By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The speaker emphasized the successful collaboration with institutions, noting that the Ministry of Justice, the Chancellor of Justice, and the Data Protection Inspectorate have reached a very good compromise on the draft bill. This demonstrates a readiness for institutional cooperation and for resolving concerns during the bill's deliberation process.

The speaker operates from the opposition, employing pressure tactics directed at the government, yet simultaneously stresses a fundamental consensus regarding basic rights and proportionality. They are also willing to commend politicians from the opposing side when warranted, and note that the opposition's rhetoric may have contributed to the birth of a new bill drafted by coalition members.

The text describes the cooperation with the Ministry of the Interior and the Council of Churches regarding the supplementation and clarification of the draft legislation. It acknowledges the existence of disagreements (8 votes in favor, 2 against in the committee) but stresses the committee majority's support for adopting the bill without amendments. It views referring the matter to the Supreme Court as a normal resolution for the conflict between the parliament and the president.

The speaker is seeking cooperation with the Chancellor of Justice to define the necessary legal safety framework and discuss existing bottlenecks. He/She calls for the topic to be debated on the floor of the Riigikogu, indicating a readiness for collegial legislative work.

Insufficient data

The cooperative style is highly appreciative and grateful toward the Financial Supervisory Authority, praising their systematic supervision and contribution to consumer protection. Political cooperation is focused on achieving a broad consensus within the Riigikogu (Parliament) regarding the establishment of a financial ombudsman, stressing that this would benefit consumers, credit providers, and the judicial system alike.

The speaker is acting as the representative of the Steering Committee, neutrally presenting the committee's discussion and the voting results (5 in favor, 4 against), which reflects a cross-party split. He refers to the questions raised by colleagues (Mr. Kaljulaid, Mr. Ernits) and the positions held by government representatives (Mirjam Rannula), thereby demonstrating procedural cooperation.

There is not enough data.

The speaker underscores the necessity of inter-ministerial cooperation, specifically between the Minister of Social Affairs and the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, to resolve complex ethical and legal issues concerning end-of-life regulations. He calls for a public debate and the search for societal consensus, indicating a desire for a constructive discussion.

The speaker’s actions demonstrate cooperation with colleagues in their faction or party, such as when submitting interpellations with six members of the Riigikogu. They also act as the initiator of the Legal Affairs Committee. There are no direct references indicating openness to cross-coalition compromise; the focus remains on opposition oversight.