By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The speaker was highly active during the plenary session on October 23rd, taking part both in the debate concerning the Minister of the Interior’s political statement and in the discussion regarding the vote of no confidence against the Minister of Finance, and even requested extended speaking time (eight minutes). This pattern of activity indicates a focus on government accountability and the criticism of political declarations.

The speeches were delivered during the Riigikogu's information hour, focusing on the events of the immediately preceding weeks and the political culture within the parliament.

The speaker is active in plenary sessions, participating in interpellations and repeatedly raising questions on economic and security issues. He/She also intervenes in procedural disputes, criticizing the way the session is managed and the quality of the ministers' responses.

The records indicate active participation in the Riigikogu plenary session, with the individual speaking repeatedly on the topics of social policy, budget cuts, and legislative matters over the course of a single day. The speaker is prepared to intervene in both substantive and procedural discussions.

The speaker participated in the plenary session with a substantive debate contribution and made a procedural motion (requesting a recess) on behalf of the EKRE faction. This indicates active involvement in the procedural and substantive management of the sessions as a representative of the faction.

There isn't enough data.

The speaker regularly participates in the Riigikogu (Parliament) information sessions, noting that they have already met with the new government and the prime minister multiple times. All their appearances are focused on sharply criticizing the government's policy on the floor of the parliament. Other patterns of activity (meetings, travel) are not evident from the data.

The pattern of activity demonstrates active participation in the plenary session during the interpellation, where the speaker poses repeated and clarifying questions. The pattern is reactive, centered on criticizing the deficiencies in the minister's responses and demanding specific data.