Session Profile: Andres Metsoja
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
2024-03-20
Political Position
The political position is aimed at ensuring clarity and practical applicability in legislation. The speaker supports the bill's objective, which is based on input from the Chancellor of Justice, but expresses concern regarding the provision's ambiguity and the "endless paradigm question" surrounding the coordination phase between the local government and the Health Board. The focus is policy and procedure-centric, underscoring the need for clarity in the work of officials during the planning phase.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in administrative law and planning procedures, utilizing technical terminology such as "target value" and "coordination." The focus is on noise regulations and delineating the authority of local governments and the Health Board when granting exceptions. The expert analysis is aimed at identifying practical difficulties in implementing regulatory mechanisms.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is twofold: initially, it is analytical and poses logical questions, highlighting the confusion generated by the provisions. Subsequently, the speaker employs an anecdotal example (a rooster in the Pärnu Nature House) and humor to illustrate the potential absurdity of the law's limits and test its applicability in real life, concluding with a smile and a question.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
Not enough data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The criticism is directed at the ambiguity of the draft provisions and the complexity of administrative procedures, especially regarding the coordination of exceptions with the Health Board. There is no direct opposition to specific political groups or individuals; the focus is on procedural shortcomings.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker constructively refers to the input provided by the Chancellor of Justice, which demonstrates an openness to expert opinions. The tone is inquisitive and clarity-seeking, suggesting a genuine desire to improve the content of the draft bill and resolve administrative ambiguities.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The speaker provides an example from Pärnu, referencing the saga of the rooster at the Pärnu Nature House, to illustrate the effect of noise regulation at the local level. This demonstrates awareness of specific regional incidents and the role of local authorities in resolving quality of life issues.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The social issues are addressed narrowly within the context of noise regulation and the quality of the living environment, specifically focusing on whether natural sounds can constitute noise in urban spaces. There is a lack of a broader socio-political focus; instead, the discussion is limited to the regulation's impact on daily life.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the draft bill regulating noise, with the speaker serving as a critical voice. He seeks to resolve the ambiguities in the procedures for local government exceptions and the required coordination with the Health Board, ensuring the clarity and practical applicability of the resulting legislation.
2 Speeches Analyzed