Fourth supplementary budget for 2015

Key points of the debate

The debate focused on the fourth supplementary budget for 2015, the Government's economic and competitiveness policy, and the increased expenditure on the reception of asylum seekers. The government parties stressed the necessity of structural reforms and fiscal consolidation to achieve sustainable employment. The opposition, meanwhile, criticised the proposal for not containing immediate active employment measures or sufficient appropriations to tackle unemployment.

• –Should more direct appropriations be allocated to employment measures in the supplementary budget?
• –Are jobs created through rapid stimulus measures or through long-term structural and competitiveness reforms?
• –Are the additional appropriations and measures allocated for the reception of asylum seekers appropriately scaled?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The National Coalition Party supported the supplementary budget and stressed that unemployment and economic problems can only be resolved through long-term structural measures and improving competitiveness.

  ”Hallituksen lähestymistapa edustaa virkistävällä tavalla uutta tapaa hoitaa työttömyyttä.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The Finns Party supported the proposal and appealed to fiscal consolidation measures and strengthening competitiveness to create permanent jobs.

  ”Tässä hallitus on tehnyt aivan oikean periaatteellisen ratkaisun.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The Centre Party defended the Government's approach and took the view that improving the competitiveness of Finnish work and production is the only sustainable path to economic growth.

  ”Meidän pitää saada suomalainen työ ja tuotanto kilpailukykyiseksi sekä Suomessa että ulkomailla, ja tässä suhteessa hallituksen linja on oikea.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The Social Democrats opposed the proposal because it lacked immediate measures to improve employment and break long-term unemployment here and now.

  ”Tähän hallituksen neljänteen lisätalousarvioesitykseen ei sisälly mitään toimia työllisyyteen vaikuttamiseksi ja talouskehitykseen vaikuttamiseksi.”

• GreensAgainst

  The Greens criticised the proposal for the insufficiency of employment appropriations and considered that the Government was paying for passive unemployment instead of job creation.

  ”Hallitus siis mieluummin maksaa siitä, että ihmiset ovat työttöminä tai eivät saa koulutuspaikkaa, kuin siitä, että ihmiset voisivat työllistyä.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The Left Alliance opposed the Government's contractionary fiscal policy and considered the proposal insufficient to address unemployment and the deteriorating economic situation.

  ”Hallitus siis sanoo olevansa huolissaan työttömyyden kasvusta, sanoo haluavansa panostaa työllisyyteen, mutta se ei näy, eikä se näy tässäkään lisätalousarvioesityksessä.”

• Christian DemocratsIn favour with reservations

  The Christian Democrats expressed serious concern over the growth in unemployment and housing allowance expenditure as well as the costs of immigration, but also put forward their own solutions to support employment.

  ”Hallitushan on tähän mennessä esittänyt, että ansiosidonnaista päivärahaa tulisi vain selkeästi leikata.”

• Blue ReformIn favour

  Minister Lindström defended the government proposal by stating that, instead of mere increases in appropriations, the Government seeks to address structural problems in the labour market.

  ”Niiden riittämättömyys on tässä ollut vahvasti keskustelussa esillä, ja toisaalta me kuitenkin laitamme sen yli 5 miljardia euroa työttömyyden hoitoon vuositasolla.”

This digest was generated by AI from 109 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record. The longest speeches were shortened in the digest's source material.