Agenda Profile: Raimond Kaljulaid

The political position is strongly focused on clarifying and strengthening the mandates of local governments (LG) regarding dangerous pets, emphasizing community security and public safety. This approach is policy-driven, concentrating on closing a specific legal loophole that currently prevents proactive intervention before an attack occurs. The speaker urgently supports the swift adoption of the draft legislation so that the solution can reach the public as quickly as possible. They hope that this matter will receive cross-party support.

The speaker demonstrates expertise in local government law and public order statistics, citing thorough preliminary work that involved all Estonian municipalities, the PPA (Police and Border Guard Board), and the animal ambulance service. He/She presents specific data regarding PPA call-outs (approximately 600 per year) and the frequency of animal ambulance incidents (up to 9 times a month during the summer). The speaker relies on the Chancellor of Justice's position that the law lacks clarity in enforcing regulations, as well as the expertise of officials from the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture in drafting the bill.

The style is professional, logical, and urgent, emphasizing the necessity of solving a serious nationwide problem. The speaker extensively utilizes data and statistics for persuasion, demonstrating the scope of the problem (e.g., "more than one [challenge] per day"). He/She systematically answers questions, explaining the simplicity and efficacy of the draft bill and refuting arguments that the solution should wait for a more comprehensive reform.

The speaker is actively participating in the legislative debate during the first reading of the bill, providing detailed answers to questions posed by colleagues. He describes the extensive preparatory work, which involved reaching out to all Estonian local governments, the police, hospitals, and other institutions to gather feedback and data. This demonstrates a pattern where legislative action is preceded by thorough data collection and consultation.

Direct political opponents are not criticized, but the speaker refutes the arguments that current legislation is sufficient or that the solution should wait for a more comprehensive local government reform bill. He emphasizes that this is a single issue that can be resolved quickly, and delaying it is not justified. He also clarifies that the purpose of the coercive fine is not to fill the budget, thereby addressing potential fiscal policy criticism.

The speaker is cooperative, having initiated the bill together with Tiit Maran and collaborated thoroughly with officials from the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture. He/She emphasizes the necessity of cross-party support and confirms the Social Democratic faction's support for the initiative. He/She is open to negotiations and proposals (e.g., concerning the rate of coercive fines) in the subsequent stages of the proceedings.

The focus is nationwide, as the problem affects all Estonian municipalities—both rural and urban areas—which is confirmed by feedback received from every single local authority. The severity of the issue is illustrated with examples from Lagedi, Narva, Narva-Jõesuu, and North Tallinn (Kalamaja), highlighting the universal need for a solution.

Economic considerations center on saving resources for local governments and improving operational efficiency. The speaker argues that clear mandates allow for the rapid resolution of situations, thereby saving officials time and money, and emphasizes that the purpose of the coercive fine is neither to fill the budget nor to find additional revenue streams for local authorities.

The key social concern is public safety and the security of individuals against attacks and threatening behavior by dangerous dogs, which restricts unrestricted movement. The purpose of this draft legislation is to ensure that local authorities (LGU) can intervene proactively, before any health or property damage occurs. It also addresses the culture of pet ownership, noting that an aggressive dog is often an animal that has been mistreated.

The legislative focus is on amending the Local Government Organization Act (Bill 537 SE) to grant local governments (LGUs) the clear authority to exercise state supervision over compliance with pet ownership regulations. The objectives include the right to impose a penalty payment (up to 6,400 euros) and the possibility of taking movable property (a dog) into custody to avert an immediate danger. The draft bill does not grant LGUs the right to apply immediate coercion.