Agenda Profile: Kalle Laanet

The central political position concerns the formation of a Riigikogu (Parliamentary) investigative committee to examine the circumstances surrounding the cessation of Nordica’s operations. Supporters (Poolamets, Seeder, Laats) emphasize political accountability, the inefficiency of handling the issue in a fragmented manner, and the need to identify legislative gaps to prevent future state failures. Opponents (Laanet, Terras) advocate for ensuring law enforcement agencies can work undisturbed, arguing that a parallel investigation is unnecessary and impractical, given that criminal proceedings are already underway. These positions are strongly driven by questions regarding the performance of the state-owned enterprise and the effectiveness of political oversight.

The speakers demonstrate knowledge of parliamentary procedures, particularly regarding the work of committees and the processes for establishing investigative committees. They are aware of legal procedures, clearly distinguishing the objectives of the Riigikogu’s inquiry into political accountability from the objectives and toolkit of the prosecutor’s office’s criminal proceedings. Mention is made of the results of the special audit concerning Nordica, which addresses the roles and omissions of the management board and the supervisory board.

The style is predominantly formal and procedural, given that it is a committee report presented to the plenary session, focusing on the logical substantiation of arguments (efficiency, comparison of policy toolkits). Proponents of the investigative committee employ compelling rhetoric, stressing the inevitability of political accountability and the national significance of the issue. Laats introduces a critical and accusatory tone, citing the prime minister's incomplete responses or outright obfuscation.

The pattern of activity includes active participation in the work of the Constitutional Committee, where the draft resolution for the investigative committee was discussed and voted on January 27, 2025. The pattern also indicates a protraction of the procedure, as the draft resolution reached the plenary session later than originally planned (on February 12 instead of March 10).

The criticism is aimed at the government's inaction or improper conduct concerning Nordica, particularly the lack of clarity in the Prime Minister's answers, which Laats labeled as obfuscation. Procedural opposition is also directed at the fragmentation of the issue across multiple committees, which is deemed ineffective. Opponents of the investigative committee criticize the proposal as impractical, arguing that it would interfere with the work of law enforcement agencies.

The committee's vote revealed a clear division regarding the rejection of the draft bill (6 in favor, 4 against), but procedural decisions (taking up the agenda, appointing a representative) were reached by consensus. Supporters of the investigative committee (EKRE, Isamaa, Keskerakond) are demonstrating issue-based cooperation in emphasizing political accountability.

No data available

Economic views are centered on the fallout from the failure of the state-owned enterprise (Nordica) and the pressing need to ensure political accountability and improve the legal framework. The objective is to identify loopholes in the current legislation that permitted the inefficient use of public funds and the resulting financial damage.

No data available.

The main legislative focus is strengthening parliamentary oversight through the formation of an investigative committee (Bill 543 OE). The goal, as legislators, is to identify and remedy gaps in existing laws and the division of labor to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future. Supporters of the investigative committee back the initiative, while opponents advocate for rejecting the bill.