Agenda Profile: Valdo Randpere

The most salient issue is the fight against fraud, where the speaker expresses strong opposition to the creation of a new national action plan. The stance is strongly value-based, emphasizing individual responsibility and warning against the state adopting an overly "nanny" role. He argues that the national campaign is an "empty document" and "ideological self-promotion," since existing institutions are already addressing the problem. The political objective is to avoid extra bureaucracy that contributes nothing of value to the matter.

The speaker demonstrated expertise regarding the work and procedural procedures of the Legal Committee. Furthermore, they were knowledgeable about the specific activities undertaken by state institutions (the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, the Prosecutor's Office) and the private sector (banks) in combating fraud. They referenced the fraud analysis recently completed by the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs and were aware of international legal nuances, citing, for example, the punishability of cyber fraud in Great Britain. They stressed that the solution lies in cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the private sector.

The style is analytical and skeptical, concentrating on logical arguments and relaying the substance of the discussion held within the committee. To underscore their stance, the speaker employs sharp, vernacular phrases to criticize the state's role as a nanny, such as "fools should indeed be separated from their money" and "the tractor pulls a blanket over everyone." They back up their views with historical examples (the fight against alcohol during the Soviet era) and stress that they are representing the committee's positions, not expressing personal opinions.

The speaker's primary mode of operation is presenting the substance of the Legal Committee's positions and debates on the floor of the Riigikogu. He referred to the committee session held on June 9, which was attended by representatives from the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs and the Prosecutor's Office. He actively participates in answering questions, defending the committee majority's decision to reject the draft bill.

The primary criticism is aimed at the bill's initiators, who are accused of ideological posturing and creating needless bureaucracy. The speaker sharply criticizes the notion that the state should act as a babysitter attempting to regulate every sector. He rejects the idea that the state should compensate victims of fraud for lost money, calling it "a completely backwards concept."

The speaker represents the majority view of the Legal Affairs Committee, demonstrating the committee's ability to cooperate internally, even though some members opposed the rejection. He/She strongly emphasizes that the fight against fraud must be conducted in close collaboration between law enforcement bodies, the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, and the private sector (banks). He/She sees the state's role primarily as organizing awareness campaigns.

The focus is on the national level, addressing how Estonian law enforcement agencies and the banking sector operate against fraud. Attention is also paid to international aspects, as many scams are perpetrated from abroad. For instance, he highlighted the activities of Lithuanian fraudsters in the UK and the specific features of British law regarding online fraud.

The speaker views the private sector, particularly banks, as playing a key and responsible role in preventing fraud, given that they act as the "gatekeepers" of money flow. He is categorically opposed to the idea of establishing a system where the state would compensate fraud victims for their losses, warning that this would create a dangerous "business model." He advocates for improving the efficiency of existing systems rather than introducing new government intervention.

Regarding social issues, the speaker strongly emphasizes individual responsibility and awareness, contrasting this with the state acting as a babysitter. He affirms that the populace is protected thanks to competent law enforcement agencies, but notes that fraud and scams are, unfortunately, an evolving component of progress. He sees the state’s role primarily as conducting information campaigns, especially through new media channels.

The main legislative focus is on avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, acting as the proponent for rejecting Bill 630 OE (a proposal for a national action plan) during its first reading. He/She sees the necessity of addressing legislative amendments to legalize and regulate the use of cameras that have clearly been in use illegally. He/She stresses that state institutions are already tackling fraud within the scope of existing strategies.