This week, schools in Estonia resumed classes and society has returned to its usual post-holiday work and life rhythm. However, the Riigikogu calendar remains empty. Committees are not working and the first plenary session in the main hall will only take place next Monday, as stipulated by the Riigikogu's internal rules and procedures. The work schedule is planned several years in advance. Wouldn't it be more practical for the Riigikogu's work life to be more flexible in reality?

Section 45 of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act indeed states that the regular sessions of the Riigikogu take place from the second Monday in January until the third Thursday in June. This has been a longstanding agreement. However, Riigikogu members continue their daily duties during this time. I know many colleagues who meet with voters during these weeks at the beginning of the year.

In addition to plenary sessions, Riigikogu members have many other responsibilities as well.

The work period for the Riigikogu also extends into the summer. For example, last summer the Riigikogu convened for extraordinary sessions throughout July because the government changed and there were many important bills on the docket. Therefore, it's not accurate to say that members of the Riigikogu are on vacation during the time between sessions.

However, when I look at social media right now, I see Riigikogu members on vacation, posting pictures from places like Florida and the Canary Islands. Of course, everyone has the right to take a vacation — that's natural. But shouldn't work continue at least at the committee level? For example, we have an urgent matter regarding the removal of voting rights from citizens of aggressor states.

Regarding the issue of revoking voting rights for citizens of aggressor states, the Constitutional Committee requested an extension for submitting amendments until January 20. This was specifically to allow more time for analysis and to receive more comprehensive proposals. I believe the Constitutional Committee has a clear procedure in place on how to move forward with the handling of this specific bill.

Committees can also convene on an extraordinary basis. For instance, just before the New Year, the National Defense Committee met to discuss the EstLink 2 cable damage incident in the Gulf of Finland and issues related to Estonia's energy security.

Currently, we are following the Riigikogu's Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, which precisely regulates how plenary sessions are held. If I compare the number of plenary sessions held by our parliament to others, I can confidently say that Estonia is among the most active in organizing plenary sessions in this region — perhaps even in all of Europe.

For example, the Finnish parliament will hold its first plenary sessions in early February and in Lithuania, plenary sessions won't begin until March. So, it would be incorrect to claim that work isn't being done in the Estonian parliament. Right now, Riigikogu members are working in their constituencies or with documents. We definitely cannot say that Riigikogu members are only on vacation.

I haven't made that claim. Am I understanding you correctly that you are completely satisfied with the current system?

The Riigikogu must continuously review the rules governing its work. I have repeatedly asked the Council of Elders for their opinions on whether we should revise the rules of procedure and internal rules. So far, there is no consensus on this matter, but we will certainly continue to discuss it.

During the current parliamentary term, we've seen quite a few precedents where the interpretation of parliamentary rules has somewhat changed. It might indeed be reasonable to take a closer look at whether the law needs clarification at some point.

The holding of plenary sessions primarily depends on the preparatory work of the committees — on how many bills and proposals are prepared for discussion and voting in the main hall. But the committees aren't working this week.

As the speaker of the Riigikogu, it is quite difficult for me to comment on the work of the committees, as they are relatively autonomous and manage their own schedules. When committees set their work plans, they proceed accordingly.

There are also a few committees in the Riigikogu that meet much more frequently, such as the European Union Affairs Committee, which holds regular meetings even during the periods between plenary sessions.

Not this week. Some Riigikogu members have mentioned in interviews — including Peeter Tali, the chair of the European Union Affairs Committee, whom you referred to — that the workload is very high. In that particular committee, it is indeed enormous, with a constant flow of EU directives, decisions and proposals that need to be handled. According to Tali, additional support staff and advisors are needed. How much additional funding would be required for each Riigikogu member to have their own advisor?

The committees already have their own advisors and they also have access to other support structures, including assistance from the Riigikogu's legal and analysis department.

As for the idea of hiring personal advisors for each Riigikogu member, this has been discussed at length, but it comes with a significant price tag. It would cost approximately 10 percent of the current Riigikogu budget. Given the current budget situation, I don't see it as realistic to hire personal assistants for each member of the Riigikogu.

How much is the Riigikogu's budget?

It is €35 million and divided in two. One part is tied to MPs and the other to the upkeep of the Government Office and the building.

So, hiring 101 advisors would cost €3.5 million?

Yes, if we base it on the average salary in Estonia or a similar figure. Of course, there are other ways to approach this issue. But that amount is certainly not something that could be accommodated within the current Riigikogu budget. It's a broader topic for discussion — whether and how to proceed with such an idea.

Support for Riigikogu members is already provided through parliamentary factions, the Office of the Riigikogu and committee advisors. Factions have their own advisors and so do the committees. We definitely cannot say that Riigikogu members have no support structure in place — that would not be true.

You've been the speaker of the Riigikogu for nearly two years now. What are three or four simple changes you would make to the Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, if it were within your power and agreements could be reached?

I would definitely address the organization of committee work to make it smoother. One key area is the process of bringing proposed amendments to the plenary hall. We've faced excessive obstruction, which has already led committees to change their usual practices.

During obstruction, dozens or even hundreds of amendments are submitted and it should be more clearly defined how committees can handle such cases.

I've also repeatedly stated that there is absolutely no justification for bringing noise-making devices into the Riigikogu chamber. The session chair should be given more authority to maintain order in the hall.

The Riigikogu Board made a decision once to stop allowing ten-minute breaks before votes. This has significantly reduced the number of such breaks. I can confidently say that the last session period from September to December was noticeably more efficient and more focused.

Obstruction was initiated a year and a half ago by three opposition parties and it was clearly aimed at paralyzing the constitutional role of the Riigikogu.

Thanks to a series of decisions by the Riigikogu Board, the parliament's work is now functioning more effectively. But these improvements should also be more precisely defined in the Riigikogu's Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act.

--

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