By Plenary Sessions: Signe Riisalo

The rhetorical style is empathetic and explanatory, emphasizing the need for respect toward people with special needs and preferring the term "people with special needs." The speaker balances emotional appeals with the presentation of detailed political facts and legislative history, utilizing formal and technical language (e.g., M-category minibuses, disability determination). They also begin with a procedural question, which indicates attention to the meeting's protocol.

The speaker’s style is formal, analytical, and procedural, as they are fulfilling the role of the committee rapporteur, reading out summaries and quotes from the discussion. The tone is predominantly neutral and fact-based, although it includes personal concern regarding the livelihood of pensioners. They make frequent references to the protocol and attempt to avoid expressing personal viewpoints during the presentation.

The style is formal, analytical, and procedural, focusing on conveying the committee's discussions and technical details in the capacity of the lead committee's representative. The tone is predominantly conciliatory and appreciative, expressing satisfaction that there is no substantive dispute in the social sector and acknowledging the government's efforts. Logical appeals and fact-based explanations are utilized to dispel concerns regarding the amendments to the law.

The rhetorical style is analytical and substantive, emphasizing logic, cost comparison, and evidence-based reasoning. The speaker uses formal language and structures their arguments through the analysis of alternatives and target groups, urging them to make "smart choices." The first speech also highlighted the role of the session chair in reminding participants of the procedural rules.

The rhetorical style is defensive and confrontational, accusing the opponent of making sweeping and irrelevant accusations, as well as demonstrating ignorance of the substance. It employs direct address and a sharp tone, demanding the opponent remain silent ("Maybe you would let others speak for a change?"). The appeals are primarily logical, relying on the length and specific details of the negotiations.

The language used is formal, detailed, and procedural, typical of a commission rapporteur providing an overview of the legislative process. The tone is neutral and explanatory, focusing on logical appeals, documentation, and emphasizing consensus-based decisions. Brief, informal apologies ("Oops, sorry") occur when correcting procedural errors.

The rhetorical style is formal, measured, and focuses on logical and technical justifications. Although a slight sadness ("there is a little sadness") regarding the procedure is expressed, the argumentation remains highly pragmatic and fact-based, avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is formal and questioning, addressing the minister politely and presenting the concern directly. The speaker employs a logical appeal, seeking answers and a clear vision for the future direction of the policy.

The style is authoritative, explanatory, and at times defensive, especially when responding to opponents who are accused of presenting half-truths and failing to delve into the proposed legislation. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and data to justify the policy. He balances the technical explanation with an emphasis on social concern, noting that the social sphere reflects the development level of society.

The speaker's rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and highly detailed, focusing on the presentation of facts, a detailed explanation of the draft bill's content, and a description of the committee's work process. The tone is predominantly logical and matter-of-fact, but becomes defensive when responding to criticism, which is labeled as "half-truths." Data and references to legislation are used instead of emotional appeals.

The style is highly formal, pragmatic, and procedural, characteristic of a steering committee representative providing a summary. The speaker concentrates on logical arguments, detailing the progression of the committee's deliberations, explanations provided by the ministries, and the final voting results. The tone is neutral and informative, avoiding emotional appeals.