Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The speaker is strongly in favor of the bill and stresses consumer protection and public health safeguards. The primary demand is a unified mandatory traffic insurance requirement for all rental service providers to prevent unfair competition and unequal treatment. They commend the adherence to directives but criticize investments and decisions that politically favor one company (Bolt). Naturally, they emphasize that supporting entrepreneurship must occur on a level playing field, not to the benefit of a single party. There is no significant political repositioning—the approach is policy-driven and highlighted as a strong priority.

Confirms the technical context for the transposition of the Motor Insurance Act and directives, utilizing specific figures (the 25 kg limit, 24.8 kg, 414 accidents, 42% Bolt, 13.6% Tuul). It also brings forward scientific and financial arguments (the impact on the Health Insurance Fund's costs, the general aim of consumer protection). It refers to examples in Latvia, Finland, Germany, and Paris, along with knowledge of various regulations or restrictions. It highlights the need for a unified rule and for demonstrating market transparency through statistics and the standpoints of institutions.

The speech is usually calmly argumentative, but simultaneously critical and sharply polemical; it utilizes both factual evidence and sweeping observations (e.g., the Paris example), alongside accusatory references to lobbying. This results in a combination of emotional rhetoric and fact-based discussion, including characteristic observations regarding corruption and conflicts of interest. The tone is formal, yet incisive and sometimes manipulatively provocative.

Demonstrates high activity regarding the same topic: multiple addresses were made on the same day (2025-09-17), and the discussion has been covered across several sessions. It references special committee meetings, the necessity of cooperation, and the plan to introduce the draft bill in the autumn. It highlights the readiness to answer questions and shows sustained interest in the bill's progression. It notes the passing of summer and refers to the plan for the approaching adoption during the plenary session.

The core issue revolves around the objection from the coalition’s Economic Affairs Committee, which voted down the draft bill. The committee accuses Bolt of lobbying and political corruption, asserting that the decision was made solely to benefit one specific company. It is stressed that the proposed solution does not favor any single party, and that the bill is essential for all gig workers, ensuring a fair playing field for users. There is intense criticism and pushback directed at both the coalition and the companies involved; the preference is for transparency and equal conditions.

The individual/entity is leading the search for coalition-level cooperation, citing various institutions (the Police, the Health Insurance Fund, the Ministry of Finance, and the Competition Authority) as potential partners necessary for achieving broader approval. They stress the need to establish a single, unified rule, despite the coalition having recently voted against it. This demonstrates an open approach to compromise and collaboration, and a clear effort to create a consistent framework applicable to all providers of rental services.

The focus is primarily on the national level, although it utilizes examples of regional regulation (Tallinn City Council) to emphasize the necessity of local restrictions and safety measures. It compares various European jurisdictions (Latvia, Finland, Germany, Paris), viewing regional practices as enhancing the efficacy of a unified policy. While regional issues are brought forward through these examples, the core focus remains the global national system.

The creation of a unified insurance obligation is viewed as protecting market fairness and competition. It underscores the positive economic impact: reducing the costs for the Health Insurance Fund (Tervisekassa), protecting consumers, and ensuring equal competition that does not favor any single company. It criticizes the granting of exceptions for the benefit of one company, arguing that this damages the integrity of the business environment and market trust. It calls for balanced regulation that promotes entrepreneurship but prevents it from placing any one company at an unfair disadvantage.

It champions public health and consumer protection; it stresses that motor insurance is integral to compensation and reducing healthcare expenditures, and that regulation serves to protect vulnerable parties in the event of accidents. This is particularly impactful in high-risk scenarios, such as damages caused by intoxicated drivers, and highlights the potential for regulating the safety of light mopeds through age verification. It recognizes both social responsibility and the resulting savings in healthcare costs.

The primary objective is the first reading of Bill 631 SE and defining its scope to include all rental scooters. It highlights several sections and amendments, emphasizing the need for further procedural steps. It frames the ideas concerning the bill’s proposed changes, stressing the achievement of the bill’s objectives: consumer protection, health protection, and reducing taxpayer expenses. It acknowledges that the Economic Affairs Committee developed opposing positions but expresses the desire and hope to see the bill adopted during the plenary session.