By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The speaker is focused on challenging existing legislation and international treaties. He/She urges a vote against the energy bill and raises critical questions regarding the ratification of the convention that alters the definitions of gender-based harassment.

The legislative focus is directed towards amendments to the Value Added Tax Act, particularly concerning the VAT exemption for real estate and the rules governing input VAT deduction, as well as draft legislation related to the flexibility of pension inheritance. The speaker acts as a critical scrutinizer of the content and procedural handling of these bills, demanding justifications and statistical data.

The legislative focus is currently centered on the opposition to the bill concerning the priority development of renewable energy, which is under discussion during its second reading. The speaker is acting as a strong opponent of the draft law, demanding accountability (specifically, ensuring the decommissioning of facilities) and proposing that the reading be suspended.

The legislative focus is procedural, seeking clarification on the application of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act when the committee rapporteur expresses a personal viewpoint. The substantive focus is on opposing the government's tax legislation, acting as a strong opponent of these initiatives.

The focus is on implementing national defense and economic policy, particularly regarding public procurements and contractual obligations that ensure industrial readiness. Specific legislative bills are not mentioned.

The legislative focus is on the criticism of the law's implementation concerning the removal of red symbolism. The speaker is against the extended interpretation of the law, which led to the confiscation of a monument that was erected for Estonian servicemen, not for the removal of red symbolism.

The legislative focus is on an interpellation concerning restrictions imposed on private owners, the payment of compensation, and bringing the issue of land exchange back to the agenda. Clarity is required regarding the percentage of protected areas to be enshrined in law (30% vs 33%) and the realistic funding mechanisms for this.