By Months: Signe Riisalo

The rhetorical style is formal, explanatory, and measured, which suits the role of the rapporteur for the leading committee. The tone is predominantly conciliatory and constructive, often acknowledging concerns raised by the opposition, such as Helmen Kütt's criticism. Although the emphasis remains on logic and legislative details, strong emotional language is employed, describing the protected savings amount as "a shamefully small amount."

The rhetorical style is analytical and logical, relying heavily on data, studies, and arguments for cost-effectiveness ("smart choices and smart spending"). The tone is formal and measured, but it strongly emphasizes the need for societal consensus and for taking into account the complexity of the solutions. The speaker utilizes both procedural remarks and substantive appeals directed at colleagues and the public.

The rhetorical style is predominantly formal, analytical, and procedure-centric, especially when introducing draft legislation and reporting on the committee's work. When faced with criticism and accusations (specifically by Urmas Reinsalu), the tone shifts to defensive and direct, emphasizing the necessity of speaking without making rash statements or generalizations when the underlying content is unknown. The speaker uses apologies and self-corrections (e.g., "Oops, sorry") regarding procedural errors or unusual practices.

The style is formal and procedural, focusing on a detailed explanation of the bill's procedural flow, proposed amendments, and the inclusion process, delivered in the role of the committee chairman. When responding to criticism, the tone is resolute and at times defensive, correcting colleagues' "half-truths" while emphasizing factual basis and logical argumentation. The speaker utilizes extensive data and references to legislation to confirm the legitimacy of their positions and the positive impact of the draft law.

The style is extremely formal, pragmatic, and informative, focusing on conveying the discussions and decisions that took place within the social affairs committee. The speaker employs logical and procedural appeals, avoiding emotional language, and emphasizes addressing complex topics in a "reasonable frame of mind." He/She provides an introduction with a "pragmatic summary" and answers questions factually, even if no discussion occurred in the committee.