By Agendas: Vilja Toomast

There is no criticism or opposition; rather, the lack of opposition is emphasized, as not a single amendment was submitted to the draft bill. Procedural decisions were adopted by the committee through consensus, indicating the absence of confrontation.

There is not enough data.

The speaker opposes the bill initiated by Kalle Grünthal, whose rejection the commission had unanimously recommended, thereby supporting the retention of the current legal norm. The criticism leveled by the bill's initiator against the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) for its incompetent and unlawful response is indirectly highlighted.

The main confrontation was with the Center Party faction, which submitted four amendments opposing the doubling of fine rates for parking violations, fare evasion, and driving a vehicle that fails technical requirements. The criticism was policy- and substance-based, but the committee rejected all the Center Party’s proposals by a clear majority. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry was also against raising the fine unit.

The speaker clearly describes the resistance of the opposition (Kingo, Kovalenko-Kõlvart, Vooglaid), which focused on procedural shortcomings (the absence of impact analyses) and political issues (the use of fines to cover budget deficits, the problem of repeat offenders). He/She responds defensively to the criticism, explaining the positions of the minister and the commission majority regarding why these objections were disregarded.

The opposition was directed at the amendments proposed by Riigikogu member Riina Solman, which concerned expanding the list of individuals permitted to meet with detainees and granting internet access for the purpose of acquiring higher education. The objection was moderate and justified by security and practical arguments put forth by the Ministry of Justice, such as the risk of criminal elements appearing at meetings under the guise of an employer. Solman's proposals were voted down in the committee.

There is a complete lack of opposition; rather, it is emphasized that no one submitted any amendments, including the Ministry of Justice. This suggests a consensual or non-contentious draft bill, the processing of which is smooth.