By Plenary Sessions: Katrin Kuusemäe

Strong opposition is directed at Isamaa, the Centre Party, and the Social Democrats, who are accused of creating an unfair tax system. The criticism is political, focusing on their previous taxation policies and arguments referring to current inflation threats, which are considered baseless.

The speaker himself does not express opposition, but rather conveys the conservative opposition of the Government of the Republic to the draft bills. The government's criticism was policy-based, focusing on economic considerations and the initiators' inability to sufficiently analyze the impacts. The government emphasized that scoping the impacts is the primary task of those developing the amendments.

He did not express direct opposition to the initiators of the bill (the Centre Party faction), but he conveyed the position of the committee majority, which was to reject the draft legislation. He defended the trust between the government and the people, arguing that the situation was not so dire that the public would distrust the government, thereby opposing the necessity of holding a referendum at the present moment.

The direct opposition targets the draft resolution, initiated by the faction of the Estonian Conservative People's Party (EKRE), regarding the establishment of an investigative committee. This opposition is procedural and institutional, stressing that the Agency of Medicines is already investigating the safety of pharmaceuticals, making a new committee unnecessary. It specifically names the two committee members who opposed the rejection of the draft resolution (Evelin Poolamets and Jaak Valge).

The objection is aimed at the narrow and non-comprehensive approach of the draft legislation initiated by the EKRE faction, stressing that the amendments should be comprehensive and cover all laws where representation expenses are stipulated. The criticism is primarily procedural and concerns the substance of the policy, not personal, and reflects the Government’s positions. The committee proposed rejecting the bill.

Too little data

Not enough data

Insufficient data