Session Profile: Priit Sibul

The political position is strongly opposed to the draft bill for transposing the directive currently being processed by the government (the coalition), primarily because it significantly increases bureaucracy and the administrative burden. The criticism centers on the contradiction between the promises made (reducing bureaucracy) and the reality (the number of services increasing from 14 to 21). The speaker believes the draft bill was formulated for the convenience of officials ("easier to defend in Brussels"), rather than based on Estonia's actual implementation needs. Consequently, the faction (Isamaa) decided not to support the bill.

The speaker demonstrates expertise in crisis management, the provision of essential services, and the transposition of European Union directives. They cite specific data (an increase of 315 companies, a cost of 15 million euros) and reference specific sectoral regulations (banking, the inclusion of general practitioners/family doctors, and issues related to ITL). Furthermore, they possess a strong understanding of the legislative process and the various stages of stakeholder engagement.

The rhetorical style is critical, skeptical, and procedure-focused, highlighting the contradiction between the government's actions and its rhetoric (specifically, reducing bureaucracy). The speaker employs logical arguments and cites specific costs and figures to substantiate their claims regarding the increase in administrative burden. The tone is formal and detail-oriented, expressing disappointment regarding the quality of engagement.

The mode of operation involves active participation in plenary debates, asking questions and delivering the closing statement during the bill's proceedings. The speaker referenced earlier committee discussions and communication with stakeholders (e.g., ITL, the association of health centers) who had approached them following a lack of inclusion.

The main confrontation is aimed at the coalition and the Government Office, who are being criticized for the bureaucracy and insufficient involvement that arose during the transposition of the directive. The criticism is both procedural and substantive, accusing officials of formulating a draft bill that is easier to defend in Brussels than it is to implement in Estonia. The opposition is intense and culminates in the rejection of the draft bill.

The style of cooperation is confrontational towards the government, but the speaker refers to colleagues' proposals within the committee (e.g., the inclusion of the national broadcaster), which demonstrates an openness to cross-party lawmaking. He stresses, however, the inadequacy and inefficiency of the engagement process carried out by the government with interest groups (such as representatives of general practitioners and the banking sector).

The focus is at the national level (amending Estonian laws and the crisis management system) and at the international level (EU directives, Brussels defense/security policy, the European Central Bank). Specific regional or local problems are absent, apart from a reference to the supplementary costs incurred by local municipalities.

Economic perspectives are aimed at reducing bureaucracy and achieving cost savings, contrasting with the 15 million euro cost and administrative burden imposed on 422 companies by the accompanying draft legislation. It supports easing the regulatory load on the private sector, noting that rules established by the European Central Bank already exist within the banking sector.

The focus regarding social issues centers on regulating the roles and obligations of healthcare services (family doctors, pharmacists) and media services (national broadcasting) during a crisis. The approach is rather operational and legislative, emphasizing the insufficient involvement of these sectors when establishing new obligations.

The legislative focus is on opposing the draft bill for the transposition of the CER Directive (Amendments to the Emergency Act) because it expands the list of critical services. The speaker stresses the need to avoid expanding the scope of the directive (adding extra elements/gold-plating) and criticizes the Government Office for the review that was never carried out. He/She is a strong opponent of the bill.