Small reduction in child benefit

Key points of the debate

The debate concerned the government proposal to reduce child benefit amounts by approximately 0.85 per cent as part of public finance adjustment measures. The government parties considered the cut small in euro terms but necessary for central government finances and curbing debt. The opposition strongly opposed the proposal, arguing that it would increase child poverty and accumulate on top of other social security cuts.

• –Does reducing child benefit disproportionately increase child poverty and dependence on social assistance?
• –Is the euro-denominated impact of the cut on families' daily lives minor, or is it significant over the long term?
• –Should the Government have carried out a more thorough overall assessment of child and family impacts before making the spending cut decisions?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  In a difficult central government financial situation, a small saving must also be made in child benefit, but the most vulnerable are protected by excluding the single-parent supplement from the cut.

  ”Talous on ollut sellaisessa tilanteessa, että säästöjä on jouduttu tekemään lukuisiin eri paikkoihin.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The adjustment measure is necessary to fix public finances, and it is targeted fairly because the single-parent supplement is retained and social assistance is not touched.

  ”Onneksi, kuten mainittua, tämä lapsilisän noin euron kuukausittainen leikkaus lasta kohden ei kuitenkaan suuntaudu samalla tavalla kaikkein köyhimpiin eikä yksinhuoltajiin.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The cut is unavoidable to balance central government finances and halt debt accumulation, but its impact on families in euro terms is small, and the Government is investing in family services and employment.

  ”Tämän hallitusohjelman yksi tärkeimmistä asioista on se, että me emme saa ottaa lapsillemme velkaa.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  Cutting child benefit together with the removal of index linking increases child poverty and dependence on social assistance without the combined effects of the decisions having been adequately assessed.

• GreensAgainst

  Although an individual cut seems small, the accumulation of index freezes and other benefit cuts on the same low-income families deepens long-term poverty.

  ”Sen takia itse asiassa minua huolestuttavat kaikkein eniten hallituksen esitykset indeksisidonnaisuuden poistoista, indeksien jäädyttämisestä, koska ne aiheuttavat sitä pitkäaikaista köyhyyttä.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  Weakening child benefit erodes families' livelihoods and creates a dangerous welfare deficit that will be difficult to fix later.

  ”Minun mielestäni Suomella ei tässä tilanteessa ole varaa leikata lapsilisää miltään tuloluokalta, kaikkein vähiten tietenkin niiltä kaikkein köyhimmiltä.”

• Christian DemocratsAgainst

  The real value of child benefit has already fallen significantly before, and new cuts fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable families with children.

  ”Erityisesti vähävaraisten lapsiperheiden arkeen lapsilisäleikkaukset ovat kohtuuttomia.”

This digest was generated by AI from 51 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record.