By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The opposition is directed against Mart Maastik's draft bill, which is criticized due to its legal-technical flaws and the violation of legal certainty. The criticism is strong and is based on the government's 11-point negative opinion, which suggests the bill's constitutionality is questionable. In his rebuttal, he defends the committee's position that the draft bill does not solve the problem.

There are no direct attacks or criticism aimed at the opposing sides; the speaker focuses exclusively on conveying the consensus and procedural decisions that prevailed within the commission. He notes the confusion that arose in the chamber regarding the issue of intoxicated persons, but corrects the record neutrally.

Opposition is mounted against right-wing parties who are concerned about the cap on parental benefits. Furthermore, the Social Democrats' rejection of an alternative that would have reduced the parental benefit period is highlighted, thereby pointing to a broader political confrontation regarding social issues.

The direct opponent is not criticized; however, a pressing need is emphasized to resolve the 'confusion' that has arisen either within the legislation itself or during the interpretation of the draft bill. The criticism is aimed at the procedural ambiguity, which risks creating a false impression regarding the bill's objectives.