By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Laanet

The speaker addresses colleagues, urging them to tackle the shortcomings in legal policy, and supports the Chancellor of Justice's proposal to lift parliamentary immunity. He expresses the desire to move forward with the process as efficiently and quickly as possible.

The style of cooperation is open and receptive to expert input, citing the Data Protection Inspectorate's proposal as the basis for Amendment Proposal No. 3. Cooperation is also maintained with other acts to ensure terminological and substantive consistency (e.g., amendments to the Aliens Act).

Cooperation is evident at the committee level, where procedural decisions (placing the draft bill on the agenda, concluding the reading) were made by consensus. A close dialogue took place between ministry representatives (Läänemets, Mägi) and members of the Riigikogu to find solutions to practical problems (e.g., discontinuing the issuance of identity cards).

Cooperation is demonstrated by the cross-party support for the idea of forming an investigative committee, where the bill presented by EKRE is supported by both Helir-Valdor Seeder and Lauri Laats. Although the substantive decision to reject the bill was divided (6 in favor, 4 against), the procedural decisions (placing it on the agenda, appointing a representative) were made by consensus. Seeder emphasizes the need to concentrate the topic within a single committee in order to improve the parliament’s workflow.

The collaborative approach is consensual, given that the speaker highlighted the opposition's approval of the draft bill, demonstrating a willingness for broad support on matters of national defense and security. The objective is to push forward decisively toward a shared goal.

The style of cooperation is open, involving experts from the Ministry of Justice to communicate the government's position and referencing a study commissioned by the Legal and Analysis Department of the Chancellery of the Riigikogu. A discussion took place within the committee among members of various factions (Seeder, Terras, Suslov).

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 style of cooperation is open to institutional dialogue, seeking advice from the President of the Bank of Estonia on how the state could implement additional funding for national defense. This indicates a readiness to seek cross-sectoral solutions.

Cooperation is considered the key factor in implementing reforms, and this must occur between the courts, the Ministry of Justice, and the Riigikogu (Parliament). The speaker supports granting the judicial system greater autonomy in organizing its operations, which will also increase its accountability to society. It is emphasized that all changes can primarily be implemented through cooperation to ensure that momentum is maintained.

Highly cooperative, emphasizing the consensus decisions reached within the Constitutional Committee regarding both the support for the Chancellor of Justice’s proposal and the appointment of a representative. This demonstrates a readiness for cross-factional cooperation on procedural issues.