Plenary Sessions

The Riigikogu session began with an overview by Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise regarding the compliance of legislative acts with the Constitution and the fulfillment of her duties during the period from September 1, 2024, to August 31, 2025. The Chancellor of Justice thanked the Riigikogu and officials for their good cooperation, noting that her office received over 5,500 submissions, of which more than 2,500 required substantive resolution. Madise highlighted several deepening problems: disregard for the implementation of laws, the application of flawed management methodologies of great powers in Estonia, and excessive reliance on machines and artificial intelligence, which must not replace human discretion. She criticized the acquisition of technological means restricting fundamental rights without the legal authorization of the Riigikogu and emphasized the importance of the principle of data collection decentralization, warning against the creation of "super databases." In the field of education, she criticized contradictory laws and the competition for school places that harms children's mental health. Madise stressed that Estonia is founded on freedom and responsibility, not on the total control of a preventative state. The questions and answers round addressed the criminal case concerning residence registration (propiska), developments in accessibility, the protection of banking secrecy, the status of the Estonian language, restrictions on the use of medical data, the limitation of property rights in nature conservation areas, and the insufficient resources of the Chancellor of Justice's office. Representatives of the factions (SDE, Reform Party, Isamaa, Centre Party) praised the Chancellor of Justice's work but used the podium to criticize the government's legislative work (including tax increases, the state budget base law, and data collection drafts) and bureaucracy.

The meeting focused on the interpellation by Riigikogu members concerning the obstruction of the defense industry's development, submitted by Raimond Kaljulaid and others. Raimond Kaljulaid (SDE), the representative of the questioners, sharply criticized the Ministry of Defence's delays, noting that the discussion of the interpellation took place four months after its submission. The main objects of criticism were the five-month delay in the implementing acts of the Weapons Act and the slowness of planning the defense industry park, due to which the Estonian Defence Industry Association estimates investments have been lost. Kaljulaid also highlighted the National Audit Office's remarks regarding deficiencies in financial management and the court dispute over the expansion of the Nursipalu training area, asking who was responsible for the problems that had arisen. Minister of Defence Hanno Pevkur defended the ministry's actions, explaining that the drafting of the implementing acts was specific and required the extensive involvement of experts. He emphasized that the special planning procedure for the defense industry park (1.5 years) was the fastest possible way within the current legal framework, also considering the need for an environmental impact assessment. The Minister confirmed that an extraordinary inventory has been initiated to solve the problems identified by the National Audit Office, and several responsible individuals have left office, including the head of the Centre for Defence Investments. During the debate, questions were also raised about the lowering of language requirements for the RKIK director and Estonia's inability to offer purchase guarantees to major investors. In his closing statement, Leo Kunnas (EKRE) sharply criticized the strategic shortcomings in the development of the Estonian defense industry compared to Latvia and Lithuania, warning that without domestic production, the funding of national defense will become economically unsustainable in the long run.

The Riigikogu debated an interpellation submitted on May 14 by members of the Centre Party faction (Lauri Laats, Vadim Belobrovtsev, Aleksei Jevgrafov, Andrei Korobeinik, Aleksandr Tšaplõgin, Vladimir Arhipov, and Peeter Ernits) concerning the increase of local governments' (LG) decision-making power in setting land tax rates. The submitter of the interpellation, Lauri Laats, criticized the government's economic policy and claimed that the amendments to the Land Tax Act adopted last year, which increased the rate of land taxation, forced LGs to raise the land tax because the central government had simultaneously raised other taxes and added obligations for the municipalities. However, the main concern was that the amendment eliminated the possibility for LGs to set a different tax rate for arable land used for agriculture and natural grassland compared to other types of commercial land. This created tensions, especially considering the results of the 2022 land valuation, where the taxable value of arable land increased by an average of 22.5 times, while that of forest land increased by 4.6 times.

Minister of Regional Affairs and Agriculture Hendrik Johannes Terras rejected the claim that LGs' decision-making power had decreased, highlighting new levers of flexibility (differentiation of tax rates into three groups, local decision-making on the annual growth limit starting from 2026, and a sum-based exemption for land under homes). At the same time, the minister acknowledged the problem of balancing the taxation of forest land and arable land and considered it justified to discuss restoring the right to differentiate agricultural land from other types of commercial land. The minister confirmed that a thorough analysis to assess the impacts is underway at the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture, expected to be completed this autumn. Based on the results of the analysis, the government is prepared to initiate a draft amendment to the Land Tax Act. In the subsequent debate, opposition politicians (Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart and Arvo Aller) sharply criticized the government's actions, accusing it of forcing LGs to implement unpopular tax hikes.

The Riigikogu discussed the interpellation submitted on June 16 by Riigikogu members Arvo Aller, Rain Epler, Rene Kokk, Evelin Poolamets, Helle-Moonika Helme, and Anti Poolamets regarding Latvian red deer straying in Estonia. The interpellation was introduced by Arvo Aller, who highlighted the concerns of local farmers regarding the damage caused by the animals in the Kunda and Viru-Nigula regions. Confusion arose regarding the status of the animals (ear-tagged farm animals vs. wild animals) and the responsibilities of the agencies involved (Environmental Agency, Agriculture and Food Board).

The Minister of Regional Affairs and Agriculture, Hendrik Johannes Terras, provided a comprehensive overview. He confirmed that 18–20 red deer were illegally brought into Estonia in December 2024 by a private individual, Meelis Järv, from Latvia (Tukums County, SIA Dunduru plavas), without the required veterinary certificate. The animals escaped during unloading. Three landowners have suffered damage (winter crop fields, young forest stands). Since the animals have ear tags, the owner (or their heirs) is responsible for the damage, not the Environmental Agency. The affected parties were advised to contact the police, as the amount of damage exceeds 4,000 euros. The problem of the stray animals is being resolved through regulated hunting in cooperation between the Environmental Agency and local hunters. The Minister confirmed that officials have acted responsibly and the ministry is developing clear guidelines for resolving similar legally complex cross-border cases. The subsequent discussion also raised broader topics, such as the population size of predators (wolves, bears), African swine fever, and the spread of alien species (e.g., puma, raccoon dog) in Estonia.

The Riigikogu debated Interpellation No. 781 concerning the salaries of cultural workers, submitted on May 19, 2025, by Riigikogu members Vadim Belobrovtsev, Lauri Laats, Andrei Korobeinik, Vladimir Arhipov, Peeter Ernits, and Aleksandr Tšaplõgin. The submitter of the inquiry, Vadim Belobrovtsev, emphasized that the salaries of cultural workers have lagged behind the times, as the minimum gross salary for a cultural worker with higher education has remained at 1,600 euros since 2023, while inflation has exceeded 40%. Belobrovtsev criticized the Reform Party-led governments for their hostility towards public sector employees and demanded an answer from the minister as to whether a salary increase is expected in 2026 and whether the TALO proposal to raise the minimum salary to 2,036 euros is realistic.

Minister of Culture Heidy Purga agreed that the salaries of cultural workers must rise and confirmed that she would advocate for increasing both the minimum salary and the overall payroll budget during state budget negotiations. She pointed out that thanks to the reform converting cultural institutions (theatres, museums) into foundations, the volume of institutions' self-generated income has grown, and the average gross salary for cultural workers with higher education has already exceeded the 2,000 euro threshold. The minister promised more precise information regarding the size of the salary increase within a week, once the government concludes the budget talks. In the subsequent discussion, the issue of the low salaries of cultural workers in local governments was also raised—a problem into which the state cannot directly intervene, but which the minister promised to emphasize when communicating with the Association of Estonian Cities and Municipalities. Belobrovtsev concluded the debate by demanding that the salary increase should be at least 20% to be noticeable in the current inflationary environment.

The Riigikogu debated the responses provided by Minister of Culture Heidy Purga to Interpellation No. 808, submitted by Riigikogu members Lauri Laats, Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, Vadim Belobrovtsev, Peeter Ernits, and Vladimir Arhipov, concerning the amendment of the Public Libraries Act. The submitters of the interpellation expressed concern that the planned reform would reduce the decision-making power of local governments over library organization, increase associated costs, and abolish county central libraries.

Minister Purga explained that the goal of the reform is to modernize library operations, accelerate digital development, and reduce the fragmentation and duplication of services, based on several studies (including PricewaterhouseCoopers and Praxis). She confirmed that costs for local governments would not increase, but rather decrease, thanks to system development costs covered by the state and central framework procurements, which ensure more favorable prices and unified logistics. The Minister refuted claims that the reform was aimed at cost-saving, emphasizing that the released resources would be redirected back into the development of e-services.

During the debate, Peeter Ernits and Anti Allas (SDE) sharply criticized the reform, seeing it as yet another step in the state’s withdrawal from the provinces and worrying about the jobs being lost in the counties. Ernits estimated the number of jobs to be lost at about 60 and expressed fear that centralized acquisition would start dictating what the public should read. Minister Purga emphasized in response that this was a long and substantive involvement process and called on Ernits to reconsider his choice of words (referring to Estonian regions as "provinces").

The Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) discussed Interpellation No. 770, submitted by members of the Centre Party faction, concerning the financing and quality of school meals. Vadim Belobrovtsev, speaking on behalf of those who submitted the query, emphasized that the topic is pressing because the state's contribution to compensating school lunches has remained at 1 euro since 2018, despite inflation exceeding 40% in the food sector over the last two years. The petitioners asked why the state is not increasing its contribution and why catering in kindergartens is not compensated, especially given that the Ministry of Social Affairs plans to introduce new, healthier menu requirements (less salt and sugar).

Minister of Education and Research Kristina Kallas supported the Ministry of Social Affairs' plan to improve food quality, confirming that the ministry has written assurance that the new requirements will not significantly raise catering prices. The Minister conceded that the 1-euro contribution does not reflect today's reality and that increasing the subsidy would be reasonable. However, she stressed that responsibility for school food is, by law, the obligation of the local government (LG). The coalition's long-term goal is to transfer the school food subsidy (after it has been raised) to the revenue base of the local governments to avoid a "tug-of-war" between the state and municipalities. Kallas explained that the necessary increase cannot be implemented in the 2026 budget because the growth in defense spending consumes the revenue generated by economic growth, but the aim is to implement this change by 2027 at the latest.

As the seventh item on the agenda, the Riigikogu debated the interpellation concerning teachers' salaries (No. 778), submitted by Riigikogu members Vadim Belobrovtsev, Lauri Laats, Aleksei Jevgrafov, Andrei Korobeinik, Vladimir Arhipov, and Peeter Ernits. Vadim Belobrovtsev, speaking on behalf of the interpellators, emphasized that the current minimum salary for teachers (€1820 gross) is long outdated and is the main reason for the severe shortage of teachers. He demanded a clear commitment regarding salary increases from the Ministry of Education and Research (HTM), recalling the coalition agreement's goal to raise the calculated teacher salary to 120% of the Estonian average salary by 2027.

