a recurring problem. Annely Akkermann, Chair of the leading committee, the Finance Committee, provided an overview of the debate, which focused primarily on the lack of connection between performance indicators (metrics) and funding. The Committee proposed concluding the first reading.

Auditor General Janar Holm presented an overview to the Riigikogu regarding the use and preservation of state assets in 2024–2025, focusing on the transport and mobility sector and systemic problems within the state budget. Holm sharply criticized the failure of the performance-based state budget reform, noting that the proposed amendments to the State Budget Basic Act are substantively empty and do not increase parliamentary control over the use of funds. He emphasized that budget goals are often unrealistic and disconnected from actual possibilities, thereby creating disappointment and alienation.

In the transport sector, Holm highlighted a massive funding shortfall (at least 1.35 billion euros in the period 2026–2030) required to meet existing obligations and goals, such as maintaining the condition of roads and financing Rail Baltic. He also provided examples from other sectors (social welfare, education) where the state is unable to fulfill statutory obligations due to a lack of funds. Furthermore, the Auditor General addressed serious systemic problems identified in the administrative area of the Ministry of Defence concerning accounting and work organization, including a stalled prepayment of 9.6 million euros, which has functioned as an interest-free loan at the taxpayer's expense. Holm stressed that although the accounting of the ministries is generally in order, the Ministry of Finance is responsible for the functioning of the system and adherence to rules, and cannot simply shift the responsibility to the ministries. The next annual report will focus on trends in healthcare.

This agenda item concerned the first reading of Draft Act 702 SE, initiated by the Government of the Republic, on the amendment of the Aviation Act and the resulting amendment of other acts. Infrastructure Minister Kuldar Leis introduced the draft, the objective of which is to establish a clearer legal framework that reduces bureaucracy and is based on the current security situation. The Minister highlighted four main blocks of amendments: the invalidation of certificates for air navigation equipment to avoid the duplication of EU law (which is expected to reduce company costs by approximately 10,000 euros annually); the creation of specific national rules for defense aviation airfields and helipads (such as in the case of Ämari); transferring the obligation to pay fees related to the clearing of trees in the immediate vicinity of an airfield from the property owner to the airfield operator or possessor, in order to reduce the administrative and financial burden on owners; and clarifying the procedure for contesting airport fee rates, granting the Competition Authority a four-week decision period regarding the application of fees during the dispute. Kristina Šmigun-Vähi, representative of the Economic Affairs Committee, confirmed that the committee unanimously decided to propose concluding the first reading.

As the 23rd and final item on the agenda of the Riigikogu session, the first reading of Draft Act 716, initiated by the Government of the Republic, amending the Railways Act and the State Fees Act, was discussed. Infrastructure Minister Kuldar Leis introduced the draft bill, the main objective of which is to increase railway safety, ensure the control of the Estonian language proficiency level of locomotive drivers (required level B1 or A2), and reduce bureaucracy. Among the more significant amendments, the Minister highlighted the extension of the deadline for issuing safety permits from 30 days to a maximum of four months to ensure thorough evaluation, and the right granted to the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority to inspect railway undertakings on site. The Language Inspectorate was also granted the right to check the language proficiency of locomotive drivers. To reduce bureaucracy, railway infrastructure undertakings are given the right to set the prices for ancillary services themselves.

Õnne Pillak, a member of the Economic Affairs Committee, provided an overview of the discussion of the draft bill in the committee. In the committee, the focus was mainly on the reasons for the extension of the deadlines for safety permits (which resulted from an audit by the European Union Agency for Railways), the availability of services, and issues concerning state budget funding. Peeter Ernits asked the rapporteur questions regarding Regulation (EU) 2021/782 of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail passengers’ rights and obligations. Upon the committee's proposal, it was decided to conclude the first reading of the draft bill.

Prime Minister Kristen Michal addressed a question initiated by Martin Helme (EKRE) concerning the ratification of the agreement to transfer Swedish prisoners to Estonia, specifically to Tartu Prison. Helme expressed extreme opposition, accusing the government of demagoguery, lying, and debasing the dignity of the Estonian state, claiming the agreement was being concluded due to the country's alleged financial bankruptcy. He specifically asked whether the public opposition from Reform Party members in Tartu had reached the party leadership and whether the plan was under reconsideration. Prime Minister Michal defended the agreement, emphasizing that the prisoners would not be released into Estonia but would return to Sweden. She highlighted the economic benefits of the agreement (30 million euros and jobs), which ensure the preservation of internal security infrastructure in Tartu. Michal confirmed that the concerns of the city of Tartu are being taken seriously. In a follow-up question, Helme accused the Reform Party of failing in criminal policy and "prostituting" the Estonian state. Rain Epler (EKRE) added that the government was cheaply selling off Estonia's internal security, referencing other countries' failed experiences with prison rental. Michal responded that the economic forecasts are positive and cited the successful example of prison rental in the Netherlands, where the termination of the contracts was regretted due to the loss of jobs, not because of an increase in crime.

