Agenda Profile: Priit Sibul
Second Reading of the Bill on Amendments to the Emergency Situation Act and Related Amendments to Other Acts (426 SE)
2024-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to draft law 426 SE, arguing that it increases bureaucracy and administrative burden by expanding the list of vital services from 14 to 21 and raising the number of regulated companies to 422. The criticism targets the discrepancy between the government's rhetoric (reducing bureaucracy) and its actual actions, emphasizing a failed inclusion process. This stance is primarily policy- and results-based, calling into question the practical expediency of implementing the law.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the areas of directive transposition, administrative burden, and crisis management, citing specific figures regarding the growth in the number of regulated services and businesses. Special emphasis is placed on knowledge of the regulatory frameworks governing healthcare (general practitioners, pharmacists) and banking (the European Central Bank). Technical terminology, such as the CER Directive and ETO (Essential Service Operator), is also employed.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical and analytical, focusing on both procedural and substantive errors. Logical arguments are employed, citing specific costs (15 million euros) and the number of entities being regulated, and disappointment is expressed regarding the contradiction between the government's actions and its rhetoric. Quoting is used (official: "Easier to defend in Brussels") to underscore the criticism.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The patterns of activity demonstrate active participation in Riigikogu committee meetings and engagement with stakeholders, particularly following committee discussions where feedback was received concerning insufficient involvement. The speaker references previous discussions dating back to the start of the draft bill and the questions posed to the rapporteur.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the coalition and the Government Office, who are criticized for increasing bureaucracy and expanding the directive while simultaneously ignoring the concerns of stakeholders (family doctors, ITL, pharmacists). The criticism is strongly procedural and political, accusing the government of acting contrary to its promise to reduce bureaucracy. The Isamaa faction refuses to support the bill.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation is confrontational towards the government and critical regarding the lack of proper engagement. Collaboration with colleagues (likely from the opposition) is referenced when making proposals (e.g., the inclusion of the National Broadcasting Corporation), although the manner in which these proposals are handled is also under criticism.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is primarily national (implementation of Estonian laws) and international (transposition of the EU directive and criticism of Brussels' priorities). The local focus involves concern regarding the additional cost and administrative burden placed on local governments, which will have to start dealing with new obligations.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The economic perspective is fiercely anti-bureaucratic, emphasizing that the draft bill increases the administrative burden for 422 companies and generates significant costs (€15 million over six years). It supports cost savings and deregulation, criticizing the government for undermining these very objectives.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Focus on social issues, emphasizing the crisis preparedness of vital services, especially primary healthcare (family doctors, pharmacists), and the need to include them when drafting legislation. The role of media services in a crisis situation is also addressed (the example of ERR versus Telegram in Ukraine).
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on opposing Bill 426 SE, criticizing its expansion beyond the original scope of the directive and the imposition of additional obligations on service providers. The aim is to prevent an increase in administrative burden and costs, and to demand better crisis preparedness that goes beyond merely writing plans.
4 Speeches Analyzed