By Plenary Sessions: Vilja Toomast

There is no opposition; the speaker focuses exclusively on describing the procedure and conveying the consensus decisions. The absence of two committee members (Heljo Pikhof and Varro Vooglaid) is noted, but this is done neutrally, without criticism.

No data available.

The speaker opposes the proposal put forth by Kalle Grünthal, the initiator of the bill, to repeal the provision of the Penal Code, supporting the government’s position that repealing the provision is not justified. This opposition is rooted in political and security considerations, emphasizing that the desire to support the war of aggression has not faded. He neutrally presents Grünthal’s criticism concerning the incompetence of the police.

The main opposition came from the Centre Party faction, which submitted four amendments opposing the doubling of fine rates (e.g., fines for riding without a ticket and parking fines). The speaker also rejected the proposals put forward by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Chamber of Bailiffs and Bankruptcy Trustees, and Professor Jaan Ginter, as they were not directly related to the draft bill or were insufficiently elaborated. The opposition is treated neutrally, highlighting the committee's voting results (2 in favor, 5 against the Centre Party's proposals).

The speaker himself does not express disagreement, but accurately documents the concerns raised by the opposition (Kert Kingo, Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, Varro Vooglaid). The criticism focused on procedural deficiencies, such as the absence of impact assessments, and the political objective—specifically, whether the fines would be used to reduce the state budget deficit. The opposition voted against proceeding with the draft bill.

Direct opposition was not expressed, but reports indicate the rejection of amendments proposed by Riigikogu member Riina Solman in the Legal Affairs Committee. The rejection was based on policy and administrative grounds, citing the Ministry of Justice's arguments regarding security risks (e.g., a criminal operating under the guise of an employer) and the prison's capacity to provide higher education.

There is a complete lack of opposition; instead, it is emphasized that no objections or additions were submitted by the deadline for the proposed amendments. This indicates a consensual and swift procedure, both within parliament and at the ministerial level.