Auditor General Mihkel Oviir replied to the interpellation concerning the new oil shale energy blocks of AS Eesti Energia (No 201), submitted by Members of the Riigikogu Urve Palo, Rannar Vassiljev, Sven Mikser, Helmen Kütt, Jaak Allik, Eiki Nestor, Neeme Suur, Andres Anvelt, Lembit Kaljuvee, Deniss Boroditš, Inara Luigas, Kalle Laanet, Rainer Vakra, Kalvi Kõva, Rein Randver, Kajar Lember and Jaan Õunapuu on 15 October. 

The interpellators wished to know the Auditor General’s assessment of whether the public procurement organised for the construction of the oil shale energy blocks had been in conformity with law. 

According to Oviir’s explanations, according to the assessment of the National Audit Office, both tenderers had complied with the qualification criteria of tenderers, however the tenders submitted by them had not complied with the terms of the procurement. In the identification of the successful tender, violations of the Public Procurement Act had probably occurred on two occasions. In Oviir’s words, first, Alstom’s tender, the only one that had been declared admissible, had not complied with the terms of the procurement in absolutely every aspect. The non-compliance had lied first of all in the fact that, in its tender, Alstom had wished payment and penalty terms different from those permitted by tender documents. Second, negotiations had been started with the winner, in order to change the terms of the procurement which had not been negotiable and which should not have been changed. The parties had justified their conduct, claiming that only one serious tender had been submitted for the construction of the first block of the power plant. 

Oviir noted that, despite the non-compliance of the tender with the terms, negotiations had been started with the company Alstom and a contract had been entered into. At the same time, the minutes of the meeting of the Supervisory Board of Eesti Energia reveal that the Supervisory Board understood that the decisions made in the procurement procedure were in conflict with law. 

Oviir noted that, as to the legal assessment of the necessary elements of a criminal offence in this story, then he would leave it to competent law enforcement authorities to assess who would adopt an attitude on the basis of the information that they have at one or another moment. Oviir explained that the Ministry of Finance exercises supervision over the organisation of public procurements, and the Ministry had not considered it necessary to initiate supervision proceedings on the basis of that particular case. The application concerning the violation of the Penal Code sent by the Prosecutor’s Office had been forwarded to the Security Police who had found no necessary elements of a criminal offence in the behaviour of any official, Oviir noted. 

Prime Minister Andrus Ansip replied to the interpellation concerning the activities of the Government of the Republic for reducing the wage gap between men and women (No 207), submitted by Members of the Riigikogu Sven Mikser, Marianne Mikko, Indrek Saar, Jevgeni Ossinovski, Neeme Suur, Urve Palo, Heljo Pikhof, Jaan Õunapuu, Helmen Kütt, Mart Meri, Karel Rüütli, Kalvi Kõva, Rannar Vassiljev, Kalev Kotkas, Eiki Nestor, Rein Randver and Jaak Allik on 8 November. 

The Minister of Education and Research Jaak Aaviksoo replied to five interpellations. They were the following: 

the interpellation concerning late language immersion (No 204), submitted by Members of the Riigikogu Yana Toom, Eldar Efendijev, Vladimir Velman, Valeri Korb and Mihhail Stalnuhhin on 17 October; 

the interpellation concerning the elimination of the grades of teachers (No 221), submitted by Members of the Riigikogu Mailis Reps, Ester Tuiksoo, Yana Toom, Viktor Vassiljev, Aadu Must, Priit Toobal, Eldar Efendijev, Peeter Võsa, Lauri Laasi, Vladimir Velman, Valeri Korb, Mihhail Stalnuhhin and Kadri Simson on 14 November; 

the interpellation concerning the teachers’ salary rise (No 222), submitted by Members of the Riigikogu Jüri Ratas, Tarmo Tamm, Eldar Efendijev, Enn Eesmaa, Peeter Võsa, Vladimir Velman, Valeri Korb, Mihhail Stalnuhhin, Mailis Reps, Yana Toom, Viktor Vassiljev, Aadu Must, Priit Toobal and Kadri Simson on 14 November; 

the interpellation concerning the future of the veterinary training at the Estonian University of Life Sciences (No 223), submitted by Members of the Riigikogu Aadu Must, Ester Tuiksoo, Viktor Vassiljev, Tarmo Tamm, Eldar Efendijev, Peeter Võsa, Vladimir Velman, Mihhail Stalnuhhin, Aivar Riisalu, Valeri Korb, Karel Rüütli, Rein Randver, Jaan Õunapuu, Kalvi Kõva, Indrek Saar and Inara Luigas on 14 November; 

the interpellation concerning the studying opportunities for children with special educational needs (No 242), submitted by Members of the Riigikogu Mailis Reps, Ester Tuiksoo, Yana Toom, Viktor Vassiljev, Aadu Must, Eldar Efendijev, Enn Eesmaa, Peeter Võsa, Vladimir Velman, Valeri Korb and Mihhail Stalnuhhin on 15 November. 

On the motion of the relevant leading committees, the following were excluded from the agenda for the working week: the second reading of the Bill on Amendments to the Planning Act (247 SE), initiated by the Government; the first reading of the Bill on Amendments to the Nature Conservation Act and the State Assets Act (289 SE), initiated by the Government; the first reading of the Bill on Amendments to the Food Act (322 SE), initiated by the Government; and the deliberation of the proposal No 21 from the Chancellor of Justice concerning application of the requirements for applying for citizenship with regard to persons whose legal status was not defined while they were less than 15 years of age. 

The Estonian Centre Party Faction as the initiator withdrew from the legislative proceeding the Bill on Amendments to the Value Added Tax Act (297 SE). 

The sitting ended at 8.51 p.m. 

The Riigikogu Press Service