Agenda Profile: Madis Timpson

The political position centers on the accurate and neutral reporting of the proceedings concerning the draft act on the ratification of the International Labour Organization Convention (469 SE). The speaker emphasizes procedural correctness and presents the committee's decisions, including the consensus reached on placing the item on the agenda and the voting result for concluding the first reading (5 in favor, 3 opposed). The position is strongly procedure-driven and focuses on the facts.

The speaker demonstrates a deep understanding of the intricacies of parliamentary committee work and procedure, providing a precise overview of the Social Affairs Committee session held on September 16. They are well-versed in the objectives of the draft legislation, the status of existing domestic law, and the responsibilities of the relevant ministries (the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications [MKM]). Their expertise further encompasses knowledge of the channels for recourse (the Labour Inspectorate, the courts) and the accessibility of relevant statistics.

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, neutral, and fact-based, serving the purpose of providing an accurate overview of the commission's work process. The speaker employs a logical structure, precisely referencing the questions posed by colleagues and the responses given by officials, while avoiding emotional or personal appeals. The style is highly detailed, including references to both consensus and dissenting opinions.

The mode of operation involves active participation in the work of the committee and the presentation of its results to the plenary session, thereby acting as a procedural link between the Social Affairs Committee (September 16) and the Riigikogu (September 25). The speaker holds a reporting role, ensuring that the committee’s discussions and decisions are conveyed to the plenary session.

The confrontation is expressed through the concrete correction of facts, refuting Mrs. Helme's references to the discussion of certain topics (e.g., the issue of social gender or case studies) within the commission. The criticism is directed at procedural inaccuracy and the distortion of facts, not the content of the draft bill.

The collaborative style is open, highlighting both consensus (e.g., placing the draft bill on the agenda and appointing the representative of the lead committee) and disagreements (for instance, the 5:3 voting result regarding the conclusion of the first reading). The speaker documents the active contribution of colleagues (Kingo, Grünthal, Everaus) in posing questions.

The focus is directed towards national legislation (compliance with domestic law) and the international level (ratification of the ILO convention). Regional or local focus is absent.

Economic perspectives indirectly relate to the costs of prevention campaigns, for which specific figures could not be provided, as this is still a planned, overarching prevention measure. The role of the labour dispute committee and the Labour Inspectorate in regulating employment relationships is also addressed.

The main social theme is the elimination of violence and harassment in the world of work, emphasizing that domestic legislation is already largely in place and the convention is rather a draft for setting an example. The issues of workplace bullying, discrimination, and social gender were also discussed, although the speaker in the commission denied the latter discussion.

The legislative focus is currently on the proceedings concerning the draft act for the ratification of International Labour Organization Convention No. 190 (469 SE). The speaker, acting as a proponent, advanced the bill through to the conclusion of the first reading, stressing its objective of setting a precedent. A key point raised was the bill's relationship with the Gender Equality Act, a connection which Minister Keldo refuted.