Agenda Profile: Priit Sibul
Continuation of the second reading of the draft law amending the Child Protection Act and other laws (427 SE)
2024-12-03
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The political position focuses on strengthening child protection, supporting proposals that would expand restrictions on working with children for individuals who have committed very serious crimes (Penal Code §§ 172, 173, 174). The stance is clearly aimed at ensuring the safety of children and is policy-based rather than value-based. The speaker supports stricter restrictions even after the criminal record data has been expunged from the register.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker exhibits a deep understanding of specific articles within the Child Protection Act and the Penal Code, accurately citing both the effective dates of the legislation (October 1, 2022) and the content of the proposed amendments. They are highly familiar with the official justifications and counterarguments put forth by the relevant ministries (the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Justice). This specialized knowledge also covers the connection between specific offenses (the recruitment, selling, and buying of children) and the resulting limitations on employment opportunities.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and focused on accuracy, repeatedly employing questions to correctly understand and confirm the answers provided by ministry officials. The presentation style is calm and analytical, concentrating on facts and the specific provisions of the law. Emotional appeals are not used, even though the subject matter is extremely serious.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is actively participating in the Riigikogu session during the second reading of the draft bill, posing precise questions to the committee rapporteur and concerning the ministry's official positions. This pattern of engagement shows a strong commitment to detailed legislative processes and refining the content of the bill.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The confrontation is directed at the justifications provided by ministry officials who did not deem it necessary to review the provisions of the Child Protection Act, citing the fact that they have only been in force for two years. The speaker challenges this procedural objection, emphasizing simultaneously that the ministry did not substantively oppose the proposals. The criticism is aimed at political inertia, not at individuals.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker supports amendments No. 1 and 2, submitted by their colleague (Riina Solman), signaling a willingness to back specific child protection initiatives. Communication with the rapporteur is professional and centered on gaining clarity regarding the ministry’s official positions.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
In the social sector, the speaker’s priority is child safety, demanding stricter and more permanent restrictions for individuals who have committed crimes against children. The objective is to ensure that, in cases involving crimes related to the exploitation or sale of children, the restriction on working with children does not lapse when criminal record data is expunged.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the second reading of the draft Act amending the Child Protection Act and other legislation (Bill 427 SE). The speaker will concentrate on amendments No. 1 and 2, which aim to supplement the list of offenses for which the restriction on working with children would remain in force even after the criminal record data has been expunged.
2 Speeches Analyzed