The sitting addressed the question posed by Riigikogu member Lauri Läänemets to Prime Minister Kristen Michal regarding finance and subsistence, specifically focusing on the impact of the government's tax amendments on low-income earners. Läänemets pointed out that an individual earning 1,000 euros gains only 10 euros per month from the tax reform, while the rising state debt forces that person to allocate 3.7 percentage points of their income tax toward interest payments to foreign banks. He demanded an explanation for this economic policy rationale. Prime Minister Michal avoided the specific issue of the 1,000-euro earner, focusing instead on the average wage recipient (2,100 euros), whose annual gain was reportedly 1,800 euros. Michal emphasized the overall reduction in the tax burden and the stimulation of the economy, while simultaneously criticizing previous attempts at implementing a progressive income tax. In a follow-up question, Läänemets accused the Prime Minister of ignoring society’s real problems and warned that failing to resolve the concerns of low-income earners would fuel the growth of right-wing populism. Helmen Kütt highlighted the plight of subsistence benefit recipients, criticizing the low threshold of the benefit (€220) compared to the absolute poverty line (€345.80), and contrasting this with the tax breaks granted to high earners. Michal affirmed that aid must be targeted, citing increases in the minimum wage and pensions, as well as the high level of employment. At the end of the sitting, Peeter Ernits raised a point of order, asking why the chair had not intervened when the Prime Minister repeatedly answered irrelevantly. The chair responded that he lacked the authority to compel an answer to a specific question within the scope of a broad topic.

The third item on the agenda addressed the state of dental care in Estonia, a topic raised by Riigikogu member Lauri Laats to Minister of Social Affairs Karmen Joller. Laats stressed the direct connection between oral health and overall well-being and presented alarming statistics: out of 1.3 million residents, only 327,000 people annually utilize the Health Insurance Fund’s 60-euro dental care reimbursement. Laats argued that the primary barrier to visiting the dentist is financial hardship, citing studies showing that people are forced to take out quick loans to cover dental treatment costs, especially among young people. Minister Joller acknowledged the importance of oral health but emphasized the critical role of prevention, hygiene habits, and healthy eating. She noted that the state has increased benefits, treatment is free for children (though the attendance rate is only 60%), and future plans include better targeting of services toward lower-income individuals and sending reminders to parents. The discussion grew heated when Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart posed a supplementary question regarding the Ministry of Social Affairs’ alleged inefficient use of European Social Fund money (project managers’ salaries, seminars, trips) instead of developing services for children with special needs. Minister Joller rejected the accusations, defending the necessity of inclusion during reforms and accusing the questioner of unethical behavior and presenting factual inaccuracies. The session chair requested that participants refrain from personal attacks.

The fourth item on the agenda addressed the National Audit Office report regarding the infrastructure deficit in the transport and mobility sector, which amounts to 1.35 billion euros. Riigikogu member Jaanus Karilaid (Isamaa) asked Prime Minister Kristen Michal what the government's work plan was for covering this deficit and maintaining Estonia's competitiveness. Prime Minister Michal first corrected the budget deficit figure presented by the questioner and explained that the government would allocate the revenue collected from the annual car tax (approx. 280 million euros in the coming years) entirely to roads, pledging major investments in the construction of 2+2 roads in the direction of Pärnu and Tartu, and ensuring Rail Baltic stays on schedule. Karilaid presented a clarifying question regarding the construction project of the Turba–Rohuküla railway section, to which the Prime Minister responded that this would be left for future coalitions to decide as a priority. The discussion took an unexpected turn when Mart Maastik (Isamaa) presented an additional question concerning Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna's visit to China and Estonian-Chinese relations. The Chairman of the session reprimanded Maastik for deviating from the topic, which then triggered a long and passionate procedural dispute between Helir-Valdor Seeder (Isamaa) and the Chairman of the session. Seeder challenged the Chairman's right to regulate the content of additional questions, citing shortcomings in the Rules of Procedure Act regarding this matter. The Chairman defended his position, emphasizing that one must stay within the topic of the registered questions to ensure that other registered questions are addressed.

The session addressed the fifth question, which was posed by Mart Helme (later joined by Martin Helme with a clarifying question) to Prime Minister Kristen Michal regarding security. Mart Helme began by discussing the leaked report from the National Defence Committee, claiming it exposed the collapse of the Reform Party’s long-standing myth of "security in safe hands" and pointed to serious security gaps. He demanded accountability for omissions and the irresponsible spending of funds. Furthermore, he raised the issue of civil defense, asking about the state's readiness to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from Tallinn to rural areas in a crisis situation. Helme also highlighted the problem of internal security, referring to the repeated vandalisms of the Sinimäe Legionnaires' complex and asking why Estonia, as an e-state, is unable to identify and prevent such anti-Estonian activity. Prime Minister Michal rejected the accusations that Estonia was unprotected and affirmed that Estonian security is well guaranteed, relying on his own experience and the functioning of the NATO alliance relationship. He emphasized that the report should be handled constructively, focusing on proposals for improvement rather than emotional accusation. Michal listed the government's major investments in comprehensive national defense (including 219 million euros in 2025–2027), which are aimed at increasing evacuation capability, creating the Police and Border Guard Board's crisis reserve, and increasing hospitals' trauma reserves. Regarding the Sinimäe incidents, Michal confirmed that they are being investigated by the police and are often linked to the propaganda of a hostile neighboring state. Finally, Michal stressed that responsibility for security rests collectively with the parliament, the government, and himself, but the Estonian state is well cared for.

Member of the Riigikogu Tanel Kiik submitted an interpellation to Prime Minister Kristen Michal regarding the healthcare funding crisis, accusing the government of setting the wrong priorities. Kiik sharply criticized the government's decision to grant over 100 million euros in tax breaks to the wealthier segment of society amid a budget deficit, while the Health Insurance Fund (Tervisekassa) is facing a deepening shortfall and the social sector, including special welfare services, is underfunded. Kiik asked why healthcare and the social sector have been relegated to the "role of the poor relation" and why a progressive income tax is not being implemented.

