Supplementing the second 2026 supplementary budget

Key points of the debate

The debate addressed the supplement to the supplementary budget, which allocates 10 million euros for a temporary additional refund of the agricultural energy tax to ease the cost crisis. The government parties and the Centre Party considered the measure important for security of supply and domestic food production, but the opposition criticised central government indebtedness and the management of unemployment more broadly. Some in the opposition also questioned subsidising the use of fossil fuels instead of renewable solutions.

• –Should agriculture be supported through a tax refund on fossil fuel oil or by promoting the green transition?
• –Is the additional appropriation of 10 million euros sufficient to respond to the agricultural cost crisis?
• –Does the proposal increase central government debt too much without compensatory savings?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The group supports the proposal as a well-targeted measure to respond to rising energy prices caused by the Middle East crisis and strengthen comprehensive security.

  ”Tämä täydentävä esitys tuo tarvittavia täsmätoimia juuri tähän hetkeen.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The group supports the proposal, as the temporary additional energy tax refund eases farmers' increased costs and secures domestic food production and security of supply.

  ”Hallitus vastaa maatalouden haastavaan tilanteeseen kohdentamalla 10 miljoonaa euroa maatalouden energiaveron tilapäiseen lisäpalautukseen.”

• Swedish People's PartyIn favour

  The group considers the tax refund a necessary and well-targeted crisis measure for food-producing farms amid international disruptions.

  ”Palautus on tärkeä toimenpide Hormuzinsalmen sulkemisen aiheuttaman energia- ja kustannuskriisin vaikutusten lieventämiseksi.”

• Christian DemocratsIn favour

  The group supports the additional appropriation, as it rapidly reduces cost pressures on farms and strengthens security of supply.

  ”Tällä toimella helpotetaan maatilojen kustannuspaineita, vahvistetaan kannattavuutta ja turvataan kotimaisen ruuantuotannon tulevaisuutta.”

• Social DemocratsIn favour with reservations

  The group considers helping agriculture important, but criticises the repeated subsidising of fossil energy and the Government's debt-accumulating economic and tax policies.

  ”Tämän esityksen ongelma on se, että kun maataloutta toki tulee tukea, niin pitäisi kehittää vähän toisenlaisia keinoja siihen tukeen kuin tämä, jolla tuetaan fossiilista energiaa.”

• Centre PartyIn favour with reservations

  The group supports the refund of the agricultural energy tax because there are no alternatives for machinery, but considers the amount insufficient and criticises the Government for accelerating indebtedness without savings.

  ”Eli tämä on oikeansuuntainen mutta täysin riittämätön.”

• GreensAgainst

  The group recognises the plight of farmers, but opposes subsidies that deepen dependence on fossil fuels and calls for investment in a sustainable transition and energy self-sufficiency.

  ”Velkarahalla maksettava fossiilituen lisäys ei ole kestävä ratkaisu vaan jättää tuottajien ahdingon juurisyyt huomiotta.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The group considers that the Government's economic and employment policies have failed, and calls for additional investments in employment services and cultural education instead of tax cuts for high earners.

  ”Orpon hallitus on epäonnistunut keskeisissä talouspolitiikan tavoitteissaan.”

This digest was generated by AI from 39 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record.