Postponing legislation on light cars

Key points of the debate

Parliament debated postponing the entry into force of legislation on light cars by one year due to remarks by the European Commission. The government parties considered the postponement necessary and responsible to avoid EU infringement proceedings and bring the rules into line with EU law. Part of the opposition opposed the postponement and demanded that the legislation enter into force on the original timetable to safeguard road safety for young people and protect acquisitions already made.

• –Should the light car legislation enter into force despite the European Commission's remarks?
• –Is an additional year too long to amend the legislation?
• –Does postponing the entry into force violate the protection of property for families and businesses that have already purchased vehicles?

• Social DemocratsIn favour

  The SDP considered postponing the entry into force necessary to avoid EU infringement proceedings and potential compensation claims against Finland, while seeking to amend the law to bring it into line with EU law.

  ”Me tulemme tekemään kaikkemme, jotta saisimme sen vastaamaan EU-lainsäädäntöä.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The Centre Party supported the proposal as a legally responsible solution that would allow negotiations with the European Commission on a model suited to Finnish conditions to safeguard young people's mobility.

  ”Tämän hallituksen esityksen vuoden siirtymäajan aikana Suomi varmasti etsii yhdessä komission kanssa niitä ratkaisuja, miten kevytautolainsäädäntö Suomessa saadaan voimaan.”

• GreensIn favour

  The Greens supported the postponement and stressed that the conflict between the law and EU rules was already known earlier, and that light cars involve serious road safety and environmental concerns.

  ”EU:lla on ollut vakavat perusteet puuttua tähän asiaan, ja totean, että vihreät ovat tämän mietinnön ja esityksen takana, jotta asia saadaan huolellisesti käsiteltyä.”

• Left AllianceIn favour

  The Left Alliance supported taking extra time and considered that allowing an incomplete law to enter into force would be irresponsible for consumers and road safety.

  ”Ei olisi kovin vastuullista politiikkaa ajaa kuluttajia sellaiseen asemaan.”

• National Coalition PartySplit

  The group's position was divided: some MPs opposed the one-year postponement, viewing it as a delay that infringed on the protection of property for families and businesses, whereas the committee line accepted the postponement as necessary, albeit a long additional period.

  ”Tällä esityksellä on ollut vahva suomalaisten tuki, ja minusta tällaiselle vuoden viivyttelylle ei ole mitään syytä.”

• Finns PartyAgainst

  The Finns Party opposed postponing the law and called for the proposal to be rejected, arguing that the decision submitted groundlessly to the European Commission and compromised the safety of young people.

  ”On epäoikeudenmukaista, että jo hyväksytty laki, jonka jopa presidentti on allekirjoittanut, lykkääntyy vain kuukautta ennen lain voimaanastumista.”

• Christian DemocratsIn favour with reservations

  The Christian Democrats were concerned about the situation and highlighted the plight of families who had already acquired vehicles in advance, as well as the need to assess the protection of property.

  ”Omaisuudensuoja on myös yksi perusoikeus, jonka näkökulmasta tätä esitystä mielestäni olisi hyvin voinut arvioida myös perustuslakivaliokunnassa.”

This digest was generated by AI from 75 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.