Prime Minister Michal rejected the accusations of creating a historical deficit, shifting responsibility to previous governments. He defended the tax reform, emphasizing that abolishing the tax hump brings significant relief to average wage earners (teachers, police officers), essentially giving them an extra month's salary per year. Regarding healthcare funding, Michal noted that the Tervisekassa deficit is smaller than planned and reserves are not being depleted. He stressed that the solution lies not in injecting additional money, but in improving system efficiency, eliminating duplication, and increasing e-consultations. In a follow-up question, Reili Rand expressed concern about the optimization of the hospital network, fearing a decline in service availability in peripheral regions (such as Hiiumaa and Saaremaa). The Prime Minister confirmed that the Minister of Social Affairs is working on a plan, which will be finalized by the end of the year and will involve communities, based on common sense.

The session addressed the response of Minister of Social Affairs Karmen Joller to the question posed by Riigikogu member Vladimir Arhipov regarding the impact of price increases and the care reform. Arhipov criticized the care reform, claiming that it had not reduced the burden on local governments but had instead increased costs, making nursing homes more expensive and putting families under pressure. He asked why local governments must pay an increasingly larger share of the costs and how the state ensures the availability of services amid rising prices.

Minister Joller emphasized that the reform had been successful, allowing over a thousand people to move into nursing homes, which demonstrates improved accessibility. She highlighted that the state has allocated approximately 76 million euros in support to local governments and that the personal contribution of individuals to the cost of nursing home care has significantly decreased (81% covered). Joller promised to review all proposals for increasing the funding of local authorities (KOVs) by the end of next year. In a supplementary question, Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart leveled sharp criticism at the minister regarding the handling of sensitive data and the expenditures of the Health Insurance Fund (Tervisekassa) (advertising, consulting). Joller responded that Kovalenko-Kõlvart had exceeded the mandate of the Special Committee on Anti-Corruption by attempting to illegally demand special categories of personal data over which she has no right of supervision. The minister accused Kovalenko-Kõlvart of unethical conduct and ignorance of the law, after which the chairman of the session concluded the discussion of the topic, as it went beyond the scope of the registered question.

The eighth question during the information session addressed Prime Minister Kristen Michal's interference in Latvia's internal affairs concerning the Latvian parliament's decision to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention. The questioner, Varro Vooglaid (pid: EYvDQyWULUg), sharply criticized the Prime Minister's Facebook statement, in which Michal had asserted that there are forces within the Latvian parliament who do not value women's rights and security. Vooglaid argued that such critical interference at the prime ministerial level in the decisions of another country's parliament is completely inappropriate and violates the fundamental principles of diplomacy. Furthermore, he challenged the value of the convention, asserting that women's safety depends on national laws and their enforcement, rather than mere symbolic or slogan-driven agreements.

Prime Minister Michal defended her stance, emphasizing that she is in complete agreement with Latvian Prime Minister Evika regarding the value of the Istanbul Convention. Michal stressed the convention's objective of protecting women from violence and promoting gender equality. She affirmed that the Estonian government has no intention of withdrawing from the convention, despite the proposal made by EKRE. Michal agreed with Vooglaid only insofar as penal policy (especially conditional sentences for crimes against the person) requires review, but maintained that expressing opinions on broader societal issues is entirely appropriate.

At the session, the first reading of Draft Law 682, initiated by the Government of the Republic concerning the ratification of the agreement between the Republic of Estonia and the Kingdom of Sweden on the enforcement of prison sentences, was discussed. The Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, introduced the bill, emphasizing Estonia's success story in maintaining low crime rates and a world-class prison system. The Minister affirmed that prison leasing is extremely beneficial for Estonia economically (Sweden covers all costs, including a risk margin, and creates new jobs in the field of internal security), and security is guaranteed: inmates are released to Sweden, not Estonia, and only individuals with carefully vetted backgrounds are accepted. The opposition sharply criticized the government's actions, accusing Estonia of turning into a "subcontractor state" and ignoring the opinion of the local community (Tartu). Particular indignation was caused by the fact that the threat assessment compiled by the Security Police (KAPO) had not been made available to Riigikogu members, which led to several procedural questions and demands for the discussion to be suspended. The Chairman of the session, Toomas Kivimägi, and later Arvo Aller, attempted to resolve the situation; the latter even called a 15-minute recess. The discussion continued but ended during the question-and-answer phase at 2:00 PM, without the first reading of the bill having been concluded.

The Riigikogu debated Draft Resolution 678, submitted by the Estonian Centre Party faction, which proposed that the Government of the Republic develop a procedure for paying pensioners an additional annual one-off pension supplement (€100). Rapporteur Lauri Laats emphasized that this was a deeply moral issue, as over 327,000 pensioners live in a situation where the cost of living has grown significantly faster than pensions in recent years, especially the prices of food and essential goods (a rise of over 40%). He highlighted that Estonia's pension replacement rate (around 34%) is the lowest in the European Union, and nearly 40% of the elderly are at risk of poverty. Laats argued that the support, costing 33 million euros, is affordable for the state and would help alleviate the financial difficulties faced by the elderly while simultaneously stimulating domestic consumption. As funding sources, the faction proposed introducing a bank tax and a progressive income tax, as well as savings from bureaucracy and green transition costs.

During the debate, questions were raised about the universality of the support, to which Laats replied that the draft resolution stipulated payment to all pensioners, but making exceptions was negotiable. Signe Riisalo, Chairman of the Social Affairs Committee, provided an overview of the committee's brief discussion, noting that the committee does not develop solutions but pointed to the need for an extraordinary increase in the national pension to reduce poverty among the elderly. During negotiations, Aleksandr Tšaplõgin and Mart Helme criticized the government, accusing it of neglecting the elderly and breaking election promises. Social Democrat Andre Hanimägi supported steps to assist the elderly but emphasized the need for systemic solutions. The draft resolution was put to a final vote, which required a majority of the Riigikogu membership (51 votes) for adoption. The draft resolution was rejected, receiving only 22 votes in favor.

