By Agendas: Tõnis Mölder

The political position is strongly focused on increasing the efficiency of the planning process and reducing bureaucracy, especially regarding the deadlines for processing detailed development plans. It emphasizes the necessity of shortening processing times to lower costs for businesses, while still balancing this with citizens' right to timely public consultation. The position is clearly policy- and procedure-driven, aiming to resolve systemic issues.

The political focus is directed towards scrutinizing the sources and sustainability of state budget revenues. Specifically, questions are being raised regarding the justification of the forecasts for the clear-cutting fee and the dividends from state-owned enterprises (RMK). The approach is primarily policy- and results-based, demanding detailed financial analysis and justifications for the budget revenues from the minister.

The most important issue is the deliberation of the draft amendment to the Competition Act and its impact on fundamental rights. The political focus is directed towards a detailed legal analysis of the draft legislation, particularly the question of whether natural and legal persons are treated equally under the law. The stance is rather policy- and procedure-centric, emphasizing the necessity of protecting against infringements of rights.

The political focus is on reducing the administrative burden created for businesses by the sustainability reporting obligation versus achieving the goals of the Green Deal. The speaker himself takes a neutral, procedural position, focusing on summarizing the opposing viewpoints presented in the commission. He emphasizes that the only reason for abandoning the obligation is reducing the administrative burden on businesses. The political framework is strongly policy- and procedure-centric, not value-based.

The political focus is on the Draft Act on Amendments to the Competition Act (Bill 609 SE). The speaker addresses the question of the draft’s legal appropriateness, citing previous critical assessments made by legal scholars. However, they simultaneously defend the new draft’s approach, emphasizing that it is supported by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Estonian Employers’ Confederation. The position taken is policy-driven, centering on legal consistency and stakeholder approval.

The political position focuses on clarifying the historical background of the Tallinn Hospital project. The emphasis is on factual accuracy and correcting the political narrative, pointing out that the idea actually originated in 2000, not 2015. This stance is based primarily on policy and facts, rather than on values or outcomes.

The political stance favors the reduction of bureaucracy, viewing it as an inherently worthwhile goal. However, the speaker expresses moderate skepticism regarding the practical impact of this specific draft bill, suggesting it might be mere window dressing that fails to solve existing problems. When formulating the position, the emphasis is placed on the law's actual workability and its effect on businesses.

The political focus is currently centered on the decline of the Green Deal objectives and an analysis of the associated failures. The speaker expresses concern that global and European Union priorities have shifted away from climate goals, calling into question both the policy implementation (the sense of overreach or over-regulation) and the communication strategy. The stance taken is critical and results-oriented, highlighting a problem that is no longer being addressed on a global scale.

The political position is one of strong support for the draft bill amending the constitution (527 SE), which is described as "extremely good and favorable" and which the speaker himself initiated. The primary objective is to restrict voting rights for certain individuals, but simultaneously, the need to find a reasonable compromise with another similar bill is emphasized. The stance is policy- and value-based, stressing national benefit over political points.

The political focus is heavily centered on the bill to amend the constitution (536 SE), which concerns restricting the voting rights of Russian and Belarusian citizens in local elections. The speaker adopts a critically scrutinizing stance, suspecting legal shortcomings in the implementation of the bill and the limited scope of the political ambition. The goal is to ensure that the desired outcome materializes and the restriction of voting rights is not derailed ahead of the 2025 elections.

The political position heavily focuses on issues of citizenship and security, demanding the immediate revocation of voting rights for citizens of the Russian Federation and holders of the grey passport in local elections. Furthermore, attention is focused on the fate of the draft Competition Law, regarding which the previous government is criticized for its inability to reach an agreement. These viewpoints are policy- and value-based, underscoring the necessity for swift decision-making.

The political stance is reflected in procedural precision and the adjustment of voting results. During the specific vote concerning the draft amendment to the Traffic Act and the Police and Border Guard Act, the speaker adopted a neutral position. The focus is rather on procedural correctness than on substantive policy.

The political position is strongly focused on monitoring the transparency of the activities and communication of state agencies. The main emphasis is placed on the procedure for the public release of the Competition Authority's analysis of the pharmacy reform, criticizing the use of "teasers" before the final document is made available. The stance is critical regarding the biased preliminary communication and the potential conflict of interest due to the involvement of former officials.

The political focus centers on the absence and prolonged delay of strategic development plans concerning the environmental sector and forestry. The speaker is critical of the government's inaction, demanding clarity regarding the drafting phase of these documents and the involvement of parliament. This stance is strongly policy- and procedure-oriented, emphasizing the fulfillment of statutory obligations.

The political focus centers on the rampant growth of the e-cigarette black market and the state's inability to control it, especially concerning the protection of minors. The political stance involves forceful criticism directed at the inaction within the administrative area of the Ministry of the Interior, emphasizing the necessity of reviewing excise policy to channel consumption toward the legal market. The approach is outcome-based, evaluating regulations according to their capacity to eliminate the black market and generate tax revenue.

The political focus is on national energy security and analyzing the deployment of nuclear energy. The speaker strongly urges the need to make decisions based on the state's interests, rather than submitting to the interests of a single private company. This position is policy- and results-based, focusing on the time-critical gap in energy production (15–20 years).