By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Social justice and accessibility are heavily emphasized: it is stressed that fines and state fees increase the economic burden on the elderly, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. The focus is on trained staff, and the liberalization of settlements (e.g., digital applications) must not lead to increased service costs. If infrastructure is acquired as a result of the merger, it must be reasonable and fair.

Social themes focus on the protection of constitutional rights (for people with disabilities and large families), reducing the risk of inequality and poverty, and ensuring equality. The necessity for specific provisions and additional support measures is highlighted. Furthermore, the text addresses the burdens that have arisen for the sports sector, as well as the protection of cultural and identity values via excessive regulatory measures.

Stresses the protection of election secrecy, transparency, and trustworthiness as essential social values; highlights the necessity of ensuring data security and limitations, as well as the risks to the independence of state institutions posed by third-party interference. It also mentions the protection of personal data and the preservation of public trust within the democratic system.

It advocates for the development of youth health and physical activity; its manifestations include criticizing the inherent contradiction between health policy (the sugar tax) and the funding of sports activities. It highlights the importance of social benefit and a lifelong active lifestyle stemming from school sports.

Is committed to improving traffic safety and seeks a reduction in the number of misdemeanors and traffic violations, but emphasizes the need for an impact analysis before resorting to judicial measures.

There is insufficient information regarding social issues (e.g., social rights, education, race, gender, etc.) in the speech; concrete social standpoints are missing. <Insufficient data></Insufficient data>

Highlights social inequality and the need for differentiated treatment for people with disabilities and large families; notes that tax increases disproportionately burden the less well-off and affect teachers and pensioners; emphasizes the need for a balanced social policy and greater attention to the most vulnerable groups.

Insufficient data

The speakers are focusing on social justice: people with disabilities, large families, children's welfare, and funding for education and school meals. There is a critical, conservative stance regarding the rule of law and the fulfillment of social promises, emphasizing that elevated costs and taxes do not simultaneously support children's welfare and health. Furthermore, issues related to teachers' salaries and school working conditions are brought to the fore.

Education is treated as a central social issue, focusing on teachers' working conditions, salary questions, and the legitimacy of strikes as a form of action. Attention is drawn to employees' rights, opposition to unjust treatment and unequal pay levels, and the necessity of improving the social situation within schools.

Emphasis is placed on children's health and improved nutrition, as well as the funding of social programs (school lunches, financing for hobby groups, support for school sports); it fosters a critical attitude toward tax policy as a tool for promoting social welfare; it does not delve deeply into other social topics (for example, abortion, LGBTQ+, immigration).

Strong focus on socially vulnerable groups: people with disabilities, large families, and low-income individuals. It is argued that the imposition of the car tax exacerbates poverty risks, and the need to immediately implement exceptions or support measures is emphasized, rather than mitigating these risks later through protocols for potential support.

It focuses on the well-being of families and children: large families, children with disabilities and special needs, school lunch subsidies, and school sports subsidies. It advocates for the rights of these groups, criticizes unequal treatment, and demands crystal-clear exceptions and guaranteed support mechanisms. It criticizes state prioritization that results in inadequate protection of children's health or social resources when tax hikes affect the most vulnerable.