The Riigikogu debate focused on Draft Resolution 713, submitted by the Social Democratic Party faction, which proposed raising the subsistence level for the Government of the Republic to at least 300 euros per month. Rapporteur Helmen Kütt emphasized that the current limit of 200 euros (which is set to rise to 220 euros starting in 2026) is insufficient and falls far below the absolute poverty line (345.80 euros). The goal of the draft resolution was to offer faster, needs-based support to single parents, the elderly, and low-income individuals, especially during the cold heating periods. The Social Democrats had also submitted a state budget amendment proposal to make the increase to 300 euros possible.

During the debate, it was pointed out that raising the subsistence level to 300 euros would entail an additional cost to the state budget of approximately 12–13 million euros per year, but this money would immediately return to the Estonian economy through consumption. Eero Merilind, representative of the Social Affairs Committee, confirmed that although the objective of the draft resolution is sound, the state budget's resources are limited. Opposition parties (Centre Party, EKRE) supported the proposal, but EKRE representative Rain Epler criticized the Social Democrats and the Reform Party for earlier tax increases that disproportionately affected poorer residents. In the final vote, the draft resolution failed to gain support, as only 28 Riigikogu members voted in favor, which was insufficient to achieve the required majority of the Riigikogu composition (51 votes).

Pipi-Liis Siemann, a member of the Constitutional Committee, presented a report on the second reading of Draft Act 687, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning amendments to the Vital Statistics Registration Act, the Population Register Act, and the State Fees Act. The committee handled the draft bill during two sittings, discussing the standpoints of the Ministry of the Interior and the proposals put forth by the Association of Estonian Cities and Rural Municipalities. The ministry did not support the latter proposals (such as the exception for digital signing by guardians and improvements to the booking system). The primary debate revolved around centralizing the authority for birth registration in county centers (in addition to Narva). The aim of this centralization is to ensure a higher level of competence in more complex cases and to avoid the continuous training of officials across 79 local governments, especially given the widespread use of e-services.

During the debate, Kalle Grünthal (Isamaa) sharply criticized the centralization of authority, arguing that it would increase costs and administrative burden for rural residents, and even compared the state's actions to a taxing "mafia." In her rebuttal, Pipi-Liis Siemann explained that most registrations are handled via e-services, and local governments are obligated to provide transport assistance to those who require in-person services. Amendment proposal No. 1 from the Isamaa faction was put to a vote and subsequently rejected. The leading committee then proposed concluding the second reading.

The Riigikogu debated an interpellation submitted to Infrastructure Minister Kuldar Leis concerning the safety and regulation of minimopeds and light personal transporters (LPTs), which was presented by Lauri Laats and other members of the Riigikogu. The submitter of the interpellation, Lauri Laats (pid: q-NH4yPMXTY), stressed that the sector is plagued by "disorder" regarding both technical and legal regulation, citing tragic accidents (including a recent fatal accident in Tartu). Minister Kuldar Leis thanked the members for raising the topic and presented statistics, noting that the number of accidents involving light personal transporters has decreased by 26% over the last nine months, but stressed that the focus has shifted from rental vehicles to privately owned LPTs, especially among 7–14-year-olds. Leis confirmed that vehicle types are precisely defined by law in Estonia. He outlined the ministry's plans: consideration is being given to raising the minimum age limit for LPT drivers and extending the requirement for driving rights to minors (bicycle licenses). Work is also underway to establish an obligation for rental companies to implement reliable age and identity verification measures. The Minister promised that legislative amendments would be drafted under the leadership of the Ministry of Climate and attempts would be made to bring them before the Riigikogu before the next season (spring). In the subsequent debate, Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart (pid: pRsZT2E8hTk) sharply criticized the coalition, accusing them of voting down previous Center Party drafts (e.g., establishing a limit on the number of rental vehicles, helmet rental, mandatory traffic insurance) and accusing the government of prioritizing the interests of entrepreneurs over public health.

The Riigikogu debate centered on an interpellation submitted to Minister of Social Affairs Karmen Joller concerning the healthcare funding crisis. The interpellation was presented by members of the Social Democratic Party and other opposition factions, led by Tanel Kiik. The interpellators highlighted the chronic deficit of the Health Insurance Fund (200–300 million euros) and the underfunding of Estonian healthcare compared to the OECD and EU averages, warning that government inaction would deepen waiting lists and inequality. Questions addressed ensuring sustainability, covering the 2026 deficit, involving private capital in primary care, and reducing patient co-payments. Minister Joller acknowledged the funding problem but stressed that the government's priority is first to streamline healthcare expenditures and optimize the hospital network to ensure funds are directed toward results-based objectives. She explained that the 2024 budget deficit was successfully reduced by 70 million euros due to better collection of social tax and efficiency measures. Joller criticized the opposition's focus solely on accessibility, emphasizing the importance of treatment quality. She confirmed that the government’s specific proposals for long-term funding would be presented in February, but conceded that finding a large volume of additional funds would necessitate new tax increases or the reallocation of resources from other priorities, such as national defense. The discussion also brought up concerns about two-tier medicine and the future of regional hospitals (e.g., Hiiumaa) within the context of optimizing the hospital network.