Minister of Education and Research Kristina Kallas responded that €1820 gross is not sufficient, but refuted the claim that the last salary increase was only €17 (the actual increase was €71 gross). The Minister confirmed that the minimum salary for teachers will increase in 2026, although the exact percentage cannot yet be disclosed due to budget negotiations. Kallas highlighted that the abolition of the tax hump will nominally bring teachers an additional €1500 per year in income starting next year. Furthermore, the differentiation fund will increase to 22%, and a career model will be implemented (senior teacher coefficient 1.1 and master teacher 1.3). The Minister deemed the proposal by the Education Employees' Union to raise the minimum salary to the level of the national average salary (an increase of about 20%) unrealistic. During the debate, opposition MPs (Ernits, Laats) criticized the government's priorities, pointing to the preference given to defense spending over the social sector. Lauri Laats broadened the discussion to the quality of school meals and the problems associated with the transition to Estonian-language education, to which Minister Kallas responded by emphasizing that there has been sufficient time (four years) to meet the language requirements and that the transition is essential to ensure children's language proficiency.

The Riigikogu debated Interpellation No. 790, submitted by the Social Democratic Party faction, regarding the differences in teachers' remuneration. Madis Kallas, who submitted the interpellation, stressed the necessity of a substantive dialogue, highlighting that the mapping of the Estonian school network reveals significant educational and regional inequality, which is reflected in the wide variation of teacher salaries across Estonian local governments. Kallas criticized the salary system for being overly dependent on the number of students per class, thereby ignoring the challenges inherent to sparsely populated areas. Six questions were posed to the Minister, covering salary standardization, changes to the funding basis, analysis of the impact of the Ida-Virumaa salary coefficient, and the introduction of new support measures (such as housing subsidies).

Minister of Education and Research Kristina Kallas acknowledged that the disparities in teacher salaries are indeed substantial. She cited a surprising example: the municipalities with the highest and lowest salary levels in Estonia (excluding Ida-Virumaa) are situated within the same county (Tartu County), where the wage gap reaches 600 euros. The Minister explained that the ministry lacks a comprehensive overview of the salary formation logic and budgetary strategies employed by local governments, which is likely the primary cause. She confirmed that the Ida-Virumaa salary coefficient has been effective, attracting nearly 400 new teachers over two years. Kallas noted that while no direct analysis has been conducted on the correlation between teacher salaries and learning outcomes, previous studies indicate that learning outcomes correlate strongly with the student's socio-economic background. Instead of introducing new support measures, the ministry is focusing on enhancing the value of the teaching profession through a career model (mentorship, senior and master teacher levels) and establishing a professional standard for assistant teachers, aiming to reduce teacher workload. During the debate, the Minister clarified that the state supports rural areas with a higher per-capita funding coefficient (for instance, Setomaa municipality receives 2,200 euros more per student than Tallinn), but the autonomy granted to local governments has prevented this from guaranteeing salary standardization.

As the ninth item on the agenda, the Riigikogu debated the interpellation concerning educational inequality, submitted on June 12, 2025, by Riigikogu members Heljo Pikhof, Ester Karuse, Reili Rand, Lauri Läänemets, Helmen Kütt, Züleyxa Izmailova, Riina Sikkut, Madis Kallas, Anti Allas, Jaak Aab, and Andre Hanimägi. The representative of the interpellators, Heljo Pikhof (PID Dx796Jhwguw), emphasized that the uneven distribution of educational opportunities deepens social stratification, as a child's educational progress in Estonia depends too heavily on their parents' income and place of residence. She referred to studies by the Foresight Centre and PISA, which demonstrate the strong impact of socio-economic background on learning outcomes, particularly in mathematics, and asked the Minister for concrete steps to differentiate the funding model and ensure the availability of support services.

Minister of Education and Research Kristina Kallas acknowledged the growing influence of socio-economic background on mathematics results (PISA 2023), but noted that this influence remains below the OECD average. The Minister stressed that the current data is fragmented (Foresight Centre short report) and that a more thorough analysis is needed before implementing intervention measures, to determine whether the problem lies within the education system (e.g., school entrance exams, funding) or in broader residence-based social segregation. The discussion also raised the important role of extracurricular education and support services (e.g., extended day school, specialists) in mitigating inequality. Minister Kallas mentioned analyzing Iceland's per capita funding model for extracurricular activities as a potential solution for making extracurricular education more accessible. She also expressed concern about the concentration of children with special educational needs (SEN) in certain schools, which exacerbates segregation.

The Riigikogu debated, as the 11th item on the agenda, the interpellation submitted by Riigikogu members Ester Karuse et al. concerning the accessibility of gymnasium education in Estonia. Interpellator Ester Karuse highlighted the stressful situation that arose in the spring of 2025, where hundreds of basic school graduates were left uncertain about securing gymnasium places, especially in Tallinn, Tartu, and Pärnu, while schools in rural areas are being closed. Karuse emphasized that the state cannot demand compulsory education be fulfilled if it cannot offer a place to everyone, and demanded immediate solutions. Minister of Education and Research Kristina Kallas explained that although there are enough places nationwide (with some remaining by August), the stress that arose in the spring was due to a change in the admissions procedure, which prohibited schools from asking for students' preferences, thereby significantly prolonging the period of interviews and tests. The Minister announced that a legislative amendment will be presented to the Riigikogu in the autumn, allowing schools to ask for preferences in order to speed up admissions. Regionally, there are shortages in Tartu (approx. 240 places) and Pärnu (approx. 50 places) due to high student migration. In Tartu, there are plans to create additional places at Tamme State Gymnasium and the vocational school VOCO, utilizing the former National Archives building. New state gymnasiums in Tallinn (Tõnismäe and Lasnamäe) will only be completed in 2030. The Minister confirmed that the state is considering fully taking over responsibility for secondary education, but plans for establishing new schools in Harjumaa are uncertain due to the state budget situation.

The agenda for the Riigikogu session included the 2024 annual report of the Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA), presented by Kilvar Kessler, Chairman of the Management Board. Kessler provided a comprehensive overview of the authority’s 12 years of activity, emphasizing the FSA’s role as an apolitical, independent, and professional supervisory body that reports directly to the legislature. He highlighted four main topics: corporate mergers in the financial market (including the relocation of the SEB Baltic headquarters to Tallinn), over-regulation of the legal framework (over 700 legal acts), the launch of new supervisory areas (e.g., crypto assets, credit providers, crisis resolution), and successful risk mitigation during crises (the ID card crisis, COVID, the start of the war in Ukraine). Kessler stressed that the FSA is the smallest financial supervisory authority in the European Union (with 140 experts), supervising assets worth over 60 billion euros based on a risk-based approach. In his future forecasts, he noted the need to simplify EU rules, cope with deepening digitalization and technological risks, and utilize Tallinn’s potential as a banking center.

The Q&A session addressed the Enefit Green insider trading case, regarding which Kessler confirmed that a criminal report had been submitted, emphasizing the importance of ensuring market integrity. They also discussed the regulation of credit unions (recommending supervision for portfolios starting at 50 million euros) and issues in the non-bank credit market, where the FSA has revoked 20% of operating licenses due to irresponsible lending. Kessler reiterated his long-standing position on the necessity of creating a financial ombudsman to ensure quick and affordable dispute resolution for consumers. During the debate, Maris Lauri (Reform Party) and Andre Hanimäe (Social Democratic Party) supported the work of the Financial Supervisory Authority but also stressed the need to establish a financial ombudsman and improve the regulation of the non-bank credit market, including the creation of a positive credit register.

The Riigikogu debated the motion of no confidence filed against Social Minister Karmen Joller, which was signed by 21 members of the Riigikogu, primarily from the EKRE and Centre Party factions. Martin Helme, speaking on behalf of the initiators of the motion, accused the minister of evading political responsibility due to scandals at the Health Insurance Fund (including glamorous summer events and management bonuses), the catastrophic state of healthcare funding, and damaging Estonia’s foreign relations, calling Joller a "political activist" and "anti-science."

Minister Karmen Joller defended her actions, emphasizing that she had only been in office for a short time and was focused on solving systemic problems, such as establishing funding transparency and a quality system. She acknowledged the unethical nature of the Health Insurance Fund’s summer days but explained that the council was legally bound by prior agreements regarding the payment of performance bonuses. Joller stressed her commitment to evidence-based medicine and rejected accusations of harming US relations, regretting only one previous choice of words. During the debate, issues such as long treatment queues, underfunding in the social sector, and the lack of family policy measures were also raised. The Isamaa faction (Urmas Reinsalu) announced it would vote in favor of the motion, citing the minister’s managerial inadequacy and disregard for family policy. The Social Democrats (Tanel Kiik), however, stated they would support the minister for championing science-based medicine, but sharply criticized her inaction regarding additional healthcare funding and the rushing of social reforms. In the vote, the motion of no confidence failed to gain the support of the majority of the Riigikogu membership.

The Riigikogu debated Draft Resolution 638, submitted by the Estonian Centre Party faction, which proposed that the Government of the Republic develop tax incentives aimed at encouraging student employment. The rapporteur, Lauri Laats (Centre Party), stressed that unemployment among Estonian youth (up to age 25) is the highest in the Baltic countries (at 22%) and proposed a solution: lowering the social tax rate for working young people up to 19 years old from 33% to 20%. The justification was that the state already guarantees health insurance for students (which accounts for 13% of the social tax), and thus reducing the employer’s tax burden would motivate them to hire these young people.

During the debate, critics slammed the government’s "steamroller politics" and the Reform Party’s rigid adherence to a uniform tax system, which, they argued, prevents the discussion of economically sensible proposals. Diana Ingerainen, representing the Finance Committee, confirmed that the ministry projected a deficit of approximately 5.4 million euros for the Health Insurance Fund (Tervisekassa), even though the overall impact on the labor market might be positive. Opposition politicians (Vadim Belobrovtsev, Aivar Kokk) supported the draft resolution, seeing it as an opportunity to revitalize the economy and connect young people with Estonian companies. The resolution required a majority vote of the entire Riigikogu membership to be adopted, but only 23 members supported it in the vote, and the draft resolution was consequently rejected.

