By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The most important topics are the financial well-being of pensioners and the protection of social services, which, according to the author, coalition policies seriously threaten (through tax arrangements, rising prices, and the abandonment of support). This is presented as a direct, strong resistance and a rejection of deviations (an emotional, values-based presentation). It is clear that the position is primarily oppositional and policy-driven, with a strong focus on protecting the vulnerable rather than seeking compromise with the coalition.

Important topics are the rise in crime and the impact of the socio-economic situation, as well as tax policy; the position is strongly oppositional and accuses the government and the Reform Party of their economic policy. It is claimed that their policies have worsened people's ability to cope and that the strength of the country essentially depends on the living conditions of its citizens. A performative demand is presented that the state should focus more on the well-being of people than previous priorities.

The main position is criticism of the existing consultation practices and emphasizes the importance of early engagement with stakeholder groups and adherence to good legislative drafting principles. He notes that for 23 draft laws, less than five working days were left for consultation and submission of opinions, which is deserving of criticism. He is critical of the idea that a development plan shouldn’t even be drawn up; he calls for discussions with stakeholders and seeks a better restructuring. The overall position is reform-critical and aims to increase transparency and engagement.

The Centre Party faction represents a strong opposition to the coalition's budgetary policy, emphasizing transparency, performance-based budgeting, and a clear connection of state money to performance indicators. They have been sharply critical of tax increases and the car tax, arguing that these exacerbate inequality and worsen the ability of families to cope. Parliamentary oversight and the parliament's influence in budget preparation are considered essential, and the possibility for ministers to change spending plans at any time is seen as a safeguard against parliamentary censorship. At the same time, they are presenting their own bills to amend the State Budget Act in order to restore better explanation and transparency standards for expenditures and revenues.

The main profile focuses on the interplay of two key areas: supporting the price regulation bill and enhancing the transparency and oversight of the Rail Baltic project. The representative stresses the importance of the bill and intends to compare the measures proposed by Latvia in order to find a superior solution. Simultaneously, there is an emphasis on the necessity of risk management, clear funding sources, and budgetary transparency within the context of Rail Baltic. The position is moderately critical regarding the financing of large infrastructure projects and seeks reasonable compromises, but it does not completely reject the bill; rather, it underscores the need for responsible funding.

A member of the Center Party has adopted a strongly oppositional tone regarding the budget process, highlighting the lack of transparency, the loss of control by ministries, and stressing the necessity of amending the State Budget Act. He/She is clearly in favor of budget reform, emphasizing the inclusion of a cost-based/understandable approach and clear performance indicators in the explanatory memorandums.

The core argument is that transparency is lacking in the management of RMK and the Ministry of Climate, and secret contracts have created a potential for damage to the state. He/She is a strong critic, condemning decisions made within a narrow circle and the absence of proper control. He/She recommends an independent audit and stricter supervision to ensure the careful handling of state assets. The position is heavily focused on control and accountability.

The speaker adopts a supervisory role, emphasizing that domestic legislation requires remedial action. They are critical of the quality of the government's current impact assessments but offer this criticism constructively, requesting a plan for addressing these issues. The focus is on foundational structures and high-quality legislative work, rather than public confrontation.

He/She is critical of cannabis legalization and emphasizes highlighting the dangers, relying on international data and prioritizing the protection of youth. He/She also touches upon the potential link between the growth of organized crime and the legalization of drugs. Increasing motorsport safety is also important, but he/she recognizes the undesirable implications and risks associated with external requirements imposed for this purpose. Therefore, his/her overall position favors maintaining regulation and information-based deliberation, coupled with sharp criticism regarding cannabis legalization.