By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The style is formal and respectful, addressing the officials directly, while simultaneously conveying concern and urgency regarding consumer protection. The text employs both logical argumentation (the necessity of legislation) and emotional emphasis (avoiding the debt trap and demanding solidarity). The speaker thanks the authorities for their consumer-centric approach and poses detailed questions.

The rhetorical style is questioning and concerned, emphasizing the contrast between the past (great friendship) and the present (contradictory statement). A historical narrative is employed to establish emotional contrast, and there is an appeal to public perception ("people at home are thinking").

The rhetorical style is predominantly formal and procedural, especially when detailing the reporting of the committee's discussion, describing the legal "ping-pong" between the ministry and the Chancellor of Justice. Logical argumentation and a neutral tone are used, focusing on the conveyance of facts and procedural decisions. In the second address, the tone is cautious and practical, focusing on addressing the risk of malicious exploitation.