The Riigikogu debated the second reading of Draft Act 667, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning amendments to the Atmospheric Air Protection Act and other acts. The purpose of the draft act is to partially transpose the amendments to the European Union Emission Trading System (ETS) Directive, expanding the system to maritime transport, abolishing free emission allowances in aviation, and increasing funding for the Modernization and Innovation Funds. Tarmo Tamm, the rapporteur for the Environment Committee, explained that the committee submitted nine technical amendments and rejected proposal No. 8 by Andres Metsoja, which sought to mitigate obligations for maritime transport. The committee justified the rejection of Metsoja’s proposal by citing the need to ensure legal certainty and prevent Estonian shipping operators from falling into a worse competitive situation. During the debate, opposition members (Urmas Reinsalu, Aivar Kokk, Evelin Poolamets) repeatedly raised questions regarding the retroactive effect of the draft act and the violation of the principle of legitimate expectation, referencing letters of protest from businesses (including Tallink). Tarmo Tamm confirmed that these letters had been sent to the Government of the Republic before the draft act was prepared and their content had been taken into account, but they were not submitted to the Riigikogu committee. The burden resulting from the CO2 tax (estimated at 8 million euros annually) and its compensation through wage support for the ship’s crew were also discussed, which Tamm considered a necessary measure to prevent ships from being flagged out to other countries. The parliamentary groups of the Estonian Conservative People's Party and Isamaa proposed interrupting the second reading of the draft act, but this proposal did not find support in the vote (13 in favour, 48 against). The second reading of the draft act was concluded.

The item on the agenda was the first reading of Bill 654, the draft act on supplementing the Competition Act, initiated by the Government of the Republic. Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa-Ly Pakosta introduced the bill, explaining that it is a short, technical draft act containing a single provision, stemming from a directly applicable European Union regulation concerning foreign subsidies that distort the internal market. The purpose of the bill is to designate the Competition Authority as the contact point for cooperation with the European Commission in the field of merger control. The Minister emphasized that Estonia actively participated in the development of the regulation, and the bill is aimed at protecting the interests of Estonian entrepreneurs to ensure fair competition against subsidized providers from third countries (citing, for example, subsidized railway procurements in China).

Riigikogu members Peeter Ernits and Aivar Kokk raised questions regarding the necessity of the bill, the cost of the Competition Authority's new competence, and the resulting workload. Minister Pakosta confirmed that since the regulation is directly applicable, the amendment to the act is only necessary for designating the contact point. She explained that the Competition Authority's role is limited to assisting in investigations conducted by the European Commission, and given the high thresholds of the regulation (starting from 50 million euros in foreign aid), no increase in the Competition Authority's budget or workload is anticipated. Marek Reinaas, Chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee, confirmed in his presentation that the committee supported the bill, also finding that there would be extremely few, if any, cases requiring assessment in Estonia. The lead committee proposed concluding the first reading.

The agenda item was the first reading of Draft Act 655, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning amendments to the Building Code and other acts. The purpose of the draft act is to improve Estonia’s digital connectivity, lower the price of communication services, and simplify infrastructure development. Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa-Ly Pakosta introduced the draft, highlighting three main changes: the co-construction of communication infrastructure alongside other utility routes to prevent the repeated excavation of streets; new requirements for the diameter of cable conduits, which must accommodate the cables of multiple operators, ensuring competition and lower prices for consumers; and the obligation for the state and local governments to allow mobile communication antennas to be installed on their buildings to improve coverage in sparsely populated areas. The Building Register will also begin serving as a single information point.

The debate was critical, particularly from Aivar Kokk, a member of the Isamaa faction, who called the minister's presentation "sweet talk" and questioned the economic logic of the draft act. Kokk disputed the claim that services would become cheaper, arguing that the conduit owner determines the rental price, and repeatedly asked for the exact diameter of the cable conduit. Minister Pakosta explained that the conduit diameter requirements (which must accommodate the cables of at least five operators) are regulated by a regulation, and the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (TTJA) carries out cost-based supervision over rental prices. Urve Tiidus, representing the Economic Affairs Committee, confirmed the committee's decision to propose concluding the first reading.

The Riigikogu debated the first reading of Draft Bill 664, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the amendment of the Military Service Act and related amendments to other acts. Minister of Defence Hanno Pevkur introduced the bill's objective: to expand the possibilities for contributing to the fulfillment of the Defence Forces' duties in order to strengthen defence readiness. The draft bill includes five main amendments: the involvement of civilian personnel in exercises under the same conditions as active servicemen; the creation of a new type of voluntary service (e.g., for reservists to contribute longer to the training of Ukrainian fighters); enabling the involvement of conscripts in the fulfillment of Defence Forces duties (especially in the navy, to prevent the deterioration of training during NATO missions); granting temporary access to state secrets for conscripts on board ships; and establishing a five-year term of office for ten senior active servicemen appointed by the Minister of Defence to facilitate rotation.

The report of the leading committee, the National Defence Committee, was presented by Peeter Tali, who confirmed that the committee supported the general principles of the draft bill by consensus. During the discussion, the committee focused primarily on voluntary service and the involvement of conscripts in international operations. The National Defence Committee proposed to the Riigikogu that the first reading be concluded.

Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur presented Bill 668, initiated by the Government of the Republic and concerning civil crisis and national defense, to the Riigikogu for its first reading. The bill aims to consolidate the existing National Defense Act, Emergency Situation Act, and Emergency Act into a unified framework to boost Estonia's crisis preparedness and ensure clarity in comprehensive national defense. The Minister stressed that although the bill is voluminous, along with the explanatory memorandum and implementing acts (1,600 pages were cited), the number of sections in the main text will significantly decrease (from 259 to 178). As key changes, Pevkur highlighted the introduction of the umbrella term "crisis situation," the clarification of the roles of local municipalities (KOV) (setting priorities during a crisis), and the establishment of population protection at the legal level for the first time, granting the Rescue Board a coordinating role. During the debate, the issues that generated the most questions among Riigikogu members were the sheer volume of the bill, the funding and readiness of local municipalities, and the government's decision to postpone the obligation to build shelters in new apartment buildings. The EKRE faction proposed rejecting the bill, citing fears of excessive government power when declaring a crisis situation. Mati Raidma, representative of the National Defense Committee, supported the bill's processing, emphasizing its time-critical nature and the necessity of strengthening comprehensive national defense.

The Riigikogu debated the first reading of the Draft Act amending the Holidays and Commemoration Days Act [636], initiated by the Social Democratic Party faction and several members of the Riigikogu. The purpose of the draft act is to compensate for public holidays falling on a weekend (excluding the first day of Easter and Pentecost) with an additional day off on the following working day. Presenter Heljo Pikhof emphasized that Estonia has fewer public holidays than the European Union average, and Estonians lead the EU in terms of annual working hours. The additional days off would help improve work-life balance and mental well-being. Pikhof also referred to previous analyses which showed that the economic impact of additional days off is not necessarily negative; rather, it could stimulate the economy through tourism and consumption.

Katrin Kuusemäe, the presenter for the leading committee (the Constitutional Committee), conveyed the position of the Government of the Republic, which did not support the draft act. The government justified its opposition by citing the potential negative impact on employers, referring to a drop in production volume and additional administrative costs. During the debate, questions were repeatedly raised regarding the justification of the government's position, especially concerning the alleged negative impact on educational institutions and entrepreneurs, given that holidays often fall during the week anyway. The committee decided to conclude the first reading of the draft act.

The Riigikogu debated the first reading of Draft Bill 637, initiated by the Estonian Centre Party faction, concerning amendments to the Law on Holidays and Commemorative Days. The aim of the bill was to establish the second day of Easter (Monday) as a public holiday and a day off, citing the alignment of Estonia with the majority of European countries and the strengthening of family relationships as justification. The rapporteur, Vadim Belobrovtsev (Centre Party), emphasized that Estonia is in the minority in Europe (along with Malta and Portugal) where this day is not a rest day, which creates problems in international business cooperation, especially with the Baltic and Nordic countries. He noted that the bill has received approval from the Estonian Council of Churches.

During the debate, opposition from the Government of the Republic emerged, based primarily on the lack of a substantive impact analysis. Opposition MPs (Kovalenko-Kõlvart, Laats, Jevgrafov) criticized the government's position, deeming the demand for an impact analysis a hypocritical tactic, especially considering that the government itself fails to present sufficient analyses for significant bills (e.g., tax increases). Belobrovtsev confirmed that the economic impact is indeed difficult to assess unambiguously, as the positive and negative aspects (e.g., greater productivity after a holiday versus a lost workday) balance each other out. Katrin Kuusemäe, representative of the Constitutional Committee, gave an overview of the committee meeting, where the government justified its opposition by citing the need to proceed from internal socio-economic balance, rather than merely the desire for harmonization.

The Riigikogu began debating the first reading of Draft Law 639, initiated by the faction of the Estonian Conservative People's Party (EKRE), concerning amendments to the Local Government Council Election Act. Presenter Martin Helme explained that the bill aims to resolve the confusion, which has lasted nearly 30 years, regarding the interpretation of the residency requirement for candidacy in local elections. Although traditionally the basis has been the registration in the population register, court rulings have "tied the situation in a knot," requiring proof of actual permanent residence, which has led to complaints, criminal cases, and the removal of council members. EKRE's initial proposal was to completely abolish the residency requirement, similar to Riigikogu elections. However, following inter-factional consultations, Helme proposed a compromise: to stipulate in the law that the register entry itself is sufficient grounds for determining residency, thus avoiding the need to verify the circumstances of actual habitation.

Pipi-Liis Siemann, representing the Constitutional Committee, provided an overview of the committee's discussion, which addressed the candidate's connection to the community and the issue of "decoy candidates." The committee decided to reject the bill during the first reading. During negotiations, Lauri Laats (Centre Party) raised the issue of local government revenue base, as registration is linked to income tax collection. Despite the committee's proposal to reject the bill, the Centre Party announced that it would vote in favor of the bill so that it could proceed to the second reading for amendments. The leading committee's proposal did not receive support in the vote, and consequently, the first reading of the bill was concluded.

The Riigikogu debated the first reading of Draft Act 621, initiated by the Estonian Centre Party faction, concerning amendments to the Law of Obligations Act. The purpose of the draft was to eliminate the right of the credit provider to demand from the borrower interest for the three subsequent months upon early repayment of a floating-rate home loan. The presenter, Lauri Laats (Centre Party), stressed that this measure, which is also supported by the Bank of Estonia and the Financial Supervision Authority, is necessary to increase interbank competition and lower loan interest rates, given that the return on equity (ROE) of Estonian banks (15–20%) significantly exceeds the European average (8%). Laats argued that the amendment would make switching banks cheaper and easier, thereby helping to mitigate the rising cost of housing.

During the debate, questions were raised regarding the draft’s impact on young families, and criticism was leveled at the opposition of Reform Party members, which was perceived as protecting the banks. Laats also highlighted the government's failure to conduct impact analyses, referencing the Ministry of Finance's recent procurement for analyzing the effects of tax increases. Andre Hanimägi, representing the Legal Affairs Committee, explained that the lack of an impact analysis for the draft and the ideological question of state intervention in contractual relations caused contention within the committee. The committee proposed rejecting the draft (5 votes in favor, 4 against). The Riigikogu voted in favor of the leading committee’s proposal (47 in favor, 13 against), and the draft was consequently dropped from the proceedings. The next item on the agenda was postponed due to the absence of the presenter, and the session concluded.

