April 22 was a day of joy for many advocates of farm animal welfare, as a bill banning the keeping of laying hens in cages passed its first reading in the Riigikogu. Everyone then waited impatiently for May 7, the deadline for submitting amendments to the bill. During that time, more than a thousand active citizens sent letters to the Rural Affairs Committee and its chairman, Urmas Kruuse, expressing their wish for the bill to move forward quickly. However, since the amendment deadline passed, a long silence has surrounded the long-awaited bill.

Several meetings of the Rural Affairs Committee have already taken place, but the ban on keeping laying hens in cages has not been discussed at those meetings.

The reasons behind this situation were clarified on Wednesday, June 3, when Prime Minister Kristen Michal responded to questions from MPs in the Riigikogu. His remarks came as a cold shower to all supporters of the bill.

It became clear that the Reform Party has firmly decided to obstruct the processing of this bill. It is well known that Urmas Kruuse, chairman of the Rural Affairs Committee, is a loyal party soldier who unfailingly follows the directives of the prime minister and party leader. Most likely, bill 828 SE will remain on a committee shelf long enough to expire when the current parliamentary term ends.

Such behavior is particularly disgraceful toward voters and taxpayers. People expect Parliament to make decisions. If the Reform Party opposes freeing hens from cages, it would be fair to demonstrate that opposition in a parliamentary vote, rather than quietly letting a bill that has passed its first reading die out. After all, there are many bills that fail to pass the first reading and are removed from proceedings by a majority vote.

However, if a bill passes its first reading and a deadline for amendments is set, it runs counter to all democratic procedural rules to simply shelve it and abandon further processing. It is especially objectionable when such an undemocratic precedent occurs because the head of government forbids further processing.

And that is exactly what appeared to be the case based on the prime minister's remarks on June 3. Prime Minister Kristen Michal stated that such legislation is unnecessary, because the practice of keeping hens in cages will allegedly end anyway under an "industry good-faith agreement." Michal is hardly naïve, but throughout his political career — especially as the Reform Party's secretary-general — he has consistently followed the principle that "he who pays the piper calls the tune."

"Good-faith agreements" cannot form the basis for governing a state. I can make any kind of "good-faith agreement" with my neighbor, but if a dispute arises, it will ultimately be resolved under the laws in force in the country. Only the state can enforce and oversee the social contract agreed upon by citizens.

By 2035, companies engaged in egg production may already have new owners who shrug and say: "What agreement? We've never heard of any agreement." Only a law adopted by Parliament can ensure that all parties share the same understanding and can be held accountable if they back out.

The suggestion by Toomas Uibo, leader of the Estonia 200 parliamentary group, that the issue could be resolved by an agreement between egg producers and the NGO Nähtamatud Loomad seems rather naïve.

One must wonder what mechanism would allow a civic organization to monitor and discipline businesses. By that logic, the state could also abandon regulation of logging volumes and leave it to agreements between forestry companies, with volunteer environmentalists overseeing compliance. Such a solution would surely appeal to logging businesses.

Reading the transcript of the June 3 Riigikogu session is striking for the arrogance and obfuscation displayed by the prime minister and other governing coalition politicians. It seems that the Riigikogu is no longer a place where political forces seek solutions acceptable to all parties, but rather a place where parliamentary decisions are directed by a government coalition backed by barely ten percent of the citizenry. Such a situation cannot be considered a democratic system of governance.

The arguments presented by the bill's proponents — describing the actual situation in Estonia and developments in other EU countries, including neighboring states — are simply ignored by those in power. As one of the bill's sponsors, Social Democrat Tiit Maran, pointed out, only Malta has a higher share of caged hens than Estonia. While 77% of hens in Estonia are kept in cages, the EU average is just 37%. In this regard, Estonia is certainly among the five most backward countries in Europe.

At one of the many protests organized by Nähtamatud Loomad calling for the liberation of caged hens, I concluded my speech with a slogan from the Singing Revolution: "One day, we will win no matter what!"

I am convinced that, no matter how long it takes, one day the keeping of hens in cages will be declared an unacceptable practice in the European Union. Will conditions for hens in Estonia really not improve until the threat of fines imposed by the European Commission? Or should we place our hopes on the elections taking place next spring?

--

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