Session Profile: Liina Kersna

The political position is strongly opposed to raising the minimum threshold for the school lunch subsidy, stressing that this is fundamentally a question of priorities. He/She emphasizes that 30 million euros should instead be directed toward increasing teacher salaries (with the goal of achieving at least a 10% growth), arguing that this is more crucial for ensuring quality education. His/Her approach is policy-driven, focusing on the government's budgetary priorities and securing educational quality through teacher compensation. He/She defends the government's view that amending the law is not the appropriate method for increasing the subsidy.

The speaker exhibits profound expertise in the education sector, particularly concerning school lunch funding models, budgetary priorities, and relevant legislation. They utilize specific financial data (e.g., a 30 million euro expenditure, a 15% increase in higher education support) and are intimately familiar with legislative procedures (such as amending a regulation versus amending a statute/act). To substantiate their experience, they mention having visited and eaten meals at over 300 different schools during a 10-year period, effectively challenging assertions regarding the poor quality of the food.

The speaker's rhetorical style is analytical, authoritative, and concrete, relying heavily on logical arguments and budgetary comparisons. The tone is formal, fitting the role of a representative of the steering committee, but he incorporates personal experiences (eating school lunches) in defense of food quality. He uses historical facts (the EKRE government’s zero-euro salary increase) to criticize opponents and presents his views with conviction.

The speaker's activity profile includes coordinating the work of the steering committee, specifically conducting the Culture Committee meeting on June 3rd and proposing the rejection of the draft legislation. He/She also highlighted his/her long-standing (10-year) involvement in the education sector and mentioned visiting over 300 schools.

The main opposition is directed at the Centre Party (Vadim Belobrovtsev), whose draft legislation is being criticized both procedurally (the wrong legislative path) and substantively (the wrong priority). Furthermore, he/she sharply criticizes EKRE, pointing out that during their time in government, teachers’ salaries were not raised at all, despite this having been stipulated in the state budget strategy. The criticism is policy-based and intense, particularly concerning budget priorities.

The working style is procedural and committee-centric, and it provides an overview of the committee's discussion and voting results. He notes that the appointment of the representative of the lead committee took place by consensus, but the decision to reject the draft bill was narrow (4 in favor, 3 against). He answers colleagues' questions (Tõnis Lukas), providing clarification.

The main focus is on national education and budgetary policy. Regionally, he/she highlights Võrumaa as a positive example, where, thanks to state support, almost all educational institutions have started using organic ingredients and local produce.

The economic perspective stresses budget discipline and prioritizing spending, favoring investments in teachers’ salaries over universal benefits. He/She supports tax policies designed to increase people’s disposable income, citing measures such as raising the tax-free minimum and eliminating the tax bulge, which ultimately helps improve livelihoods.

The primary social issue is quality education and school meals. He/She stresses that school meals must be healthy and warm, and supports the position that the state or local municipality should take greater responsibility for feeding children who are facing economic hardship. However, he/she views raising teachers' salaries as a more crucial social investment than increasing the universal school lunch subsidy.

The legislative focus centers on the rejection of the Centre Party's bill to increase the minimum rate of school lunch support. His/Her priority is securing a substantial increase (at least 10%) in the teachers' salary fund through the state budget, which he/she deems the main investment in the field of education. He/She emphasizes that changing the school lunch support requires amending a Regulation of the Government of the Republic, not the law itself.