This report covers the opening remarks of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) Question Times held between January and September 2024. The Question Times strictly followed the prescribed procedure: attendance was checked at every sitting, participating government members were introduced (usually the Prime Minister or the minister acting as Prime Minister, and two or three ministers), and the rules of procedure were reiterated. Attendance at the sittings was generally low, mostly remaining between 10 and 25 Riigikogu members. Two minutes were allocated for asking questions and three minutes for answering, with provisions also made for a clarifying question and a supplementary question.

Notable was the start of the Question Time on November 6, which took place in the Võro language. Procedural questions were raised on several occasions, including the Speaker's error in fixing the number of attendees on March 6 (corrected to 92 absentees) and the Speaker's request on April 9 that Riigikogu members specify the topics of their questions to avoid overly general categories such as "Varia" (Miscellaneous) or "Politics." The latter point was disputed by Helir-Valdor Seeder. Furthermore, Prime Minister Kristen Michal's technical pause was announced on February 12 in connection with the preparation for a vote of no confidence. Aleksandr Tšaplõgin also repeatedly raised procedural questions, inquiring about both the size of the Riigikogu composition and the issue of the Prime Minister apologizing.

Riigikogu member Martin Helme submitted an interpellation to Prime Minister Kristen Michal regarding the state of national defense, focusing on recent drone incidents and the management of defense expenditures. Helme accused the government of deliberately misleading the public regarding Estonia's airspace defense capabilities. He referred to events at the end of August, where government representatives (Minister Taro and Colonel Karu) promised the identification and shooting down of unknown drones, which Defense Minister Pevkur later stated was a bluff, as detection is difficult below 300 meters. Helme asked whether this constituted lying or incompetence, and linked it to the Reform Party's image management. Prime Minister Michal responded that Estonia's defense capability is growing, emphasizing the government's decision to raise defense expenditures to 5% of GDP. He noted that drones are designed to fly unnoticed, and during peacetime, it is not possible to ensure 24/7 combat readiness in every situation. In a follow-up question, Martin Helme extended his criticism to the State Audit Office report, which, according to him, revealed "wild embezzlement, squandering, and disorder" in the defense sector. He demanded accountability and the resignation of officials or ministers (Pevkur or Michal himself). Mart Helme supported this demand, accusing the government of failing to ensure the development of defense capabilities and highlighting the scandalous fact that the State Audit Office did not receive all the necessary documents. Prime Minister Michal rejected the accusations, referencing Martin Helme's previous actions in hindering the construction of the eastern border, and confirmed that the Ministry of Defense is cooperating with the State Audit Office to rectify the shortcomings. He emphasized the importance of the 5% defense expenditure target and the support of allies.

Riigikogu member Vadim Belobrovtsev submitted an inquiry to Prime Minister Kristen Michal regarding the car tax, criticizing the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the government's policy. Belobrovtsev (Centre Party) emphasized that politicians from the coalition parties had spoken one day about abolishing the tax (referencing Kristina Kallas's proposal), but only cosmetic changes have followed. He highlighted that the car sales market in Estonia has drastically fallen (over 40% compared to Latvia and Lithuania) and car service centers are forced to lay off employees. He demanded a clear answer from the Prime Minister on whether the car tax will be abolished.

Prime Minister Michal confirmed that the coalition has agreed on amendments to the car tax concerning benefits for families with children (€100 tax reduction for every minor child). This amendment has reached the Riigikogu as a draft bill and should alleviate the burden on many families. Additionally, there are plans to lower the taxation rate for M and N category small vans. Michal also emphasized that the entire revenue collected from the annual tax will be directed towards roads (four-lane and local roads). Responding to the question of the tax's complete abolition, Michal referred to budgetary constraints and the need to ensure defense spending (5% of GDP) and fund the salaries of teachers, police officers, and rescuers. He conceded that the level and design of the tax have caused misunderstandings, but currently, the state budget deficit prevents its complete abolition.

In the subsequent clarifying question, Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart (Centre Party) accused the Prime Minister of creating a "tax circus," highlighting chaotic changes in tax policy (income tax, corporate income tax, temporary/permanent increases). She criticized the benefits for families with children as merely cosmetic, while people with disabilities, pensioners, and rural residents have had their accounts seized due to the car tax. Michal rejected the accusations, explaining the Reform Party's consistent desire for a lower income tax and confirming the planned abolition of the tax hump in 2026, which, according to him, will reduce the tax burden on the middle class.

Riigikogu member Urmas Reinsalu submitted an interpellation to Prime Minister Kristen Michal regarding the state's governance choices, focusing primarily on drone defense capability and security issues. The impetus for this was a recent drone incident in Estonia and the shooting down of Russian drones in Poland. Reinsalu asked about changing the division of competence between the areas of responsibility of the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) and the Defence Forces, the protocol for the use of weapons in liquidating attack drones, and the acquisition and implementation timeline of an acoustic surveillance system capable of detecting low-flying drones.

Prime Minister Michal confirmed that the cooperation between the PPA and the Defence Forces in countering unmanned aerial vehicles is functioning, emphasizing that it is impossible to create a complete and comprehensive defense capability. He explained that the Defence Forces are responsible for nationwide air surveillance (with acoustic devices and radars being priorities), while the PPA is responsible for monitoring border waters and the land border during peacetime. In the event of a military attack, the Defence Forces will implement active measures within their competence. The acquisition of the acoustic surveillance system is a priority, the funding for which should be secured by the 5% level of defense investments, although procurement is complicated by the pan-European armament surge. In a supplementary question, Peeter Ernits raised the issue of Estonia's high inflation. The Prime Minister explained that inflation stems partly from tax increases (necessary for national defense) and largely from the impact of world market commodity prices and rapid wage growth. He predicted that price increases would abate next year and stressed the importance of raising the income tax-free minimum to improve people's livelihoods.

Under the fourth item on the agenda of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament), Riigikogu member Helle-Moonika Helme submitted an interpellation to Prime Minister Kristen Michal regarding the situation in the country, focusing on the government's activities and the alleged use of war hysteria for domestic political purposes. Helme began by criticizing the incompetence of government ministers and accused the government of frightening the population with an impending war to justify tax increases and cuts. She asked how long the threat of war is planned to be used as a tool for domestic political mobilization, and whether it would be possible to build up defense capabilities without emotionally and materially exhausting the people.

Prime Minister Michal categorically rejected the claim that the war had been fabricated in Estonia, emphasizing that the threat stems from real aggression in Ukraine. He defended the government's decision to raise national defense expenditures to 5% of GDP, noting that readiness is a prerequisite for peace and meets the expectations of allies. In a clarifying question, Helme highlighted concerns about the mandatory conscription plan for women being discussed in the Ministry of Defense, arguing that it threatens demographic sustainability, as mobilized women cannot evacuate with children, which accelerates the emigration of young families. The Prime Minister responded that he was unaware of any widespread mandatory debate within the government and emphasized the positive role of women's voluntary participation in the Defense Forces. Finally, Mart Helme intervened, accusing the Prime Minister of ignorance and lying regarding the women's conscription plan, and called for an end to the incitement of war hysteria, urging a focus on quiet and determined strengthening of defense capabilities. Michal affirmed that discussion is not a decision, and Estonia's strength lies in the contribution of all citizens to national defense.

Riigikogu member Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart posed a question to Minister of Finance Jürgen Ligi regarding the government's decisions, focusing initially on the buyback of Enefit Green. Kovalenko-Kõlvart criticized the chaotic nature of the government's policy (initial privatization, followed by a buyback for 68 million euros) and referenced criminal proceeds related to an inside information leak, concerning which the Central Criminal Police have filed a suspicion notice. She reproached Ligi, stating that the minister had previously refused to attend the special committee meeting on anti-corruption and instead began to discredit the committee's work, accusing Ligi's work of lacking substance.

Minister Ligi responded to the accusations with a categorical denial, calling them slanderous and misleading to the public. He emphasized that the delisting of Enefit Green was not a government decision but a decision made by the general meeting, and that it constituted an investment, not an expense for the taxpayer. Ligi defended his refusal to participate in the committee meetings, the sole purpose of which, in his estimation, was to create confusion. In a follow-up question, Kovalenko-Kõlvart broadened the topic to the Health Insurance Fund (Tervisekassa), criticizing the institution's high expenditures on motivational events (half a million euros per year), performance bonuses, and salary fund growth, while the Health Insurance Fund is running a deficit of 200 million. Ligi rejected the figure cited for the Health Insurance Fund's deficit and defended the expenditures, noting that training and performance bonuses are part of the salary fund. Lauri Laats, who posed an additional question, accused the government of misleading the public regarding tax increases ("tax festival") and highlighted the Ministry of Finance's procurement tender to find researchers to study the impact of the tax rally, claiming this proved the lack of prior analysis. Ligi responded that the ministry constantly researches economic matters and explained why lowering the VAT on foodstuffs would be a socially unjust and ineffective measure, preferring instead the raising of the tax-free minimum.

The sixth question posed in the Riigikogu addressed the government's budget plans for boosting the economy and household purchasing power. The question was submitted by Riigikogu member Riina Solman (Isamaa) to Finance Minister Jürgen Ligi. Solman began the debate by discussing the impact of income tax exemption, arguing that the wealthier segment of the population benefits more from it. She then presented her main question, which concerned Education Minister Kristina Kallas's controversial and rather crude statement reported in the media regarding the state's supposed vast financial reserves. Solman sought to know how the Finance Minister would comment on this assessment and what magnitude of funds this sum represents in the budget.

Minister Ligi explained that Kallas's remark was the result of unfair journalistic conduct and actually reflected the minister's frustration during difficult budget negotiations, confirming that the state is, in fact, short of funds. Ligi also refuted Solman's earlier claim about tax relief, referring to studies showing that, for example, wealthier consumers benefit most from lowering the VAT on food, and the benefit tends to dissipate within the supply chain. In a follow-up question, Solman requested that Ligi reprimand the Minister of Social Affairs, who reportedly does not intend to utilize the funds remaining for child benefits—due to low birth rates—in the next fiscal year. Solman proposed that this money should instead be directed towards raising child benefits and single-parent benefits to 100 euros. Ligi replied that he cannot promise budget decisions that have not yet been finalized, but he emphasized the government's major tax relief measures (raising the tax-free minimum) and the exceptions made in the car tax for families with children (including incentives for M-category buses). Finally, Priit Sibul submitted an additional question regarding the calculation of the Health Insurance Fund's personnel costs and the payroll fund allocated for training and events. Ligi clarified that this constitutes a personnel cost, divided into salary costs and associated expenses, and considered the Health Insurance Fund case to be more of a moral issue than a financial one.