The Riigikogu debate focused on Interpellation No. 812 concerning the support of the birth rate, submitted to Minister of Social Affairs Karmen Joller by Riigikogu members Jaak Valge, Riina Solman, and Leo Kunnas. The rapporteur, Jaak Valge, emphasized the critical state of Estonia’s population, referencing an analysis by the Ministry of Social Affairs that confirms the continuing downward trend in the birth rate. Valge stressed that the state’s duty is to ensure equal opportunities for self-realization for those who wish to have children, and to overcome the obstacles that inhibit family creation.

Minister Karmen Joller responded to the interpellation, confirming that the ministry is working on a comprehensive family policy. She refuted accusations that the analysis forces women to give birth. Joller highlighted the government’s plans, which include making parental benefits more flexible (including the option to pay them to grandparents), improving housing availability (using pension pillar funds as collateral for home loans), and expanding access to infertility treatment and mental health services. Joller noted that the comprehensive action plan should be ready by the spring of 2026. During the debate, questions were raised regarding the indexing of family benefits, establishing Children’s Day as a national holiday, and placing the Government Commission on Population Policy under the management of the State Chancellery, all of which the Minister supported. Peeter Ernits criticized the government’s priorities, questioning the necessity of high defense spending in the context of the drastic decline in the birth rate.

The Riigikogu held an interpellation (No. 826) of Minister of Social Affairs Karmen Joller regarding the underfunding of special welfare services, initiated by the Social Democrats under the leadership of Helmen Kütt. The interpellation was prompted by the 2025 review from the National Audit Office, which brought to light serious deficiencies in the accessibility of special welfare services. Helmen Kütt stressed that waiting lists have nearly doubled between 2018 and 2024, now extending up to 53 months, and that court rulings concerning places in secure special welfare facilities have not been implemented. She pointed out that the Ministry of Social Affairs had requested €195 million from the government for special welfare over four years but was allocated only €4.2 million for the upcoming year.

Minister Karmen Joller acknowledged the chronic underfunding of special welfare and the increasing demand, particularly for round-the-clock services. She noted, however, that the budget has grown (from €22.7 million in 2015 to €57.7 million in 2026). Joller outlined three steps to improve the situation: increasing the remuneration for service providers by €4.2 million annually to facilitate a 10% salary increase; establishing a 10-day decision deadline for accepting a service placement to reduce the number of vacant spots; and opening new service placements in high-demand regions (Tallinn, Harju County, Tartu). Joller conceded that a situation where people must take the state to court just to receive services is neither humane nor appropriate for a state governed by the rule of law.

During the debate, the questioners (Tanel Kiik, Lauri Läänemets) focused on the government's priorities, contrasting the €4.2 million allocated for salary increases with the tax "gift" of over €100 million given to the wealthier segment of society by abolishing the progressive income tax system (the "tax hump"). Minister Joller defended the tax reform, arguing that it also benefits those earning an average salary and simplifies the tax system, while affirming that special welfare remains a continuing priority within her ministry.

The Riigikogu debated the second reading of Bill 692, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the ratification of the Agreement between the Republic of Estonia and the Sultanate of Oman for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion. Diana Ingerainen reported on behalf of the Finance Committee, stating that the committee discussed the bill on October 14 and 21, and unanimously decided to conclude the second reading and proceed to the final vote.

During the debate, several questions were raised focusing on the economic rationale of the agreement and the level of trade between Estonia and Oman. MPs (Vadim Belobrovtsev, Lauri Laats, Peeter Ernits, Rene Kokk, Priit Sibul) inquired about the specific additional benefits for Estonia, the volume of trade, and which types of businesses were interested in the agreement. The rapporteur, Diana Ingerainen, admitted that the committee neither requested nor received an overview of specific financial figures or a broader economic perspective, but she mentioned that the initiative to conclude the agreement came primarily from IT companies. Peeter Ernits criticized the committee's work, accusing it of acting as a "rubber stamp" for the government. The question was also raised regarding the suitability of concluding such an agreement in the context of Oman's authoritarian regime and human rights restrictions. Since no amendments were submitted, the bill was moved to the final vote.

The Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, presented Bill 739, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the amendment of the Cybersecurity Act and other acts (transposition of the NIS2 directive), to the Riigikogu at its first reading. The Minister emphasized the necessity of the act due to the rapid growth of cyber threats, citing the successful international police operation SIMCARTEL and cyberattacks against Estonian hospitals as examples. The main goal of the bill is to raise the level of cybersecurity in the European Union and harmonize the rules.

The bill extends the application of stricter cybersecurity requirements to approximately 3,000 new organizations, increasing the total number of affected entities in Estonia to around 6,500. Another significant change is that the entire organization will henceforth be responsible for cybersecurity, not just a specific vital service. The Minister confirmed that the goal was to avoid "gold-plating" European Union law and introduced a new "traffic light" table to help assess the accuracy of the transposition. During the discussions, questions were raised regarding the complex wording of the bill (referencing criticism from the Bar Association and ITL) and the lack of an economic impact analysis. The Minister responded that it is difficult to estimate the exact cost, but the state will offer the new entities a three-year transition period, support measures, and free online courses.

Kalev Stoicescu, Chairman of the National Defence Committee, supported the general principles of the bill, noting the need to align the draft with other laws currently under deliberation. The Committee proposed concluding the first reading.

Today's agenda focused on concluding the proceedings of the first reading of Draft Act 696, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning amendments to the Advertising Act and the Personal Data Protection Act. The Chair of the sitting announced that the lead committee had proposed concluding the first reading of the Bill. This proposal was adopted, and the first reading was declared concluded. Furthermore, the deadline for submitting motions to amend was established, set for 17:15 on November 5 of the current year. With this, the first item on the agenda was deemed concluded.

