Agenda Profile: Pipi-Liis Siemann
First reading of the draft resolution of the Riigikogu "Formation of a Riigikogu investigative committee to examine the circumstances supporting the plan to build offshore wind farms" (586 OE)
2025-05-15
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
Political Position
The political focus is on investigating the circumstances surrounding the plan to establish offshore wind farms, with an emphasis placed on procedural issues. The speaker supports the Constitutional Committee’s position to reject the draft bill (6 votes in favor), questioning the necessity of creating a new investigative committee alongside the existing special committees. This position is clearly procedural and results-oriented, citing the sheer volume of the tasks and the unrealistic deadline.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates competence regarding the procedural rules of the Riigikogu and committee work, providing a detailed overview of the Constitutional Committee's debate and voting results. This expertise is also evident in the communication of the substantive aspects of the draft bill (the scope of the investigative committee's tasks, the shifting of deadlines) and financial information available in the public domain (maximum grant amounts).
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaking style is formal, neutral, and fact-based, typical of a steering committee rapporteur. The emphasis is placed on the logical and procedural transmission of information, highlighting dates, voting results, and arguments presented within the committee. The speaker avoids speculation and emotional appeals, focusing strictly on reporting the proceedings of the committee.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker's role is centered on presenting the outcomes of the work conducted by the Riigikogu committees to the Plenary Assembly, having been designated as the representative of the lead committee. Specifically, this involves reporting on the session of the Constitutional Committee held on April 22 and its procedural decisions, as well as answering questions posed by the Plenary Assembly.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is directed at the initiators of the draft legislation (represented by Helir-Valdor Seeder), whose proposal to establish a new investigative committee was rejected. The criticism is procedural, focusing on why the investigation could not be conducted by existing special committees, and citing the sheer scope of the draft's tasks and its unrealistic deadline.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The collaborative style was evident within the Constitutional Committee, where a discussion and a Q&A session were held with the representative of the bill's initiator. The Committee reached a decision, supported by a clear majority (6 members), to reject the bill, which demonstrates internal consensus regarding the procedural position.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
There is no regional focus, as the speaker is concentrating exclusively on the procedural and national matters of the Riigikogu concerning the establishment of the investigative committee.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There are no direct economic standpoints mentioned. Only the maximum support amounts and upper limits related to the planning of offshore wind farms are referenced, which indicates an awareness of the financial volume of state subsidies and the necessity for oversight.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Not enough data
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus centers on the Riigikogu’s procedural rules and oversight, specifically concerning the handling of the draft resolution (586 OE) for the establishment of a new investigative committee. The speaker, acting as the representative of the leading committee, is both a supporter and the presenter of the motion to reject the draft resolution, stressing the importance of procedural propriety.
4 Speeches Analyzed