The Riigikogu did not support the vote of no confidence in Minister of Regional Affairs Hendrik Johannes Terras
Today, the Riigikogu did not support the motion of no confidence in Minister of Regional Affairs and Agriculture Hendrik Johannes Terras, initiated by 33 members of the Riigikogu.
35 members of the Riigikogu supported the vote of no confidence in the Minister. At least 51 votes would have been needed to express no confidence.
Lauri Läänemets, who represented the initiators of the motion of no confidence, said in the Riigikogu that there were two main reasons for the motion of no confidence.
The first one is related to public transport. According to one or the other or the third scenario, the most vulnerable part of society – that is, children and the elderly – should start paying the fare. He recalled that one of the most important tasks of the Minister of Regional Affairs and Agriculture was actually to ensure a balanced development in Estonia. “This proposed plan, which involves collecting ticket money from children and pensioners on buses running on county routes, actually means another blow to regional development. However, standing for regional development is the purpose of this position,” Läänemets said.
The second part of the motion of no confidence concerns the fact that the National Audit Office has identified and made a rather critical assessment in its audit regarding Estonia’s preparedness for various security situations. “We have talked a lot about military security, but we have also actually talked about civil protection and broader security. Part of that, in addition to shelters and all sorts of warning systems and medical preparedness, is of course the issue of whether we have food stockpiles,” Läänemets said. “Despite the fact that food stockpiles must be secured for the entire population for 14 days, this is not the case according to the National Audit Office’s audit, as the current food stockpile is sufficient for 10% of the population for 30 days. And the concern is that – at least the National Audit Office did not identify – what objective or legal act such activity stems from.
“Returning to the broader picture, we can only draw one clear and specific conclusion. First of all, the Minister of Regional Affairs and Agriculture has not used the opportunity to stand up for regional development and for Estonia’s rural areas, but has himself taken steps against it,” Läänemets said.
Terras responded to the accusations made. According to him, in order to assess whether the public transport reform is justified or not, we must first look at how we got to where we are today. In 2018, free county-wide bus travel was introduced in Estonia. Its stated aim was to improve mobility opportunities in rural areas and increase the use of public transport. “The state took responsibility for this and bore all the costs in full. If one mode of public transport is suddenly free, it will start to crowd out others. This is exactly what happened in Estonia,” the minister stated. He explained that passengers had not started travelling more; instead of taking the train with a ticket, they simply took the free bus. The train could not disappear, because the train connection was also necessary. “And the result was clear – we had to pay for the bus and at the same time we had to subsidize the train more. Free bus did not reduce the state’s costs, but increased them elsewhere,” Terras said.
“Exactly the same thing happened with commercial regular services. If the state offers a free service, a ticket-based route cannot compete with it.”
Following the introduction of free county public transport, state subsidies for county bus service have increased several times over. At the same time, the number of public transport users has not grown at the same pace. “On the contrary, statistics from recent years show that the share of car travel has increased and that of public transport has decreased. In Estonia, there are nearly 22 million county bus trips per year,” said Terras.
He reminded that, in the case of children and the elderly, there had never been talk of a cost-based price, but rather of a largely subsidized participation. “The state will not be exempt from responsibility, but responsibility must be fairly distributed so that we have the money to increase the frequency of transport services and even add new ones where people actually travel,” Terras reasoned.
Speaking about food security, Terras said that security was not just about how many tanks or soldiers we had. “Security also means that, in a crisis situation, food gets from the field to the shop and from the shop to the people.”
Today, the Estonian Stockpiling Agency guarantees stockpiles for only 10% of the population. If we really want a 14-day stockpile for everyone, this must be decided politically and paid for.
Food security starts with production. Every euro that goes to Estonian farmers and the viability of food production provides more security in a crisis than a euro that sits in a warehouse as canned goods. Food security needs a single manager. Therefore, I have proposed to consider bringing the Estonian Stockpiling Agency into the area of government of the Ministry of Regional Development and Agriculture.
For years, the state has had the goal of ensuring a 14-day food stockpile for the entire population, but no corresponding funding decisions have been made to meet this goal, nor has anyone been clearly assigned to take responsibility for it. This contradiction did not arise yesterday, nor did it arise during my term of office. The same pattern is repeated in public transport, where goals are ambitious, expectations are high, but responsibility and funding are dispersed among agencies. That is precisely why it is wrong to treat stockpiles as a separate, isolated issue.
“The question today is whether we dare to acknowledge the reality that a free service that does not work is the most expensive service of all; that a food stockpile that exists on paper leaves stomachs empty in a crisis. If the Riigikogu finds that honestly stating problems and offering solutions is grounds for a vote of no confidence, then I have done my job correctly. However, if you find that these problems need to be solved, I ask for support for this work so that we can build a country that functions even when times are difficult,” Terras said.
Lauri Laats from the Centre Party Group, Anti Allas from the Social Democratic Party Parliamentary Group, Martin Helme from the Estonian Conservative People’s Party Group and Urmas Reinsalu from Isamaa Parliamentary Group took the floor during the debate.
A draft Resolution was rejected at the first reading
The deliberation of the Draft Resolution of the Riigikogu “Making a proposal to the Government of the Republic to initiate a denunciation of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence” (751 OE), which had been adjourned due to the end of the working hours of the sitting last week, continued at today’s sitting.
The initiators of the draft Resolution want the government to initiate proceedings to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention. According to the submitters, the aim of the proposal is to restore Estonia’s sovereignty in shaping a value-based family and education policy and to end participation in the Convention, which, in their view, has proven to be a controversial and inefficient tool in combating violence. According to the initiators, the Convention contains ideological elements which reshape society’s understanding of gender and gender roles. The initiators of the draft Resolution also believe that the Convention is not necessary to ensure the protection of women, as national laws can be amended to achieve this goal.
Marek Reinaas from Estonia 200 Parliamentary Group and Heljo Pikhof from Social Democratic Party Parliamentary Group took the floor in the debate that was adjourned at last Thursday’s sitting. Mihkel Lees from the Reform Party Group and Helle-Moonika Helme from the Estonian Conservative People’s Party Group took the floor at today’s sitting.
Nine members of the Riigikogu voted in favour of passing the Resolution and 54 voted against. The Resolution was not passed.
Replying to interpellations was excluded from the agenda
The interpellation concerning the financing of Estonian theatres (No. 867), submitted to Minister of Culture Heidy Purga, and the interpellation concerning the legality of the activities of Russian-Israeli businessman Sergei Uger in connection with the planned mineral water wells in the small town of Väimela (No. 858), submitted to Minister of the Interior Igor Taro, were excluded from the agenda for the day on the motion of the initiators.
The interpellation concerning the presentation of false information (No. 863), submitted to Minister of Finance Jürgen Ligi, was also excluded from the agenda.
Peeter Ernits, Lauri Laats, Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, Andres Metsoja, Aivar Kokk and Madis Kallas took the floor during the open microphone.
The sitting ended at 8.04 p.m.
Photos: /Erik Peinar, Chancellery of the Riigikogu/
Verbatim record of the sitting (in Estonian)
Video recording will be available to watch later on the Riigikogu YouTube channel.
Riigikogu Press Service
Gunnar Paal
+372 631 6351, +372 5190 2837
[email protected]
Questions: [email protected]
