Agenda Profile: Eero Merilind
First Reading of the Draft Resolution of the Riigikogu "Making a Proposal to the Government of the Republic" (713 OE)
2025-11-03
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
Political Position
The political position focuses on the neutral conveyance of the Social Affairs Committee's discussions and procedural decisions regarding the draft bill to raise the subsistence level. He/She presents both the Social Democratic Party's proposal (€300) and the government's decision (€220), while simultaneously emphasizing the associated budgetary costs. His/Her approach is fact-based and procedural, concentrating on the feasibility of implementing the policy.
7 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the field of social policy and budget calculations, presenting precise data on subsistence level thresholds and the resulting costs incurred by the state budget (4 million versus 20 million euros). They reference the development of a new minimum subsistence methodology by CentAR, scheduled for the spring of 2026. Furthermore, they are capable of accurately distinguishing between the overall cost to the state budget and the calculations regarding the impact of VAT.
7 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and informative, which is appropriate for the role of the steering committee representative. He employs a fact-based approach, presenting specific figures and referencing the positions held by commission members (Kütt, Riisalo, Kiik). The tone remains calm and focuses on procedural clarity, deliberately avoiding emotional appeals.
7 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is actively involved in the Riigikogu legislative process, serving as the representative appointed by the Social Affairs Committee for the presentation of Draft Act 713 OE. He provides an overview of the committee’s discussion held on October 21st and proposes that the draft act be included on the agenda and that the final vote be held on November 3rd. He actively participates in answering questions, clarifying the details discussed within the committee.
7 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The speaker maintains the position of a neutral rapporteur, conveying various standpoints, including the government's (Signe Riisalo) concern regarding the state budget's limited capacity. Direct criticism toward opponents is not presented; instead, the focus is on the factual presentation of policy and budgetary constraints. He/She directs the question about funding sources back to Helmen Kütt's answers.
7 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation is open and procedural, reflecting the input of various factions in the committee's work. He expresses hope that the budget amendment proposal will find support during next week's state budget debate, indicating a willingness to find solutions with other political parties.
7 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is entirely on national social policy, the level of the subsistence minimum, and state budget management. Regional or local focus is absent from the speeches.
7 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic viewpoints emphasize the budgetary impact of socio-political decisions, highlighting the cost calculations associated with raising the subsistence level (estimated at 20 million euros for a raise to 300 euros). He/She notes the government's position regarding limited budgetary possibilities, which points to the importance of fiscal discipline.
7 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social issue is raising the subsistence level to alleviate poverty, especially among single parents and pensioners who struggle with heating bills. He/She notes that approximately 29% of the households receiving subsistence benefits are Ukrainian refugees.
7 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently on the proceedings of Riigikogu Draft Resolution 713 OE, which concerns raising the subsistence level. He/She is the representative of the leading committee, proposing that the draft be included in the plenary session agenda and brought to a final vote. He/She emphasizes that a minimum of 51 affirmative votes is required for the decision to be adopted.
7 Speeches Analyzed