By Plenary Sessions: Urve Tiidus

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and procedural, which is typical of a committee report. The focus is on logical argumentation and the presentation of facts, summarizing the questions raised within the committee (e.g., safety, pricing, competition) and the explanations received. Emotional appeals are not used; the emphasis is placed on objectively conveying the bill's procedural history and its substance.

The style is highly formal and respectful, repeatedly addressing the Head/Director and the Minister. The speaker employs an analytical and question-centric approach, referencing the claims made in the explanatory memorandum and posing relevant and hypothetical questions. The tone is neutral and information-seeking.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, directly addressing the chairman and the minister. The speaker poses questions in a logical and investigative manner, focusing on the details and consequences of policy implementation. The tone is serious and demanding.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing both the Chairman/Director and the Minister ("Esteemed Chairman! Esteemed Minister!"). The rhetoric is purely logical and focuses on a specific fact-based question, avoiding emotional appeals or narratives.

The style is formal and respectful, directly addressing the Minister with specific questions. The speaker employs logical argumentation and data (facts, forecasts) to underscore the gravity of the security issues. The tone is analytical, drawing a distinction between necessary regulations (cybersecurity) and criticized draft legislation (the sustainability report).

The language used is formal and respectful, addressing both the Chairman and the Minister ("Esteemed Chairman! Esteemed Minister!"). The rhetoric is logical and data-driven, utilizing statistics and forecasts (for 2030) to underscore the gravity of the issue. The tone is analytical and focuses on the future challenge.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing both the director/chair and the minister. The rhetoric is analytical and focused on questions, employing a logical appeal to compel the minister to clearly define the bill’s strongest point of support. A hypothetical situation (explaining it to someone unfamiliar with jurisprudence/law) is used to sharpen the argument.