Raising excise duties on fuels

Key points of the debate

The debate addressed the raising of fuel excise duties and its impact on citizens' everyday lives, business competitiveness and environmental targets. The government parties and part of the opposition considered the tax increase justified on grounds of central government finances and environmental steering, whereas most of the opposition opposed it because of rising housing and transport costs for low-income earners and sparsely populated areas. The proposal also sparked intense political debate over whether the Finns Party was honouring its election pledges.

• –Does the tax increase fall disproportionately on residents of sparsely populated areas and on low-income earners?
• –Will the increase in fuel tax weaken the competitiveness of domestic industry and the transport sector?
• –Does the tax increase deliver genuine environmental steering, or is it merely fiscal tax collection?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The group supported the proposal because it shifts the focus of taxation away from work and entrepreneurship towards consumption and environmental harms.

  ”Te vastustatte niin sanottuja tasaveroja, mitä tietysti joku bensaverokin on, mutta ympäristön kannalta on täysin perusteltua nimenomaan tällaista kuluttamista pyrkiä myös verotuksella ohjaamaan.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The group considered the increase necessary for central government finances and pointed out that the low world market price of crude oil keeps the overall price of fuels lower than before.

  ”Tämä on vakava kysymys, ja siksi tämä korotus on sekä fiskaalinen että ympäristövaikutukseltaan positiivinen.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The group supported the proposal to balance the economy and bolster the central government revenue base, while also emphasising the promotion of domestic renewable biofuels and lowering the taxation of labour.

  ”Minä ymmärrän hyvin, että tällä tavalla hallitus joutuu kuitenkin katsomaan kokonaisuutta ja tulopuolesta myöskin pitämään huolta.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The group opposed the proposal because it increases housing and transport costs for low-income earners and hits rural residents particularly hard without sufficient compensatory measures.

  ”Tämä nestemäisten polttoaineiden verotuksen korotus on kyllä jälleen pettymys ja karua pienituloisten kukkarolle.”

• GreensIn favour

  The group supported the tax increase as a step in the right direction to shift the focus of taxation from labour to harms and fossil consumption.

  ”Sen suhteen, liikennepolttoaineiden osalta, suunta on oikea.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The group opposed the negative effects of the proposal on housing costs and transport costs for export industries, and called for the reinstatement of energy grants.

  ”Kyllähän tämä hallituksen esitys polttoaineveron korottamisesta on kustannuserä, joka tulee näkymään muun muassa Suomen metsäteollisuudessa.”

• Swedish People's PartyIn favour

  The group supported raising fuel taxes in line with its policy, but stressed the need to promote clean electricity production and electric motoring.

  ”Vaikka miten yrittäisin vastustaa tätä polttoaineiden verojen nostoa, niin koen, että en sitä pysty tekemään, ihan vaikka viitaten meidän varjobudjettiin.”

• Christian DemocratsAgainst

  The group opposed the increase because it makes everyday life harder for people living in detached houses, weakens operating conditions in the transport sector and tightens overall taxation.

  ”Hän joutuu jatkossa maksamaan enemmän näitä kuluja, ja olen kyllä sitä mieltä, että tällaisia esityksiä ei pitäisi tehdä.”

This digest was generated by AI from 68 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record.