By Months: Signe Riisalo

There is no direct confrontation; criticism is directed more towards outdated methodologies (such as the calculation of the subsistence minimum) rather than at political opponents. The speaker acknowledges and constructively addresses the issues raised by the opposition (e.g., Kalle Grünthal, Tanel Kiik, Helmen Kütt) concerning the poverty line and the fairness of savings, agreeing that several areas require improvement.

The confrontation is directed both at procedural issues (the mixing of the committee rapporteur’s role with political positions) and at the specific draft bill, which is considered the most expensive of the proposed options. The criticism is policy-based, emphasizing that the draft bill fails to target resources toward the most vulnerable groups and represents a one-off, costly increase. A colleague from Eesti 200 is mentioned in connection with the aspect of poverty.

The main confrontation arose with Urmas Reinsalu, who was criticized for making sweeping and irrelevant accusations regarding people with disabilities, with emphasis placed on the fact that Reinsalu was unaware of the substance of the negotiations. It also indirectly acknowledges the Center Party's proposed amendments (e.g., the 21-year age limit) concerning the end-of-life declaration bill, although the committee did not support them. Helmen Kütt’s criticism regarding the bundling of the topics of the bills is also noted, but this is justified by necessity.

The criticism is aimed at colleagues who are accused of failing to thoroughly examine the bill's contents and presenting "half-truths," particularly concerning the alleged deterioration of support for people with special needs and young people. The speaker refutes claims that the unemployment insurance system would become more socialist or that the number of beneficiaries would decrease. Furthermore, the speaker addresses the concerns of trade unions and employers regarding rising costs and funding, assuring them that the budget has been planned and the expenses fully calculated.

Direct confrontation or criticism was not offered, but the speaker reported objections and concerns regarding the lack of conventions addressing the discrimination of men and the potentially misleading signal that an end-of-life declaration sends to society. The speaker also conveyed critical legal questions raised by guests Priit Sibul and Varro Vooglaid. The speaker responded to these concerns using explanations and facts, rather than resorting to attacks.