Riigikogu member Rain Epler submitted a question to Prime Minister Kristen Michal regarding the suitability of Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur for office, accusing Pevkur of lying in connection with the National Audit Office report. Epler highlighted the National Audit Office’s criticism concerning the Ministry of Defense’s use of defense investment funds and deficiencies in internal control systems, noting that the National Audit Office could not verify the accuracy of the inventory balance, valued at 723.9 million euros. Epler directly accused Pevkur of manipulation and lying, reading out excerpts from both the National Audit Office report and Pevkur’s answers given in the Riigikogu the previous day.

Prime Minister Michal rejected Epler’s allegations that Pevkur had lied and advised Epler to clarify the facts directly with the Defense Minister. Michal stressed that the Ministry of Defense is making significant efforts to manage rapidly increasing funding, and both the minister and the chancellor have promised to take the National Audit Office’s criticisms seriously and rectify the control mechanisms. During the debate, the discussion also turned to the history of border construction, where Michal quoted Martin Helme, who allegedly wanted to reduce the costs of border construction in 2019. Martin Helme intervened, accusing the Reform Party of lying and stealing, and claiming that keeping Pevkur in office demonstrates that no one is taking the prevailing disorder in national defense seriously. Michal corrected Helme’s statements about when border construction began, confirming that construction started earlier and that the Ratas government (in which the Helmes participated) had reduced the costs.

MP Vladimir Arhipov submitted an inquiry to Prime Minister Kristen Michal regarding the state of taxes and the national budget, focusing on the recently disclosed budget surplus of nearly 800 million euros. Arhipov wanted to know the exact source of this sum and why the government is imposing new taxes if the state appears to have excess funds. He also inquired about the government's plans for reducing the tax burden. PM Michal explained that this was not a distributable surplus, but rather a significantly smaller budget deficit than planned (approximately –1% instead of the planned –3%), indicating more economical management of state finances. She pointed out that the improved fiscal picture resulted from one-off corporate income tax receipts, better personal income tax collection driven by wage growth, and state cost savings. Michal emphasized that the overall tax burden is decreasing, citing the rise in the tax-free minimum to 700 euros as an example, which leaves the average wage earner with about 1,500 euros more per year. In a follow-up question, Martin Helme disputed the Prime Minister's claims, accusing the government of ruining the economy and asserting that the budget remains deeply in the red. Helme demanded a clear position on the car tax, referencing conflicting signals from the coalition. Michal confirmed that she personally considers the level of the car tax too high, but stressed that the government's priorities are national defense and salaries in critical sectors. Responding to Arhipov's clarifying question about lowering VAT on food, Michal replied that this measure would be ineffective, as studies show the impact on prices is temporary and the money tends to disappear into the pockets of intermediaries. She reiterated that raising the tax-free minimum is a better way to increase people's purchasing power.

The Question Time session began with the skipping of agenda items 9 and 10, as the questioners, Jaanus Karilaid and Varro Vooglaid, were absent from the chamber. They therefore moved on to question number 11, which Mart Helme posed to Prime Minister Kristen Michal on the topic of security.

Mart Helme accused the Prime Minister and the government of obfuscation and inaction regarding the construction of the eastern border. Helme claimed that before he became Minister of the Interior, only a three-kilometer-long "pakasuhha" (a sham construction) had been completed purely for showing to foreigners, and that it was he who initiated the announcement of real procurements. He sharply criticized the nearly five years of stagnation following EKRE's departure from the government, citing as an example the theft of a border buoy by Russia, which, in his estimation, demonstrates Estonia's helplessness. Prime Minister Kristen Michal responded by confirming that the eastern border would be completed by the end of 2027. Michal refuted Helme's claims, referring to a national broadcasting news report which covered Martin Helme's statements regarding the need to cut back on border funding during Jüri Ratas's government. The Prime Minister also corrected Helme's claim regarding the location of the stolen border buoy. The Chairman of the session then concluded the Question Time, reminding the attendees of the rules concerning the handling of questions as stipulated in the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act.

Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur presented a report to the Riigikogu on the implementation of the national long-term development strategy "Eesti 2035" within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence. The Minister emphasized the growth of Estonia's defense budget, pointing out that the 2025 budget will exceed 2 billion euros (over 5% of GDP), which is 250,000 times greater than in the early years following the restoration of independence. He affirmed that Estonia is now a strong, straight-backed nation capable of defending its own freedom. Pevkur provided an overview of military capability development, including the creation of a division structure, the mechanization of the 2nd Infantry Brigade, the establishment of an artillery regiment (HIMARS, K9, Caesar), and the development of multi-layered air defense (IRIS-T systems, creation of an air defense brigade). He called upon the Riigikogu to confirm the 5% defense spending level in the long-term fundamentals of security policy and announced plans to create a 10-year budgetary framework for defense planning.

The debate centered on a recent audit by the National Audit Office, which exposed systemic shortcomings in the Ministry of Defence and its subordinate institutions regarding the use of funds and inventory accounting (amounting to over 700 million euros). The opposition (specifically Varro Vooglaid, Urmas Reinsalu, and Martin Helme) demanded the Minister take responsibility and resign, accusing him of weak leadership and misleading the public. Minister Pevkur defended the Ministry, asserting that all acquired stocks are present and in use, but conceded the need to improve inventory and accounting processes, announcing the initiation of an extraordinary stocktake. The discussion also covered the Elva drone incident, the fast-track procedure for expanding the Nursipalu training area, and the topic of women's conscription.

The first reading of Draft Bill 671, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the amendment of the Credit Union Act and related amendments to other acts, was on the agenda. Minister of Finance Jürgen Ligi presented the bill, explaining that since the amendments made in 2010, credit unions have lost their original community-based character and essentially operate as banks, but without adequate state supervision. This has led to a situation where depositors have lost tens of millions of euros due to insolvency, particularly elderly individuals who were counting on high interest rates. The volume of deposits has surged from 2 million euros to 87 million, the majority of which (76 million) is loaned out to commercial companies.

The primary objective of the bill is to halt the uncontrolled raising of funds from the public and ensure the protection of depositors. The only viable solution is that cooperatives accepting deposits must henceforth either obtain a banking license from the Financial Supervision Authority or establish a cooperative bank. Operating as a bank guarantees depositors protection by the Guarantee Fund up to 100,000 euros. The amendments will enter into force in three stages, with the ultimate goal that starting January 1, 2029, only banks or cooperative banks will be authorized to accept deposits.

During the debate, members of the Riigikogu raised questions regarding the proportionality and constitutionality of the bill, asking why merely strengthening supervision was insufficient and whether the radical requirement for restructuring did not unduly infringe upon the freedom of enterprise. Mart Võrklaev, representing the Finance Committee, stressed that previous attempts at self-regulation (such as the creation of a central cooperative) have failed, and supervision by the Financial Supervision Authority is necessary to ensure the protection of depositors. The Isamaa faction proposed rejecting the bill, but the motion was voted down, thereby concluding the first reading.

At the first agenda item, a question was debated concerning the regulations related to end-of-life matters, submitted by members of the Riigikogu: Andre Hanimäe, Jaak Aab, Madis Kallas, Ester Karuse, Lauri Läänemetsa, Anti Allas, Heljo Pikhof and Helmen Küti. A crucial topic arose in the light of the Supreme Court’s Paul Tammert case: what happens when one person provides another with the means to commit suicide, and what is the legal and ethical framework for decisions about a person’s end of life. The Minister of Social Affairs responded to the question, emphasizing that it is a two-tiered issue – legal regulation and ethical considerations – and the need to continue discussions and legislation in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice and Digital Transformation. Important points highlighted were the implementation of the law on advance directives (when a will can be expressed specifically even when the person can no longer speak) and the possibility of discussing a broader framework encompassing aspects related to ethics, medicine, and palliative care. Furthermore, it was concluded that from January 2027, patients will be able to submit advance directives through the health information system, and it is necessary to continue discussions and develop services and interaction between different sectors. Another important aspect concerned increasing the accessibility of palliative care, palliative care for children, and pilot projects aimed at testing new service models and involving educational institutions to create further training. Overall, the presented plans demonstrate that the state is ready to move forward on both the legal and the social and healthcare levels, but emphasize the consensus found in inclusion and broad discussion, and a thorough ethical consideration.

The inquiry concerns changes to the 2025 beekeeping subsidy and their impact on small-scale beekeepers. Involved were Evelin Poolamets, Rene Koka, Siim Pohlak, Martin Helme, Mart Helme, Anti Poolametsa, and Arvo Aller; the inquiry was submitted on April 23, 2025, and the discussion was directed to regional and agricultural minister Hendrik Terras. The purpose was to highlight bottlenecks associated with the changes to the measures and to explain why an enterprise exceeding 16 bee colonies will likely face reduced support in the future, and what will happen to the continuity and background of small-scale beekeeping in connection with the reduction in applications. For the commission, it was important to understand how the changes affect beekeepers operating in small areas and what possible alternatives and cooperation opportunities exist for the next steps.

On May 13, 2025, the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) debated Inquiry No. 773 concerning the disappearance of vital banking services in county centers, submitted by Ester Karuse, Tanel Kiik, Andre Hanimägi, Anti Allas, Reili Rand, Heljo Pikhof, and Jaak Aab. The initiator of the inquiry, Ester Karuse (SDE), highlighted the situation in Valga and Põlva counties, where physical bank branches have been closed (most recently SEB in Valga), leaving tens of thousands of residents, especially the elderly and those lacking digital skills, without necessary services and consultation. Karuse emphasized that banking is a socially essential service, not merely a business activity, and asked the minister for concrete steps to initiate dialogue with the banks and for the state's readiness to ensure physical banking services in county centers.

Minister of Regional Affairs and Agriculture Hendrik Johannes Terras acknowledged the concern but pointed out that the number of bank branches in Estonia has decreased by nearly half over the last ten years (from 107 in 2015 to 58 by the end of 2024) due to changes in consumer behavior and digitalization. He specified that Coop Pank offers cashless office services in Valga and Põlva. The Minister stressed that the availability of services is more important than a physical branch and highlighted alternatives such as ATMs (interoperable and offering deposit capabilities), cash withdrawal at stores/gas stations, and payment services at Omniva post offices. Terras confirmed that he intends to meet with representatives of the banking sector, but currently, the ministry is focusing on the broader regional development problem: the concentration of the population in the capital region. During the debate, opposition politicians criticized the Minister's management style and the slackness of regional policy.

