Session Profile: Lauri Laats

As a representative of the Centre Party faction, the main platform expresses the opposition's stance regarding the tax policy of the crisis society: tax increases boost people's purchasing power and livelihood, and he/she emphasizes the necessity of cost savings and reducing bureaucracy. He/She is strongly focused on family and social policy, desiring the targeting of expenditures for frosted/matte benefits and services, and avoids widespread extensive tax cuts only in words. He/She indicates that if the Centre Party returns to government, directions such as free kindergarten places in Tallinn and broader guarantees would be implemented, and speaks of programmatic and value-based priorities in addressing concerns.

The statements clearly highlighted themes of social policy and tax policy, as well as criticism of the energy market; statistics and international references are utilized to substantiate the claims. Specific data points are brought forward: food basket comparisons between 2018 and 2025, showing price increases exceeding 40%, and the impact of the car tax and general tax increases. Reference is made to data from the National Audit Office and European institutions, alongside WHO/Eurostat analyses regarding healthcare financing. Furthermore, issues concerning the energy market, ENMAK, and criticism of green energy investments are also addressed.

The style of delivery is highly impactful and controversial, combining an emotional initial impression with fact-based argumentation. It makes extensive use of rhetorical questions, direct addresses, and concrete examples, and the speech as a whole is often regarded as forceful and critical. Formally, it is skilled, swiftly directed, and interspersed with dramatic asides that emphasize the opposition and the solid foundation of the proposals.

The frequency and pace of the talks are excellently defined: [the subject] participated in several extended segments of the plenary session on June 11 and 12, 2025, repeating comparisons and considering topics requiring attention. Repeated "please vote" calls were utilized, and amendments and alternatives were presented in several places, demonstrating a readiness to participate in discussions regarding procedures and setbacks. Systematic references to previous discussions and proposals indicate persistent and consistent work as a faction.

The main opponent is the governing coalition (Reform Party, Eesti 200) and the Social Democrats; the criticism is partly political and partly related to the implementation of economic measures. The condemnation focuses on cuts to taxes and social benefits, the introduction of a car tax, increased bureaucracy, and errors in budget planning. The rhetoric is strongly critical, yet there is also a visible willingness to present alternatives and, albeit reluctantly, accept existing proposals for inter-institutional discussions.

The stance on co-involvement and the potential for compromise is contradictory, yet simultaneously, a readiness for cooperation is evident: the faction has submitted numerous amendments and has actively sought to contribute to the improvement of the draft legislation. It emphasizes the necessity of considering the viewpoints of various factions, but it establishes the scope and conditions of its own proposals as key criteria. Consequently, it may be hesitant to find compromises if these criteria are not taken into consideration.

There is significant regional attention: specifically, the issues surrounding Tallinn and its education and care costs (for example, waiving kindergarten fees in Tallinn), as well as the continuation of county public transport and access in rural areas. Furthermore, the text mentions emphasizing the necessity of school, kindergarten, and work-related mobility for children living in the countryside, along with the urgency of county-level problems.

The economic approach is conservative, focusing on cost control and resisting tax hikes. This involves opposing tax increases, emphasizing the reduction of bureaucracy, and cutting budgetary spending. They advocate for lowering the VAT on food (a point specifically highlighted by the party/speaker), abolishing kindergarten fees, and criticizing the overall tax structure and the redistribution of subsidies. In energy policy, a critical view is presented regarding the green transition and the ENMAK bill, highlighting market volatility and the imbalance of investments.

Social issues encompass the ongoing criticism of subsistence benefits and the need for improved social services, family welfare, and enhancing the coping capacity of families with children. Furthermore, questions regarding end-of-life declarations (advance directives) and increasing the availability of palliative care are addressed, and religious and ethical aspects that restrict or influence legislation are discussed. Specifically, emphasis is placed on the inequality in access to palliative care and the necessity of increasing state funding.

The primary goals include clarifying the legislation concerning the deadlines and ethical aspects of end-of-life declarations of intent (e.g., time restrictions and age limits), discussion of issues related to the food basket and VAT on food, and topics concerning the exemption or reduction of kindergarten placement fees. Attention is also being paid to the criticism of regulations related to ENMAK and the green transition, the impact of the car tax, the review of the supplementary budget, and the evaluation of measures aimed at reducing bureaucracy. A final decision is planned during the third reading, based on the submitted proposals and amendments.