The Riigikogu debated the second reading of Draft Act 655, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning amendments to the Building Code and other acts. The report was presented by Urve Tiidus, a member of the Economic Affairs Committee. The main objective of the bill is to mandate the construction of the necessary infrastructure for high-speed internet connection in new or extensively renovated apartment buildings, in order to facilitate the work of communication infrastructure builders, save costs, and accelerate the development of the digital state. The Economic Affairs Committee prepared the bill for the second reading on October 14, involving nearly 50 stakeholders in the proceedings.

The Committee discussed four amendment proposals. Three proposals from the Economic Affairs Committee (Nos. 1, 2, and 4) were adopted by consensus. These proposals clarified the compensation of costs related to the installation and removal of mobile network active equipment, ensured greater legal clarity for communication undertakings (by removing abstract future-referencing discretion), and changed the act's entry into force date to January 1, 2026. Amendment proposal No. 3, submitted by the Isamaa parliamentary group, which concerned the prohibition of structures and symbols supporting regimes that occupied Estonia, was disregarded by the leading committee (2 in favor, 4 against), as it did not align with the subject matter of the digital infrastructure regulation in Bill 655. During negotiations, questions were raised regarding restrictions on the installation of support masts (50 m from the road) and the standards and conditions for sharing cable conduits, to which the rapporteur replied that these specific topics were not addressed by the committee during the preparation for the second reading. The second reading was concluded.

The Riigikogu debated the first reading of Bill 688, the Act on Amendments to the Local Government Organization Act and Related Acts, initiated by the Government of the Republic. Regional and Agriculture Minister Hendrik Johannes Terras emphasized in his report that the Local Government Organization Act (KOKS), dating back to 1993, has been amended over a hundred times, making the law fragmented and in need of reorganization. The objective of the draft legislation is to reduce bureaucracy, increase clarity and trust in local government, not to write a new law. As significant amendments, the minister highlighted the reduction of bureaucracy in local councils, the delegation of decision-making power to executive bodies and agencies, and the clearer articulation of the purpose of local government activities, adding the creation of a safe living environment and the support of entrepreneurship. Furthermore, popular initiatives will be simplified, and local governments (LGUs) will be granted the right to supervise the implementation of their own regulations.

During the debate, repeated focus was placed on the funding of the new task of supporting the business environment, to which the minister and the representative of the Constitutional Committee, Pipi-Liis Siemann, responded that KOKS is a framework law and funding measures will be discussed in other formats. Questions were also raised regarding the suspension of council membership for the heads of managed institutions, an issue that was omitted from the bill to ensure consensus. Pipi-Liis Siemann, the representative of the Constitutional Committee, confirmed that the committee thoroughly debated the bill and that all procedural decisions were made by consensus. The planned effective date for the bill is January 1, 2024, or March 2024 if necessary, to provide local governments with sufficient transition time.

The Riigikogu debate focused on the first reading of Draft Bill 669, initiated by the Estonian Centre Party faction, which sought to amend the Law on Holidays and Commemorative Dates. The bill's objective was to designate June 1 (Children's Day) as a national holiday and a day off. The bill's rapporteur, Vadim Belobrovtsev (Centre Party), emphasized that this was a family-friendly step that would strengthen family relationships and give parents the opportunity to spend time with their children. He highlighted that 36 reputable organizations supported the idea and noted that Estonia has few days off compared to the European Union average. Belobrovtsev criticized the government's opposition, which was presented by the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, primarily citing the lack of an impact analysis, even though the idea itself was acknowledged as positive. Several MPs (SDE, Isamaa) expressed strong support for the bill, emphasizing the importance of valuing children and improving the demographic situation. The rapporteur for the Constitutional Committee, Jaak Valge (EKRE), explained that the committee was unable to adopt a decision regarding the rejection of the bill (the vote was 4 in favor, 4 against). Since no faction made a proposal in the plenary session to reject the bill, the first reading was concluded without a vote, based on the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act.

The Riigikogu debated the first reading of Bill 719, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning amendments to the Name Act and the State Fees Act. Interior Minister Igor Taro introduced the bill, emphasizing its goal of bringing name changes into the 21st century by utilizing e-services, automated decisions, and automated entries. The Minister stressed that this is a technological step that reduces bureaucracy and increases trust, referring to it as the "freedom bill" and the "digital state strengthening bill." Taro also highlighted that the project is funded by the European Union's Recovery and Resilience Facility, noting that the amendments must be implemented before December 2025 to avoid the obligation to repay the funds.

The most heated debate centered on the issue of name changes for criminals. MPs (Andre Hanimägi, Riina Solman, Tanel Kiik) expressed concern that the new automatic system must not simplify the concealment of a criminal past. The Minister confirmed that substantive restrictions designed to protect society (including ruling out the adoption of names of living persons) will be established in the new comprehensive Name Act bill, which will be finalized during the current calendar year. Under the current bill, automated decisions are only possible in simple cases related to lineage connections that can be verified based on registry data. Peeter Ernits (Centre Party) supported the content of the bill but criticized its rapid processing, which is necessitated by the European funding deadline (to avoid a fine of 120 million euros). Vilja Toomast (Legal Affairs Committee) provided an overview of the committee's discussion, confirming that names can still be changed in four regional vital statistics offices and that automatic name change is permitted once in a lifetime, while simultaneously preventing the use of names belonging to generally well-known individuals.