During the Riigikogu session, the fourth item on the agenda was the discussion of Inquiry No. 768, submitted on May 7, 2025, by Riigikogu members Jaanus Karilaid, Andres Metsoja, Priit Sibul, Tõnis Lukas, Enn Eesmaa, and Ants Frosch. This inquiry addressed jobs and welfare outside Harju County, focusing on the development of industry and manufacturing in the context of energy shortages. Speaking on behalf of the questioners, Jaanus Karilaid emphasized that regional inequality and the lack of jobs outside Tallinn's "golden circle" is a long-standing problem that remains unresolved despite election promises. Karilaid highlighted the practical concerns of businesses in Lääne County, where expansion is hindered by a deficit in energy capacity or connection costs reaching millions, and stressed that improving the economic environment requires not only energy but also the maintenance of the road network.

Minister of Economic Affairs and Industry Erkki Keldo responded to the inquiry, noting that while energy infrastructure falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Climate, energy remains a critical input for industry. The Minister presented measures aimed at supporting regional development, including supply security support for businesses, extending the length of direct lines to 15 kilometers for large consumers, and additional investments in the electricity grids of Ida-Viru County. He also highlighted support for large-scale investments, where the grant rate is higher outside Harju County (15% vs 10%), and amendments to the Planning Act for the accelerated processing of strategic industrial areas in the regions. Minister Keldo confirmed that specific complaints regarding the stalled expansion of Lääne County businesses had not reached the ministry, but expressed readiness to assist entrepreneurs. At the end of the discussion, Jaanus Karilaid proposed organizing a ministerial visit to Lääne County in the coming months, to which Minister Erkki Keldo immediately agreed.

The Riigikogu discussed as the fifth item on the agenda interpellation No. 779, submitted on May 15, 2025, by Riigikogu members Lauri Laats, Aleksei Jevgrafov, Vladimir Arhipov, and Vadim Belobrovtsev, concerning the rapid growth of unemployment and the decline in employment. Interpellator Lauri Laats (Centre Party) sharply criticized the government's regional policy in his opening address, faulting the Social Democrats for introducing the car tax, ending free county public transport, and adopting all tax increases. He emphasized that the rise in unemployment and the decline in employment have caused great concern, highlighting significant regional disparities, especially in Ida-Viru County and Southeast Estonia, and a twofold wage gap between Tallinn/Harju County and other counties.

Minister of Economic Affairs and Industry Erkki Keldo provided an overview of the current labor market situation, noting that the unemployment rate peaked in the first quarter of 2025 (8.5%) but fell to 6.9% in the second quarter. He highlighted Estonia's high labor force participation rate (88.1% among 20–64-year-olds), which is the highest in the European Union. According to the Minister, the government is addressing unemployment relief through a new Unemployment Insurance Fund (Töötukassa) strategy, which focuses on improving the skills of young people (NEET youth) and vocational education reform. To alleviate regional inequality, 350 million euros from the Just Transition Fund will be directed to Ida-Viru County to promote entrepreneurship and create jobs. Subsequent questions focused on youth unemployment. Lauri Laats proposed tax incentives for student employment (an exemption from the 13% social tax component), but Minister Keldo rejected the proposal, citing the state budget situation and preferring the simplification of regulations. The Minister promised to investigate the results of the work of local government specialists dealing with NEET youth and data on the distribution of unemployed persons by citizenship.

The Riigikogu debated the interpellation submitted by Riina Sikkut, Tanel Kiik, and other Social Democrats regarding the government's plans to increase immigration. The questioners expressed concern about the decline in Estonian economic productivity, record youth unemployment, and integration issues, asking how increasing immigration would help solve these problems, especially considering the development of artificial intelligence. Riina Sikkut (SDE) emphasized the need for quantitative data regarding the Estonian society's absorption capacity and migration statistics.

Minister of Economic Affairs and Industry Erkki Keldo (Reform Party) responded that the government's priority is bringing in qualified specialists, not low-wage labor. He confirmed that the immigration quota (0.1% of the population) will remain unchanged, but exceptions for skilled workers based on the OSKA report are necessary to realize the growth potential of the manufacturing industry. The Minister assessed the Estonian society's absorption capacity as good, highlighting improved integration indicators and public support for receiving Ukrainian war refugees. He stressed that the government's primary focus is on raising the skills and qualifications of the local workforce, including 45,000 registered workers. The debate also raised the question of Nordic immigration experiences and the transfer of Swedish prisoners to Tartu Prison, which the Minister considered beneficial cooperation between allies. Jaak Valge (EKRE) sharply criticized mass immigration, arguing that it is unconstitutional, hinders wage growth, and has led to a decline in productivity. Reili Rand (SDE) asked for clarification regarding the easing of wage criteria in the exception for skilled workers.

The Riigikogu debated the interpellation submitted on May 19, 2025, by Riigikogu members Peeter Ernits, Kalle Grünthal, Lauri Laats, Andrei Korobeinik, Vadim Belobrovtsev, and Vladimir Arhipov concerning the destruction of spruce seedlings in RMK (State Forest Management Centre) nurseries. Interpellator Peeter Ernits highlighted an incident near Iisaku where local employees reported the mass destruction of seedlings, which Ernits dubbed a "slaughter."

Minister of Energy and Environment Andres Sutt responded to seven questions, explaining that RMK does not destroy standard seedlings, but rather composts the approximately 10% of substandard plants generated annually that do not meet the quality requirements for forest regeneration. The Minister confirmed that RMK's felling volume has decreased in recent years due to increased nature conservation restrictions (the share of managed forest dropped from 64% in 2019 to 56.6% in 2024), leading to a surplus of seedlings, as growing the plants takes 2–3 years. Sutt emphasized that although RMK distributed nearly 50,000 substandard plants for free in the spring, the ministry does not support large-scale free distribution to avoid unfair competition with private nurseries. In the future, the composting of substandard plants will continue, but other uses will also be considered, provided this does not interfere with the work of nursery employees.

During the debate, Peeter Ernits praised the Minister and RMK Director Mikk Marran for their swift action, which allowed the seedlings to be distributed to the public, calling the event a "Song Festival" and highlighting the Estonian people's immense hunger for spruce seedlings.

The Riigikogu debate focused on the query submitted on May 20, 2025, by Riigikogu members Jaak Aab, Reili Rand, Tiit Maran, Züleyxa Izmailova, and Riina Sikkut regarding the development of nuclear energy in Estonia. The query was presented by Jaak Aab, who highlighted concerns about the high cost and long time horizon of nuclear energy—the priority of the new Energy Economy Development Plan (ENMAK). Aab referred to the expected cost increase of the Canadian Ontario BWRX-300 modular reactor project (at least 13.5 billion euros) and calculated that the 600 MW plant planned for Estonia could cost nearly 7 billion euros, emphasizing that these are only preliminary forecasts. He asked how the state intends to cover the energy deficit until 2040, when nuclear energy would, at best, only begin operating, and why greater investment is not being made in renewable energy.

Andres Sutt, the Minister of Energy and Environment, responded that the government has not decided in favor of a specific technology but has initiated special planning (eriplaneering) to determine the conditions and location for building a nuclear power plant. The Minister stressed that the nuclear plant should be completed with the support of private capital, and the state’s role is to create the legislative and supervisory framework. Sutt defended the preparation for nuclear energy as a necessary step to ensure a carbon-free baseload after 2040, noting that the Ontario plant is the first test facility for the BWRX-300 technology, and subsequent projects (e.g., in Poland and Sweden) should be cheaper. He confirmed that the development of renewable energy (including tenders and financial instruments for offshore wind farms) continues in parallel, and nuclear energy is necessary for stable production, especially given that Estonia imports one-third of its electricity. During the debate, questions were also raised regarding the state's focus, capacity for large projects, the nature of financial guarantees, and security risks.

The Riigikogu addressed an interpellation submitted by Lauri Laats, Aleksandr Tšaplõgin, Andrei Korobeinik, Vadim Belobrovtsev, Aleksei Jevgrafov, and Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart regarding Elering's strategy, which concerned the state-owned company's consideration of Estonia's socio-economic impacts versus the needs of the European single market when making decisions. The interpellators, introduced by Vadim Belobrovtsev, referred to an earlier statement by Elering's CEO, Kalle Kilk, where he prioritized the needs of the European single market, arguing that focusing on local impacts would lead to a higher electricity price. The questions focused on whether the government was aware of Elering's alleged disregard for local impacts, what analyses such authorization was based upon, and what the payback period is for external connections (the fourth Estonia-Latvia connection, Estlink 3).

Minister of Energy and Environment Andres Sutt responded to the interpellation, categorically denying that Elering was ignoring Estonia's socio-economic impacts. He emphasized that the new owner expectations for Elering clearly set the goal of achieving a competitive final energy price for the Estonian consumer. The Minister explained that Elering operates based on Estonian development documents and the European Union's energy policy, the goal of which is to ensure a secure, affordable, and environmentally sustainable energy supply. He confirmed that analyses (including those conducted within the framework of ENTSO-E and PCI projects) show that a connected electricity system is socio-economically the most beneficial and reduces price volatility. Sutt affirmed that the development of the domestic network remains Elering's priority, and the construction of external connections is often financed by congestion revenue and European subsidies, not by the network tariff. In the subsequent debate, Rain Epler (EKRE) sharply criticized the government's energy policy, accusing the Minister of using "bastard language" and claiming that European over-regulation and the focus on the green transition have led to a decline in economic competitiveness. Epler called for abandoning the excessive love for wind and solar energy and setting the goal of restoring Estonia as a strong electricity exporter.

The report on the sittings of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) covers the work of several sessions (III, IV, V, VI), which were characterized by sharp political confrontations and extensive obstruction, especially concerning the government's tax policy and the organization of parliamentary work. At the beginning of the sittings, greetings were exchanged for the new year, but a large portion of the time was spent confirming the agenda and discussing procedural matters. The opposition (primarily EKRE and the Centre Party) repeatedly challenged the board's decisions regarding the procedure for processing draft legislation, the bundling of amendments, and the majority required (51 votes) for adopting resolutions.

Several motions of no confidence were filed against various ministers (including Kallas, Riisalo, Joller, Pakosta, Alender, Ligi, Svet), indicating a deep crisis of confidence in the executive branch. Due to the obstruction, the board was forced to temporarily halt the acceptance of draft legislation and interpellations on February 14th. Substantive topics were dominated by the motor vehicle tax (for the repeal of which bills were repeatedly submitted), the teachers' salary crisis and strike, national defense funding and security (border control, procurement of ammunition), and social sector issues (care reform, demographics). The security and transparency of e-voting were also discussed.

The first item on the agenda was the third reading of Bill 600, initiated by the Isamaa faction, which sought to amend the Accounting Act and postpone the implementation of mandatory sustainability reporting (ESG). Urmas Reinsalu, speaking for the Isamaa faction, criticized the government for having pushed through a system last autumn that would have imposed an additional burden of over 30 million euros on companies. Reinsalu stressed that while the adoption of the bill was the correct step, it was only a temporary solution. He urged the government to open a substantive dialogue at the European Union level aimed at making sustainability reporting voluntary, citing the NG Investeeringud group's annual million-euro expenditure on reporting that, he claimed, nobody actually reads. Reinsalu also criticized the government's dual approach to bureaucracy, pointing to the ban on parking commercial vehicles on sidewalks as an example.

