Host Indrek Kiisler asked Isamaa MEP and candidate Riho Terras about his work in the European Parliament. Terras claimed, talking about the buildings' energy performance directive, that he proposed throwing out the bill in the European Parliament. That is a lie.

Terras isn't behind any of the 1,568 proposals to amend made to the directive in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) of which Terras is a member. This is revealed in relevant documents (one, two, three, four, five, six files of amendment proposals). They list the names of everyone who filed proposals to amend (a good opportunity to judge to which extent it is possible to work in the European Parliament) and Terras' is not among them. There was a proposal to reject the directive but it was made by Sylvia Limmer from Alternative für Deutschland.

Besides, Terras said during Postimees' Pärnu debate that he did not file a single motion to amend. That is why Terras' claim that "Jana is talking nonsense" is also false. I said that he did not file a single amendment proposal in the committee nor did he vote against the directive there. In fact, he missed both committee meetings during which these votes were taken (February 9, 2023 and January 15, 2024).

On "Otse uudistemajast" Terras said that he did not make any other proposals to amend because it was "nonsense forced on us from the first." As said, Terras did nothing in the committee. He and his colleagues came up with two amendment proposals during the plenary session. But (surprise, surprise) neither concerned rejecting the directive. Both treated with what types of energy can be used in zero-emissions buildings. It seems the directive didn't seem nonsensical enough not to present proposals to amend after all.

Next, the host asked Terras about his reports and compared their number to those by other Estonian MEPs: "here Jana Toom is on top with 22 reports. Jaak Madison and Urmas Paet are signatories on around a dozen, while you only have three to your name." I'll defend my colleague Urmas Paet here and say that he has 21 reports, while I have 23.

But Terras' chief lie was that "while Jana Toom may have a lot of reports, they are mostly on defending the rights of Russian citizens, which have almost no bearing on processes."

It seems that Terras struggled to even look at the titles of the reports. At the same time, everyone can see for themselves that Terras is lying; here are three reports where I was the chief rapporteur, and here are 20 where I was the shadow rapporteur. None of them deal with defending the rights of Russian citizens.

Examples of EU legislation I have negotiated with the Commission: the anti-trafficking directive, updated company information directive, legal cooperation digitization directive. All have been passed, all introduce regulations benefiting all Europeans and victims of human trafficking, irrespective of their citizenship.

Here are some other topics in my reports: preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence; prohibiting the misuse of civil and criminal measures to silence journalists, NGOs and civil society; upholding the principle of the primacy of EU law; empowering and protecting EU citizenship and citizens' rights; employment and social policies in the Eurozone; the state of fundamental rights in the European Union; ensuring access to decent and affordable housing for all; the right of workers to be disconnected; and promoting a strong social Europe for fair transitions.

All this information is publicly available on the European Parliament's website. The fact that MEP Terras publicly lies on such occasions is astonishing. His tactic is clear: he has nothing to boast about regarding his reports, so the easiest thing is to attack someone who has worked harder than him. However, combining a modest list of reports with a willingness to lie publicly is not the best approach for an MEP candidate.

Riho Terras' comment:

Jana Toom is trying to mislead people once again. I have pointed to problems accompanying the compulsion to renovate both in Estonia and the European Parliament. It is insensible to saddle homeowners with colossal expenses without financial support from member states or the EU.

During the plenary session vote of the buildings energy performance, more commonly known as forced renovation directive, I voted in favor of rejecting the bill. This amounts to opposing it.

During the committee vote in 2024, I had asked by colleague Bogovic to stand in for me and vote against the directive. We had previously discussed the matter.

Toom has repeatedly claimed that I did not file amendment proposals in ITRE. The mandatory renovation obligation was such a terrible idea that there was no way to make it better. I repeatedly proposed throwing out the directive in EPP group discussions. Jana Toom keeps getting bogged down in formalism. Counting documents, proposals to amend etc. What's at the heart of the matter hardly seems important for her, even though she should know as an experienced politician that political positions are shaped and decisions made during in-house deliberations.

I have worked toward putting climate goals on a common sense track for the last five years. I have opposed excess red tape and policies resembling planned economy in the group, conversations with colleagues and during votes. Not all Estonian MEPs have. Some have even made efforts to achieve opposite goals. For example, Jana Toom has taken several steps to criticize Estonia's citizenship policy and try and reverse Russia sanctions – for example, concerning the visa ban. That is the real policy.

The article was updated to add a comment from MEP Riho Terras (Isamaa).

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!