Session Profile: Riina Solman

It focuses heavily on crises within the social sector, particularly the quality and accountability of nursing homes, as well as economic well-being. The political stance is sharply anti-government, accusing the coalition (the Reform Party) of engaging in a tax spree, breaking promises, and harming lower-income groups. The framework is strongly value-driven and results-oriented, demanding clear accountability from the state and the protection of vulnerable populations. It views the government's tax increases (exceeding one billion euros) as a direct threat to people's ability to cope financially and to the country's economic outlook.

Demonstrates deep expertise in social policy and taxation, utilizing specific data and technical terminology. It refers to the State Audit Office's audits concerning the funding model for nursing homes and highlights the 34% profit growth of the Pihlakodu management company following the reform. It emphasizes the necessity for clear legislation and a defined chain of responsibility, while also referencing the Bank of Estonia’s inflation forecasts and the burden of indirect taxes within the European Union.

The tone is predominantly critical, accusatory, and insistent, particularly regarding the government’s actions and the minister’s responses. It employs strong emotional appeals, referencing a horrifying rape case and the tearful pleas concerning the withdrawal of benefits for large families. The minister is accused of demagoguery and sticking to talking points, with the speaker demanding authenticity and direct answers, all while utilizing confrontational and blunt language.

Appearing at the plenary session, he/she addresses interpellations to the Minister of Social Affairs, focusing specifically on the care home crisis and the impact of tax increases on citizens' livelihoods. He/She references prior communication with the Minister and statements made by colleagues (Rain Epler), demonstrating active engagement in parliamentary debates. He/She made repeated requests for additional time to present his/her arguments thoroughly.

The main opponents are the Reform Party-led government, Prime Ministers Kaja Kallas and Kristen Michal, and the Minister of Social Affairs. Criticism is aimed both at political decisions (the tax hike spree, the failure of the care home reform) and ethical conduct (breaking promises and deceiving the public). It criticizes the government's "silo mentality," where ministries fail to see the connections between tax increases and the social sector. The attacks are intense, and the possibility of compromise is not mentioned.

Thanks the previous speaker (colleague) for a very precise assessment of the situation, which indicates sector-specific cooperation among opposition MPs. Reference is also made to the Minister of Justice's responses on the same topic, to highlight internal government contradictions regarding the issue of gender-based care. There are no indications of cross-party cooperation or a willingness to compromise with the government.

It focuses primarily on national social and economic policy issues, such as tax hikes and the financing of care homes. It mentions the negative impact of cutting support for extracurricular activities for large families, especially on children in rural areas. However, the overall focus remains on national legislation and social security.

They are strongly opposed to tax increases, especially regarding indirect taxes (VAT, excises), arguing that these directly hurt the poorest segments of society and compromise their ability to cope financially. They criticize the government's tax spree, which has increased the tax burden by over a billion euros, and demand a plan to curb rising prices. Furthermore, they believe that the nursing home reform primarily serves the profits of the administrative company owners rather than the interests of society, and call for a complete revision of the funding model.

The central focus is on social security and the protection of vulnerable groups (the elderly, those with dementia, people living in poverty, and large families). It demands ensuring the dignity of the elderly in care homes, including the provision of gender-specific care. It sharply criticizes the cutting of benefits for large families, arguing that this signals state indifference, and highlights the problem of hidden poverty and the stigmatization of people living in poverty.

It demands amendments to the legislation to stipulate a clear chain of accountability for preventing and punishing abuses occurring in care homes, thereby avoiding abstract social responsibility. It requests that the ministry establish a procedure or regulation governing the qualifications and hiring criteria for care home employees. It criticizes the failure to meet the objectives of the care home reform (a spot affordable with the average pension) and demands a comprehensive review of the relevant legislation.