Õnne Pillak, representing the Reform Party, affirmed that the government supports the drive to reduce bureaucracy and has already made 202 corresponding decisions. She welcomed the swift handling of the opposition's bill and confirmed that efforts are underway at the European level to make reporting voluntary in the future. However, Rain Epler, representing EKRE, accused the Reform Party of lying and hypocrisy, arguing that the coalition was only now correcting its previous mistake, despite having previously defended the necessity of ESG reporting. Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, representing the Centre Faction, emphasized the importance of cooperation between the coalition and the opposition in supporting the bill. The bill passed the final vote and was adopted into law.

The session moved to the third reading of Draft Act 640 on Amendments to the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act and the International Sanctions Act, initiated by the Government of the Republic, which was also the last item on the agenda for the season. Before the debate was opened, several members of parliament (Kalle Grünthal, Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, Peeter Ernits, Lauri Laats, Vadim Belobrovtsev) raised procedural questions, criticizing the expedited procedure for the draft act (the second and third readings in the same week) and its potential unconstitutionality. The criticism focused on the provisions of the draft act that allow the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) to create a "super database" consolidating data from 11 registers and to use artificial intelligence for profiling individuals, thereby infringing upon personal inviolability and fundamental rights. The opposition asked the presiding officer to contact the Finance Committee to have the draft removed from the agenda or to call a recess for an extraordinary committee meeting, but these proposals were rejected, citing the presiding officer's lack of authority to do so.

During the faction debates, the Centre Party, EKRE, and Isamaa expressed strong opposition. Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart (Centre Party) called the adoption of the draft act an entry into the "era of the surveillance society" and criticized the fact that fundamental rights were being sold off for €3.5 million in EU funding. Rain Epler (EKRE) accused the coalition members of parliament of not knowing the content of the draft act and warned that the law was "child's play" compared to the police camera scandal. Urmas Reinsalu (Isamaa) emphasized that a similar database does not exist in any other EU Member State and that the draft act was processed with unprecedented speed. Despite the opposition's last-minute attempts (including a recess requested by Lauri Laats) to halt the processing of the draft act, the final vote was held.

The Riigikogu continued the first reading of Draft Act 652 on the sharing of credit information, initiated by the Government of the Republic. Minister of Finance Jürgen Ligi answered questions from Riigikogu members. The discussion focused mainly on the timeline for creating a positive credit register, the growth in the volume of quick loans and its social consequences, and the regulation of the activities of debt collection agencies. Vadim Belobrovtsev raised the question of the conflict between data centralization and the principle of e-state decentralization, to which the minister replied that only credit data would be centralized. Reili Rand and Heljo Pikhof expressed concern over the late entry into force of the register (2028), regarding which the minister promised to consult with technical staff about the possibility of acceleration. Ligi emphasized that the state should not create the register, as it is a matter for the private sector. During the negotiations, Lauri Laats and Heljo Pikhof addressed the growth of quick loans (which exceeds the European average) and its connection to the deterioration of people's financial well-being. Minister Ligi linked the growth of the quick loan business, among other things, to the dismantling of the second pillar pension scheme. Maris Lauri, representing the Finance Committee, presented the committee's decisions, confirming that debt collection agencies would not be included in the register and that the committee proposed concluding the first reading.

The Riigikogu debated the first reading of Draft Act 653, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning amendments to the Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act and the Vocational Educational Institutions Act (Certification of Principals and Teacher Career Model). Minister of Education and Research Kristina Kallas introduced the draft, which aims to improve career opportunities for teachers and raise the quality of school management. According to the draft, a four-tier career model will be established (starting teacher, teacher, senior teacher, master teacher), and corresponding salary coefficients for the years 2026–2028 (1.0; 1.0; 1.1; 1.3) will be implemented. The duration of fixed-term employment contracts for teachers studying in teacher training programs will also be extended to three years. A significant change is the introduction of a certification system for school principals after every five years of employment; the certification committee will consist of representatives of the school maintainer and the Estonian Association of School Leaders. The additional financial need resulting from these changes is 9.8 million euros for general education and 3.7 million euros for vocational education in 2026.

During the debate, several questions were raised, particularly concerning the status and salary guarantees of unqualified teachers, as the legislative amendment removes the school maintainer's direct obligation to pay them the national minimum rate. The Minister clarified that the funding system will not change, but the goal is to motivate teachers without professional qualifications to acquire them. The public disclosure of principals' certification decisions and the support for the education agreement among local governments were also discussed. Liina Kersna, Chairman of the Cultural Affairs Committee, proposed concluding the first reading, noting that the committee will continue discussions regarding support for unqualified teachers.

The Riigikogu debated the draft act on amending the Churches and Congregations Act (570 UA), initiated by the Government of the Republic, during its third reading. The debate centered on the constitutionality of the bill and its impact on religious freedom and security, particularly concerning religious associations affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate. The opposition (Centre Party, EKRE) argued that the bill remains unconstitutional despite cosmetic changes, and illegally pressures the Estonian Orthodox Church and Pühtitsa Convent to sever canonical ties with Moscow. Vadim Belobrovtsev (Centre Party) expressed hope that the President would refuse to promulgate the law for a second time. Varro Vooglaid (EKRE) stressed that the real issue is ensuring the rule of law, not ‘Estonian-mindedness,’ and warned that the threat of forced termination increases societal division and security risks. Representatives of the coalition and supporting factions (Isamaa, Eesti 200, SDE) defended the bill, emphasizing that it complies with the constitution (referencing the Ministry of the Interior's analysis) and aims to restrict hostile influence activities, not religious freedom. Jaanus Karilaid (Isamaa) and Peeter Tali (Eesti 200) directly linked the Moscow Patriarchate to the Kremlin and the FSB, labeling it ideological support for the Putin regime. Andre Hanimägi (SDE) highlighted that the bill targets an institution that justifies the ideology of violence, not faith itself. Following the discussions, the final vote was conducted.

The agenda item was the third reading of Draft Bill 603, the Act on Amendments to the Aliens Act, the Code of Administrative Court Procedure, and the State Fees Act (challenging visa decisions), initiated by the Government of the Republic. During the debate, a sharp confrontation emerged regarding the principles of state security and the rule of law. Henn Põlluaas, speaking on behalf of the Isamaa faction, sharply criticized the draft bill, calling it an expression of no confidence in the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) and the Ministries of the Interior and Foreign Affairs. He stressed that refusing a visa is a sovereign right of the state, and adopting the amendment threatens internal security, clogs the court system, and opens the door to mass litigation by suspicious individuals, especially citizens of Russia and Belarus. Ando Kiviberg, representative of the Eesti 200 faction, refuted these claims, noting that Estonia is the last country in the European Union where visa decisions cannot be challenged in court, and that the Supreme Court has referred to this as a deficiency inconsistent with the constitution. He explained that the law grants the right to challenge only procedural errors, not the substantive justification, and that the state's sovereignty is retained. Following a brief rejoinder from Urmas Reinsalu, the final vote was held, as a result of which Draft Bill 603 was adopted as law.

The Riigikogu debated the third reading of Bill 645, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the simplified taxation of business income, amendments to the Income Tax Act, and the repeal of the Security Tax Act, as the fifth item on the agenda. The debate centered on making the government's tax policy permanent and its impact on society. Opposition parties sharply criticized the government for breaking its promises, noting that the increases originally dubbed a temporary security tax (VAT to 24%, income tax to 22%) are being made permanent, while the planned 2% corporate income tax hike is being cancelled. Lauri Laats, representing the Centre Party, accused the government of lacking solidarity, arguing that the tax burden falls disproportionately on the most vulnerable through consumption taxes. The Isamaa faction (Urmas Reinsalu) voted against the bill, citing the deterioration of economic competitiveness and the shrinking of real incomes. Social Democrat Lauri Läänemets stressed that the bill perpetuates a regressive tax system that favors the wealthy and stifles economic growth, and called for the implementation of a progressive income tax. Reform Party representative Annely Akkermann defended the bill, explaining that it leaves more money in the hands of low-income individuals and pensioners through a 2% income tax exemption, and that the overall tax burden will decrease next year due to the abolition of the ‘tax hump’. Following the negotiations, the final vote was conducted.

The agenda item concerned the third reading of the draft 2025 supplementary budget act (651), initiated by the Government of the Republic. Annely Akkermann, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented a report explaining that the content of the bill had changed during the proceedings, increasing revenues by 26.3 million, expenditures by 36.9 million, and investments by 41.9 million euros. A significant portion (44.2 million) is directed towards comprehensive national defense, of which 30 million will go to the administrative area of the Ministry of the Interior, and 12 million to road construction. The parliamentary group of the Social Democratic Party submitted two amendments: raising the subsistence level (6 million euros) and offering free kindergarten places in all local governments (22 million euros). Both proposals were rejected by the Finance Committee, citing the government's position that the supplementary budget should not create additional permanent expenditures, and emphasizing the autonomy of local governments. The debate was heated, focusing on the Reform Party's contradictory stance regarding kindergarten fees (supporting them in Tallinn but not at the national level) and the postponement of raising the subsistence level. The opposition (Centre Party, SDE, Isamaa) criticized the government's economic policy, the opacity of the budget, and the expansion of the public sector. The bill was put to a final vote and adopted.

The seventh agenda item concerned the third reading of the draft law amending the Sports Act, initiated by the Republic's Government. The session leader opened the discussion, noting that there were no requests to speak and that the discussion would be closed. The leading committee proposed putting the draft law to a final vote and commencing its preparation, and colleagues were asked to take a position and vote.

The agenda item was the third reading of the bill initiated by the Government of the Republic concerning the amendment of the Planning Act and other acts (acceleration of the deployment of renewable energy). The debate focused on the bill's impact on planning procedures and the rights of local communities. Evelin Poolamets, representative of the Conservative People's Party of Estonia (EKRE), sharply criticized the bill, calling it a "developer-commissioned law" that threatens human health, the living environment, and cultural heritage, noting that it allows for the circumvention of detailed planning and substantive environmental impact assessments. Aleksandr Tšaplõgin, representing the Centre Party, also deemed the green agenda a fraud that forces consumers to subsidize wind farms, thereby removing their access to cheap energy, and stressed the competitiveness of oil shale. Mario Kadastik, representing the Reform Party, refuted claims regarding the low cost of oil shale, highlighting its high cost price when combined with CO2 fees. He explained that the law aims to reduce bureaucracy and optimize planning processes by assessing environmental impacts more accurately during the initial stage, thus accelerating the issuance of building permits. In the final vote, the bill was adopted as Act 541 with 46 votes in favor.

