Session Profile: Kalle Laanet

The main position is against the formation of the Rail Baltic investigative committee, justifying this by the need to avoid duplicating the work of existing oversight bodies (the National Audit Office, the Select Committee on State Budget Control). The position is strongly procedural and results-oriented, emphasizing that an investigative committee is not a "silver bullet" for solving problems. However, the speaker acknowledges the immense importance of the Rail Baltic project and the need for clarity regarding its financing and expediency. The political framework is geared towards state efficiency and accountability.

The speaker demonstrates a deep understanding of the Riigikogu's operational structure, the procedures of the Constitutional Committee, and existing oversight mechanisms, citing relevant laws and past investigative committees. They utilize specific data, including the committee's voting results, participant lists, the Rail Baltic budget (3.2 billion euros), and the financial deficits faced by the Baltic states. Moreover, the speaker is cognizant of Rail Baltic's national defense implications and its logistical significance within the framework of allied relations.

The style is formal, procedural, and detailed, focusing on accurately reporting the proceedings of the Constitutional Committee and responding to questions. The tone is analytical and cautious, repeatedly stressing that answers must be strictly confined within the scope of the committee's discussion, consistent with the role of the rapporteur. The rhetoric relies on logic and procedural arguments, avoiding emotional appeals, but includes veiled references to the opposition's motives.

The pattern of activity is linked to the role of rapporteur for the Constitutional Committee at the plenary session, where a detailed overview of the committee's debate and procedural decisions, which took place on October 21, 2024, is presented. The speaker also refers to previous participation in the work of at least two investigative committees, one of which he or she chaired.

The speaker is criticizing the opposition (the proponents of the draft bill) for their desire to establish an investigative commission, viewing it as a duplication of existing work. They suggest the real aim might be simply to gain "more screen time" or to acquire information that legal channels do not actually allow. The criticism targets procedural inefficiency and the lack of added value, with the speaker recommending that if the opposition has genuine concerns, they should go directly to law enforcement.

The speaker emphasizes the need for cooperation and refers to previous consensual collaboration within the Select Committee on State Budget Control when establishing clarity regarding Rail Baltic, noting that there were no dividing lines between the coalition and the opposition in that instance. At the same time, the speaker reports a clear split in the Constitutional Committee (5 against, 3 for) on the issue of forming an investigative committee, which demonstrates a lack of willingness to compromise in this specific procedural decision.

The focus is both international and national, centering on the Rail Baltic project and its impact on the Estonian state and economy. The speaker stresses Estonia’s significant dependence on the actions taken by Latvia and Lithuania, emphasizing the necessity for close inter-state cooperation, especially given the larger financial deficits faced by the neighboring countries. He/She also notes that public discussion of the Rail Baltic topic in Lithuania is worryingly scarce.

The economic perspectives focus on fiscal responsibility and clarity in the financing of major projects, emphasizing the need to know the project's actual cost (€3.2 billion) and the projected sources of funding. The speaker stresses the necessity of preventing the misuse of taxpayer money and resolving the issue of the budget deficit.

Insufficient data.

The legislative focus is centered on procedures for ensuring oversight and accountability, while opposing a specific draft bill (the formation of an investigative committee). The speaker prefers using existing special committees and the interpellation format to scrutinize Rail Baltic, thereby avoiding duplication. He supports the consensus proposal to add the bill to the plenary session agenda.