The first question addressed during the Riigikogu session was directed at Minister of Education and Research Kristina Kallas (who was fulfilling the duties of the Prime Minister) and concerned the promotion of LGBT topics using taxpayer money. Riigikogu member Aleksandr Tšaplõgin (U2iy-Elt4HU) initiated the debate, emphasizing Estonia's deep demographic crisis and asking how the Action Plan for Promoting Equal Opportunities for LGBTIQ People (2025–2030), being prepared by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, would help raise the birth rate. He wanted to know what financial and administrative resources were planned to be spent on "LGBT propaganda" compared to the promotion of the traditional family and birth rate.

Minister Kallas responded that the goal of the action plan was not demography, but the protection of human rights and safety. She stressed that this was neither a campaign nor propaganda, but a practical working tool that addresses deeply rooted problems. Kallas highlighted alarming statistics: 76% of LGBT students have experienced school bullying, every second student has experienced harassment, and 20% of young people frequently contemplate suicide. The Minister confirmed that the action plan does not have a separate budget, and activities will be implemented within the framework of existing programs, offering additional support to doctors and teachers. Furthermore, Kallas emphasized that the state supports all families equally, regardless of their composition. Peeter Ernits (c88zg8PwZqQ), who posed a follow-up question, asked why the rights of homosexual people are constantly emphasized and whether there was also a plan for an action plan to address the concerns of heterosexual people. The Minister replied that the state does not divide people into categories, and all Estonian people need support, especially considering the serious safety and mental health problems faced by the LGBT community.

The second question today addressed the availability of specialized care services mandated by a court order. This question was posed to the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, by Riigikogu member Helmen Kütt. Kütt brought up a serious issue: several individuals who have been court-ordered into a closed specialized care facility (due to being potentially dangerous to themselves or others) are currently on a waiting list for the service. This creates significant difficulties for local governments and relatives, who are forced to ensure safety, often incurring extra costs. Kütt asked the Minister for advice on whether local governments should sue the state or submit invoices for the additional expenses to the Ministry of Social Affairs.

Minister Pakosta affirmed that Estonia is a state governed by the rule of law and that court decisions must be executed. She explained that legal remedies include appealing to the administrative court either via a mandatory action (where an administrative body has failed to act) or by claiming damages under the State Liability Act (e.g., costs for a security firm). The Minister stressed that while these legal avenues exist, the state's primary objective remains the swift and effective availability of services. In follow-up questions, Kütt highlighted that waiting lists are long even for transitioning to less restrictive services and inquired about the prospects for improvement in the 2025 budget. Pakosta acknowledged that she lacked a detailed overview of the Social Minister's administrative domain but affirmed the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs' stance that court rulings must be implemented, and the priority is ensuring the supervision of dangerous individuals, even if this requires temporary solutions that do not fully comply with service standards. Riina Sikkut connected the issue to the general underfunding of specialized care and sought the Minister's support for the Social Democrats' proposed budget amendment, which aims to create new spaces and ensure adequate wages. Pakosta responded that the draft budget does include a salary increase but reiterated that her priority remains ensuring public safety and the immediate availability of supervision.

Member of Parliament Aivar Kokk submitted an inquiry to Minister of Education and Research Kristina Kallas (who was acting as Prime Minister) concerning the structure of VAT revenues projected for the 2026 state budget. Kokk expressed concern that the VAT revenue, totaling 4.6 billion euros, was presented in the budget as a single line item, whereas excise duties were detailed. He demanded to know what portion of this revenue was projected to come from the sale of electricity and heat, arguing that the revenue side of the budget was "practically opaque."

Minister Kallas explained that VAT is a uniform tax, and the Ministry of Finance forecasts it as a total sum based on macro data—such as private consumption, investments, and tax changes—rather than broken down by sector or specific goods. She stressed that such a detailed forecast is simply not feasible. Kallas cited 2024 data, noting that VAT collection from the energy sector amounted to approximately 66 million euros, which is less than 2% of the total revenue collected across all sectors. Kokk stood by his position, asserting that electricity consumption forecasts are accurate and the Ministry of Finance should be capable of providing those figures. The Minister advised him to submit the question in writing to the forecasters, as a detailed breakdown does not conform to the existing forecasting model.

MP Vadim Belobrovtsev submitted an interpellation to the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, regarding the cost and speed of communication services in Estonia, highlighting that Estonia's internet connection remains one of the slowest and most expensive in the European Union. Minister Pakosta explained that in the mobile communications sector, official price statistics are distorted by so-called 'under-the-counter' offers, where operators provide a lower price to clients who have expressed a desire to switch operators. To solve this problem, the number portability time will be accelerated to force operators to offer more favorable prices immediately. Regarding the fixed internet connection, which was Belobrovtsev's primary concern, the Minister outlined several measures. The Competition Authority's analysis of the retail market is currently underway. Furthermore, Telia has been designated as an undertaking with significant market power, which resulted in 11 new obligations aimed at revitalizing wholesale competition. Draft bill 655 is also pending in the Riigikogu, and 45 million euros have been allocated for the construction of additional cables in cooperation with local governments, with the consumer connection fee capped at 200 euros. MP Anti Allas inquired about the long-term plan for the availability of fast internet in rural areas. The Minister confirmed that while approximately 800 million euros would be needed for universal coverage, a record 45 million euros has been allocated in next year's budget. At the same time, a review of the current development plan is being considered, as covering the entire necessary sum from the state budget is unrealistic, and broader solutions are being sought, including better over-the-air connections.

