Session Profile: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The political focus is heavily centered on interpreting the Riigikogu’s Rules of Procedure and procedural regulations, particularly concerning supplementary questions asked during the information hour. The speaker defends the right of members of parliament to ask supplementary questions that are unrelated to the registered primary question, citing the lack of specific legislation governing this regulation and the Supreme Court’s recognition of extensive parliamentary self-governance rights. This stance is strongly procedural and directly opposes the restrictive interpretation put forth by the presiding officer of the session.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise regarding the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure Act and general parliamentary procedural rules, specifically focusing on the regulation of supplementary questions during the information session. They employ precise legal terminology (such as 'procedural framework,' 'Rules of Procedure Act,' and 'right to self-governance') and cite an authoritative source—the Supreme Court (Riigikohus)—to substantiate their position. They stress that clearly defining procedural matters ultimately saves time in the long run.

The speaker adopts a confrontational, logically reasoned, and resolute style. He sharply criticizes the presiding officer, accusing him of wasting time and making irrelevant and misleading remarks. He uses the metaphor of "talking about the fence and the hole in the fence" to emphasize the chairman's misplaced focus, basing his arguments on legal provisions and established practices.

The speaker is an active participant in the Q&A sessions held during plenary sittings, often interjecting in discussions regarding procedural matters and challenging the presiding officer's decisions. The speaker is prepared to take the floor to clarify and defend the rules of procedure.

The primary conflict is with the session chair, who is being intensely criticized for misinterpreting procedural rules and generating needless discussion. The criticism is aimed at a remark made by the chair, which the speaker deemed "irrelevant" and "misleading." The confrontation is purely procedural, not politically substantive.

The speaker expresses strong support for a colleague (Maastik) who was accused of violating the rules of procedure, actively defending him and justifying his actions. Although he is in conflict with the chair of the session, he is prepared to defend the rights of other members.

No data available.

No data available

No data available.

The legislative focus is directed toward the correct interpretation and implementation of the existing Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act. The speaker emphasizes that if established practices are constantly challenged, the regulation of supplementary questions should be clearly codified in the Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules in the future. He primarily acts as a defender of the existing, flexible practices.