Session Profile: Evelin Poolamets
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
2024-12-03
Political Position
The speaker adopts a very strong and values-based stance on protecting child safety, opposing a draft bill that would, under certain conditions, allow the lifting of restrictions on working with children for individuals whose criminal records have been expunged. They prioritize the welfare and safety of children above the simplification of bureaucracy, thereby criticizing the government's priorities. Additionally, the speaker demonstrates an interest in economic policy, demanding a clear assessment from the minister regarding the economic benefit of a second draft bill.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the field of social insurance and child protection legislation, referencing the mechanisms of the Social Insurance Board (SKA) and the process of archiving criminal data. He/She supports his/her positions with specific data, mentioning hundreds of cases of child sexual abuse and providing an example from the statistics of the Eastern Prefecture as of November 2024.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker's rhetorical style is serious, pressing, and emotionally charged, emphasizing moral obligation and the vulnerability of children. They employ a logical structure (problem introduction, statistical evidence, ethical questions), but primarily appeal to the listeners' conscience, using phrases such as "Every child is worth their weight in gold." During the Q&A session, they are direct and insistent, demanding a clear answer from the minister.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker took an active role in the plenary session on December 3, 2024, delivering a lengthy and substantive address opposing the social affairs bill, and repeatedly pressing the minister with insistent questions concerning the assessment of the economic draft legislation.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The criticism is directed at the government and the drafters of the bill, faulting them for misplacing priorities (simplifying bureaucracy at the expense of children’s safety). Regarding the second bill, he criticizes the minister for avoiding a direct economic assessment, suggesting the bill was poorly prepared ("cobbled together").
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Information is scarce. The speaker adopts an oppositional stance and demands better solutions, but there is no indication of collaboration with colleagues or a willingness to compromise.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The speaker's focus is on national legislation and its impact on child safety across Estonia as a whole. Although they use data from the East Prefecture, this is done to illustrate the scope of the problem at the national level, rather than to emphasize a specific regional issue.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The speaker is concerned with the quality of economically sound legislation, asking the minister whether the second bill currently under discussion is "beneficial for Estonia" and "good for our economy." He points to the necessity of involving "economic professionals" in the drafting of the legislation. Specific stances on taxes or expenditures are not provided.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker's primary focus is the social sector, where they advocate for strengthening protective mechanisms against the sexual abuse of children. They particularly stress the vulnerability of children in children's homes and care facilities, and are concerned about the critical state of child welfare in Estonia, also noting the high suicide rate among young people.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The speaker is an active opponent of the social sector bill concerning the lifting of restrictions on working with children, demanding its rejection and the identification of superior solutions. He/She is a legislative critic who focuses on highlighting the deficiencies of existing draft laws and analyzing their ethical implications.
3 Speeches Analyzed