Session Profile: Lauri Laats

The question of adopting the gender quota bill is of major significance; the faction is highly critical and seeks to reject the bill, emphasizing that companies have already achieved balance and that additional legislation could negatively impact the economy. A previously mentioned positive stance on the bill suggests potential shifts in their position, but currently, the stance is clearly oppositional. The faction is focused on economic and operational sustainability without the imposition of a state-mandated quota.

It uses specific numbers and examples (40%/33% representation in management bodies, paragraphs 23791–23792, fines up to 400,000 euros) and highlights specific companies (Silvano Fashion Group, Infortar, Ekspress Grupp) to demonstrate that balance already exists. It interprets the European Union discussion and the 13-year debate within context, utilizing technical terminology and descriptions of requirements.

The tone is emphatically argumentative and formal, with the discourse style primarily grounded in facts and examples. It utilizes questions and the search for answers (e.g., "Is it possible for us to...?") and stresses the practical implications for the economy. Emotionally moderate, yet firmly critical, and prepared to differentiate between ideas and their economic impact.

The same topic recurs repeatedly (discussions held on April 16th concerning the draft bill; the first reading; the coordination of proposed amendments). This demonstrates active participation in parliamentary debates and the raising of questions within a context contingent upon the presence of ministers; it draws attention to the preparatory reports and proposed revisions.

The main opposition stance is against the bill: the criticism centers on the impact of mandatory gender equality quotas on the economy, the makeup of corporate management, and the consequences of sanctions. Criticism is also strong regarding the car tax, with demands being made for its outright rejection or modification due to its significant impact. The underlying reasons are non-politicized economic and socio-economic consequences.

Shows readiness for cooperation and seeking compromises (e.g., asks whether the Ministry of Finance will approve the proposed amendments), but at the same time is unwilling to change core positions. In various scenarios, he/she emphasizes understanding and cooperation, but sets boundaries where the principles have already been adopted.

The emphasis is placed on the situation in rural areas and the general Estonian economy. Examples are used that point to the difficulties faced by rural areas (the impact of the vehicle tax on families, low-income individuals, and large families), and Tallinn companies are also mentioned as an example of the sources of pressure on economic activity.

An attitude focused on economic interests: this stance undermines the effectiveness of strong state regulation and favors market- and performance-based principles; it emphasizes that companies generate profit and that investments depend on quality services and skills. It seeks adjustments to the tax base or specific tax incentives (e.g., lowering the VAT on foodstuffs) and the cancellation or reduction of the car tax, stressing the impact of inflation and consumer purchasing power. Such a focus demonstrates a strong commitment to the interests of businesses and consumers, coupled with a critical attitude toward new taxing regulations.

The issue of gender equality is framed as political, and the draft legislation itself is controversial. Simultaneously, the socioeconomic impact (on families in rural areas, low- and middle-income individuals, and large families) is emphasized within the context of the proposed car tax and overall tax policy. The primary focus is shifted to the longevity and sense of justice for individuals and groups, stressing that societal damage stems more from unfair taxation than from the necessity of increasing the proportion of women on corporate boards.

The main focus during the Riigikogu proceedings included pre-first reading discussions concerning the gender quota bill and the harmonization of proposed amendments. While readiness has been expressed to introduce amendments to the bill, the primary objective remains voting against it. Regarding the car tax, emphasis is placed on its impact and the necessity of amending or revoking the current legislation; potential coordination and the shaping of the final version within the framework of coalition negotiations are also mentioned.