Third supplementary budget for 2015

Key points of the debate

The debate focused on the adequacy of appropriations in the third supplementary budget of the year, particularly regarding employment management, agricultural crisis support and the costs of immigration. The opposition considered the proposed employment appropriations inadequate to manage growing unemployment, while the Government viewed the allocations as justified within the fiscal room for manoeuvre. The proposal was contentious and clearly divided the chamber between the Government and the opposition.

• –Are the proposed employment appropriations sufficient to manage unemployment and safeguard pay subsidies?
• –Should passive unemployment security be converted into active employment measures?
• –Is the agricultural crisis support adequate to alleviate the distress of farms?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The group considers that the proposal correctly responds to sudden employment and resource needs within the fiscal framework, but regards strengthening business competitiveness as key to sustainable employment.

  ”Hallitus pyrkii edistämään työllisyyttä kestävällä tavalla parantamalla suomalaisten yritysten kilpailukykyä.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The group supports the supplementary budget and considers that the Government is responding responsibly to employment and immigration without increasing borrowing.

  ”On erittäin tärkeää nyt, että tähän Salon työttömyysongelmaan pureudutaan ja sitä helpotetaan.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The group considers the supplementary budget highly necessary and a well-targeted response to redundancies, the agricultural crisis and public authority costs arising from immigration.

  ”Harvoin on lisätalousarvio niin tarpeellinen kuin tällä kertaa. Tässä on erittäin tärkeitä kohteita.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The group opposes the policy line of the proposal and considers the increase in employment appropriations to be too small and too late to address worsening unemployment.

  ”On hyvä, että rahaa tulee, mutta se tulee armottomasti myöhässä ja sitä on liian vähän.”

• GreensAgainst

  The group considers the increase in employment appropriations inadequate, as it does not even cover the real need for pay subsidies and start-up grants across the entire country.

  ”On hyvä asia, että nyt julkisiin työvoima- ja yrityspalveluihin on tehty 21,6 miljoonan euron lisäys, mutta tuo summa kattaa lähes vain ja ainoastaan Uudenmaan tarpeet.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The group considers that the Government is underbudgeting employment services and neglecting long-term unemployment as well as the deepening resource crisis in the employment administration.

  ”Tosiasia on, että työvoimahallinnon rahat ovat tällä hetkellä niin vähissä, että on kyseenalaista, kannattaako koko järjestelmää pitää pystyssä.”

• Christian DemocratsAgainst

  The group considers the additional employment appropriations completely inadequate to clear backlogs at the public employment services (TE services) and break long-term unemployment.

  ”Jokainen, joka on joutunut asioimaan te-toimistossa tai hakenut starttirahoja, on törmännyt tilanteeseen, jossa te-toimistojen resurssit ovat täysin, täysin riittämättömät.”

• Blue ReformIn favour

  The group's minister defends the proposal and stresses that the Government is acting in line with the government programme within the limits set by the tight economic situation.

  ”Jos lähdetään nyt tästä edustaja Kallin kysymyksestä, onko hallituksella lääkkeitä puuttua tähän isoon kuvaan, niin on, ja se lääke on hallitusohjelma, ja sen takana seistään.”

This digest was generated by AI from 130 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.