MP Riina Sikkut submitted an inquiry to the Minister of Education and Research, Kristina Kallas (acting as Prime Minister), regarding hobby education, focusing primarily on the cuts made by the Environmental Board in the field of environmental education. Sikkut highlighted the closure of the Endla and Iisaku nature centers, staff layoffs, and the change in rules for compensating transport costs, which has resulted in nearly half fewer children receiving environmental education. She criticized the government's choices, arguing they disproportionately affect regions outside of Tallinn, and questioned whether education only values academic success (PISA) at the expense of broader life skills and regional balance. Minister Kallas initially responded that the Environmental Board's decisions regarding cuts do not fall under her jurisdiction and that she could not address those specific details. She provided an overview of general hobby education funding, noting that local governments finance the sector with 208 million euros annually, a large portion of which is allocated to sports infrastructure. In follow-up questions, Sikkut stressed the importance of the regional aspect, and Tiit Maran asked whether the Minister had communicated with the Minister of Climate regarding the centralization of the nature education system. Finally, Kallas provided clarified information, explaining that the Ministry of Climate had changed the funding system, directing money straight to quality-labeled environmental education programs, rather than covering transport costs. Although the total budget decreased by 200,000 euros, the support per program was increased to raise quality. Kallas noted that the system has only been in effect for two months and it is too early to assess its impact.

Today's sixth question focused on judicial reform, which was posed to the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, by Riigikogu member Riina Solman. Solman highlighted the growing stress among judges and the protraction of proceedings, referring both to the concerns of Harju County Court judges and the public call by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Villu Kõve for system reform. Solman inquired about the Minister's vision, steps, and existing plan. Minister Pakosta confirmed that the ministry shares these concerns and has engaged in intensive cooperation with representatives of the judicial system over the past year. She referred to Bill 632, currently under deliberation in the Riigikogu, which addresses the equalization of judges' workloads, the appointment of substitute judges, and the possibility of paying additional remuneration, with the aim of making the courts' work more efficient. Pakosta also emphasized the plan to form one county court, one administrative court, and one circuit court, the constitutional analysis of which has been positive, but which requires resolving location issues. A follow-up question addressed regional differences and the fate of the Jõhvi courthouse. The Minister confirmed that judicial proceedings in Jõhvi will continue, but the space program has been rationalized. Regarding digital solutions, Pakosta acknowledged the Riigikogu Finance Committee, which allocated funds for developing the terms of reference for a new court information system, emphasizing the need to separate the judicial system's digital development from the executive power. In response to Peeter Ernits' question about the judiciary's attitude, the Minister replied that judges have provided thorough feedback, which has significantly helped improve the bill. Pakosta stressed that the main goal of the reform is to ensure faster, legally more certain, and better predictable court decisions for the people and businesses of Estonia, as statistics show a slowdown in proceedings despite an increase in the number of judges.

Riigikogu member Jaanus Karilaid submitted an interpellation to the Minister of Education and Research, Kristina Kallas, who was fulfilling the duties of the Prime Minister, on the topic "Confusion in State Management." Karilaid began with sharp criticism regarding the government's low support (referencing 2%) and the position of the minister acting as Prime Minister, accusing the coalition of being unable to solve problems in healthcare, finance, energy, and economic recovery. He asked directly whether the government had discussed resignation or a serious cabinet reshuffle.

Minister Kallas rejected the criticism, emphasizing that the democratic mandate must be fulfilled until March 2027. Regarding energy, she stressed that the confusion was a legacy from previous governments, and the current coalition has taken decisive steps to break free from dependence on Russia. On economic matters, Kallas corrected Karilaid’s claims about investments, noting that Estonia is the largest investor in the European Union as a proportion of its budget. She cited the downturn in the manufacturing industry (especially the wood industry) as the reason for the economic recession, which is caused by problems in the Nordic real estate market and issues with the availability of raw materials. In a supplementary question, Riina Solman addressed the demographic challenges in the field of education. Kallas explained that although the decrease in the number of students and educational migration affect rural schools, the government has created a support measure for small six-grade schools to ensure their sustainability.

The Riigikogu information session continued in a format where members of the Riigikogu could register questions for members of the Government of the Republic. First, Aleksandr Tšaplõgin posed a question to the Minister of Justice regarding the European Union regulation on the transparency of political advertising, expressing concern about its impact on the constitutional freedom of assembly, particularly in the context of trade union demonstrations. The Minister of Justice confirmed that Estonia had not supported the regulation due to its ambiguity, emphasizing that it does not restrict the right to demonstrate. He noted that because of the lack of clarity, Estonia would initially limit itself to oral counseling rather than imposing penalties. A sharp political dispute followed between Jaanus Karilaid and Finance Minister Jürgen Ligi. Karilaid criticized the Reform Party's poor results in the local elections and demanded self-criticism from Ligi regarding tax policy and the lack of economic vision. Ligi responded aggressively, accusing Karilaid of slander and personal failure, and defended his competence as an analyst and economist, denying that the Estonian economy belonged in the "bottom tier." The Minister of Education answered two questions from Peeter Ernits. The first concerned the Palamuse primer exhibition, where Ernits wondered why Ukraine was represented, but Finnish, Swedish, and Russian primers were absent. The Minister explained that the exhibition is the result of international cooperation with specific school museums, and Estonia does not cooperate with Russian school museums due to differences in values. Ernits’s second question addressed youth unemployment and the claim that it primarily affected Ukrainian youth. The Minister explained the differences in unemployment statistics and emphasized the importance of a new law requiring young people to acquire at least vocational or secondary education to improve their competitiveness in the labor market. Riina Solman asked the Minister of Finance about making population policy cross-sectoral, so that every minister, including the Minister of Finance, would consider the impact on the birth rate in their decisions. Ligi reiterated his position that family policy must focus on services (education, healthcare), not indiscriminate cash handouts, and that the sustainability of the state is more important for children than a socialist system of benefits.