By Plenary Sessions: Mait Klaassen

No direct opposition is voiced; instead, constructive and critical questions are raised concerning the policy's implementation. The criticism targets bureaucratic processes (the complexity of documentation) and potential deficiencies in state planning when it comes to protecting valuable land.

Direct personal opposition is not expressed, but criticism is cited regarding the 800-euro state fee. Those raising the questions believe this fee will not solve the problem of illegal operators and may push people toward seeking alternatives. Furthermore, concerns are raised that the high charge disproportionately affects less affluent vehicle owners. The criticism focuses on the policy's effectiveness and social equity.

The criticism is directed against the activities of the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA), specifically against the new practice of unannounced home visits. The opposition is procedural and centers on the question of the limits of a state institution's activities, which infringes upon the constitutional rights of citizens.

The speaker himself does not express opposition, but reports that two members of the committee voted against placing the draft bill on the plenary agenda and concluding its first reading. The opposition primarily relates to the socio-economic impact of the bill on local governments and the legitimate expectations of businesses after 2026.