The ninth item on the agenda concerned the third reading of Bill 573, initiated by the Government of the Republic, regarding the amendment of the Radiation Act and related amendments to other acts. Following the introduction of the agenda item, discussions were opened, but since no requests to speak were submitted, the discussions were immediately closed. Upon the proposal of the lead committee, the final vote on the bill was immediately proceeded to. In the vote, 58 members of the Riigikogu supported the adoption of the bill, 1 member voted against, and there were no abstentions. Bill 573 was adopted as an Act.

The Riigikogu held the third reading of Bill 604, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the amendment of the Health Services Organisation Act, the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act and related amendments to other acts, and the amendment of the Work Ability Allowance Act, which primarily addressed the regulation of end-of-life declarations of will. Representatives of the parliamentary groups participated in the debates.

Irja Lutsar, speaking on behalf of the Eesti 200 parliamentary group, emphasized that the bill gives people the opportunity to express their will regarding future treatment in a situation where the brain functions minimally and the quality of life does not meet the patient's wishes. She confirmed that this is neither euthanasia nor assisted suicide, but rather the protection of human autonomy. Lauri Laats, representative of the Centre Party, criticized the priority given to the bill, highlighting serious shortcomings in the Estonian healthcare system, such as long waiting lists for treatment and insufficient palliative care, and argued that primary healthcare must be fixed before legalizing end-of-life declarations of will. Margit Sutrop, representative of the Reform Party, supported the bill, noting that it protects people's freedom and dignity and gives doctors the courage to stop so-called "futile treatment," which merely prolongs the dying process. Priit Sibul, representative of the Isamaa parliamentary group, was not against the substance of the bill, as it does not grant new rights but improves the accessibility of the declaration of will to medical professionals, but he expressed concern about the "slippery slope" towards euthanasia that it entails and the ambiguity of a simple written declaration of will. Following the debates, the final vote on the bill was held.

The 11th item on the agenda was the third reading of the draft law amending the general part of the environmental code and other laws, initiated by the Government of the Republic. The presiding officer announced that discussions were open, but there were no requests to speak, and the discussions were closed. The lead committee proposed conducting the final vote on draft law 611 and proceeding to the preparation for that vote. The Riigikogu concluded the speech and put the final vote on draft law.

Today's 12th agenda item concerned the third reading, or final vote, of Bill 613, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the amendment of the Law of Obligations Act and the consequential amendment of other acts. After the debate was opened, it was immediately closed, as members of the Riigikogu had no requests to speak. At the proposal of the leading committee, the final vote on the bill commenced. Forty-nine members of the Riigikogu participated in the vote, all of whom voted in favor of the adoption of the bill. No votes against or abstentions were registered. Thus, Bill 613 was adopted as an Act.

Today’s agenda item concerns draft law 622 to amend the liquid fuels act, which is the third reading. The Riigikogu opened discussions, and the leading committee proposed putting the draft law to a final vote and commencing preparations for that vote. No speakers requested to speak, and the discussions were closed; ultimately, preparations for the final vote are underway.
Honorable Riigikogu! I put draft law 622 to a final vote and request that you take a position and vote.

Following this, item 14 on today's agenda was addressed, concerning the draft law 623 amending the Act on State Secrets and Classified Foreign Information, the Public Procurement Act, and the State Duty Act, initiated by the Government of the Republic. This is the third reading of the draft. The debate was opened; no speakers requested the floor, and the debate was closed. The leadership committee's proposal was to conduct a final vote and begin preparing for the vote. Esteemed colleagues, please take a position and vote on draft law 623, which is to be put to a final vote.

Today's agenda item concerned the third reading of draft law 624 amending the Consumer Protection Act, initiated by the Government of the Republic. Before opening the final vote, the leadership committee reported that one fully considered amendment proposal had been inadvertently omitted from the text of the second reading, an omission that was supported by both the committee and the plenary. The error has now been corrected and the considered amendment proposal has been incorporated into the text of the third reading. Discussions were opened and conducted according to the procedure outlined; no requests to speak were made, and the discussions were closed. The leadership committee decided to proceed with the final vote on the draft law and to begin preparing for that vote. Honorable Riigikogu! I put to a final vote the draft law amending the Consumer Protection Act, initiated by the Government of the Republic, number 624. Please take a position and vote!

Today's item number 16 concerns draft law 634, amending the Act on Payment Institutions and E-Money Institutions, and the Act on Payment and Settlement Systems. This is its third reading. The debate was opened, no one requested to speak, and the debate was closed. The leading committee wished to proceed to a final vote and begin preparations for that vote. Based on feedback gathered from colleagues, the acceptability of acceleration was examined: if no one objected, the final vote would proceed. Everyone agreed, and a Member of the Riigikogu put draft law 634 to a final vote, requesting a position be taken and a vote be held.

As a result of the final vote, a decision was made regarding the adoption of draft law 634: 52 Members of the Riigikogu voted in favor, there were no votes against, and there were no abstentions. Subsequently, draft law 634 was declared adopted as law.

Agenda item 17 comprised a significant draft law 644, initiated by the Rural Affairs Committee, which concerned amendments to the Basic Education Act and the Education Act of the Republic of Estonia, focusing primarily on the establishment of compulsory schooling. This was the third reading of the bill, which meant proceeding to the final vote.

The procedure was exceptionally rapid and consensual. The session chair opened the discussion, but as no member of the Riigikogu requested to speak, the discussion was immediately closed. The leading committee proposed conducting the final vote on the bill, to which the Riigikogu also agreed, immediately proceeding to prepare for the vote.

On the agenda was the second reading of Draft Act 666, initiated by the Government of the Republic, concerning the termination of the agreement between the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Belarus on the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income taxes and the prevention of fiscal evasion. Annely Akkermann, Chairman of the Finance Committee, presented a report in which she confirmed that the draft act had been prepared for the second reading and that no proposals had been submitted by the deadline for amendments. The agreement with Belarus, which had been in force since 1998, will be terminated. The leading committee made a consensus proposal to conclude the second reading and immediately proceed to the final vote. As no debate was requested, the vote was immediately proceeded to. The draft act was adopted as law.

The 19th item on today's agenda concerned Draft Resolution 630 of the Riigikogu, "Making a Proposal to the Government of the Republic," submitted by the Social Democratic Party faction, which aimed to initiate the development of an anti-fraud action plan. The submitter of the draft, Anti Allas, emphasized that the volume and complexity of fraud (including investment scams, spoofing calls, and schemes created using artificial intelligence) have seen an explosive increase in Estonia, causing millions of euros in damage every year. He stressed the need for coordinated cooperation between the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, law enforcement agencies, and the private sector (banks, telecoms) to better protect the people of Estonia and their livelihoods.

Valdo Randpere, representing the Legal Affairs Committee, presented the committee's position, stating that relevant activities (analyses, strategies, cooperation) are already underway by the relevant agencies. The committee expressed skepticism that a new national action plan would provide substantial added value to resolving the situation, deeming it instead ideological self-promotion and unnecessary bureaucracy. Randpere emphasized that the state should not be a "nanny" and that the solution lies in cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the private sector, along with awareness campaigns. Following a lengthy debate that covered both civic responsibility and the role of the state, the draft resolution was rejected at the first reading.

The first item on the agenda concerns the draft Act amending the Atmosphere Protection Act and other Acts 667 for the first reading. The draft aims to incorporate amendments stipulated in European Union law regarding the emissions trading system (ETS) for greenhouse gases and to extend it to maritime transport, while specifying requirements for aviation and land-based production. The ETS has been a central instrument of EU climate policy since 2005, and as a result, emissions have been reduced in many sectors. As a novelty, the system now extends to maritime transport: passenger and cargo ships with a gross tonnage of at least 5000 GT will fall under the ETS. This step is in line with the directions of the International Maritime Organization and helps to maintain the competitiveness of European Union maritime transport on a global level. In addition, various technological and administrative changes will be made to improve fuel and energy efficiency, and a phased transition will be implemented to allow companies sufficient time to adapt.

The Riigikogu debated, as agenda item 21, the first reading of Draft Act 670 on supplementing the Police and Border Guard Act, initiated by Riigikogu members Peeter Tali, Ando Kiviberg, Anti Haugas, and Mati Raidma. The purpose of the draft bill was to establish clear and lawful regulation for the use of Number Plate Recognition Cameras (NPRC) in the activities of the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA), thereby reducing the existing legal ambiguity that had arisen based on the 2009 regulation. Presenter Anti Haugas emphasized that the cameras are a vitally important tool for detecting, preventing, and precluding crimes, and that legal clarity must be achieved quickly to maintain police credibility. He confirmed that the draft bill addresses previous remarks by the Data Protection Inspectorate and the Chancellor of Justice regarding the need for regulation at the level of law.
The debate was heated, focusing on the infringement of people's fundamental rights. Opponents, particularly Urmas Reinsalu (Isamaa) and Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart (Centre Party), criticized the bill as a hastily prepared "botched draft" that attempts to retroactively legalize unlawful activity and grants the PPA overly broad rights, including the possibility of identifying individuals in vehicles and using data to "terminate disturbances of public order." Supporters (Eesti 200, SDE) stressed that NPRC is a modern and necessary tool for solving serious crimes (citing examples of rape cases) and that the closure of the cameras by the Minister of the Interior was a mistake that endangers Estonia's security during the summer period. The Legal Affairs Committee proposed concluding the first reading so that the draft bill could be amended during the summer. The proposal by Isamaa and the Centre Party to reject the draft bill was voted down.

During the Riigikogu session, Bill 647, initiated by the Isamaa faction, was debated. The bill’s objective was to repeal the Motor Vehicle Tax Act, effective January 1, 2026. Presenter Aivar Kokk (Isamaa) sharply criticized the tax, labeling it voter deception and socially unjust, particularly toward large families and people with disabilities, citing examples of shockingly high tax bills. He stressed that the governing coalition ignored pre-election promises and is essentially double-taxing car owners, given that the fuel excise duty is already established.

The debate was tense, focusing on the coalition’s responsibility and the "festival of tax hikes." Coalition politicians referred to planned relief measures for families with children and investments in roads, which Kokk deemed insufficient. The lead committee (the Finance Committee), represented by Annely Akkermann, proposed rejecting the bill during its first reading. During faction negotiations, Urmas Reinsalu (Isamaa) promised the tax would be abolished by 2027 at the latest, accusing the government of dishonest politics and succumbing to pressure from interest groups. Anti Allas (SDE) confirmed that he would vote in favor of the bill, although he felt that some form of environmentally oriented car tax was necessary for the state. Following the vote, the bill was rejected.