Supplementary budget for 2020

Key points of the debate

The debate addressed the first supplementary budget for 2020, which allocated appropriations to combat the coronavirus pandemic and mitigate its economic impact. All parliamentary groups considered the exceptional support measures and crisis funding necessary. Disagreements mainly concerned the adequacy of direct support for businesses, the availability of protective equipment, and the scale of testing activities.

• –Is direct support for businesses sufficient to prevent a wave of bankruptcies?
• –Have sufficient resources been allocated for coronavirus testing and protective equipment?
• –Do loan-heavy forms of support help small businesses facing an acute cash crisis quickly enough?

• Social DemocratsIn favour

  The SDP supported the supplementary budget as a prompt, people-centred solution that strengthens healthcare capacity and protects workers and businesses through the crisis.

  ”Tämän esityksen keskiössä on ihminen. Hallitus turvaa ihmisten terveyttä ja toimeentuloa. Se turvaa myös työpaikkoja ja yritysten rahoituksen.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The Centre Party supported the proposal as a necessary crisis package to safeguard citizens' health and livelihoods and to rescue businesses and jobs.

  ”Me olemme erittäin vakavassa tilanteessa. Koronavirus uhkaa suomalaisen yhteiskunnan peruskiviä: ihmisten terveyttä ja turvallisuutta sekä työtä ja toimeentuloa.”

• GreensIn favour

  The Greens supported the supplementary budget as an important and historic investment in healthcare, basic income security, and supporting the most vulnerable during the pandemic.

  ”Hallituksen tärkein tehtävä on nyt turvata ihmisten terveys, turvallisuus ja toimeentulo näissä poikkeusoloissa.”

• Left AllianceIn favour

  The Left Alliance supported the proposal to defend the welfare state and public healthcare and to avoid the mistakes of the 1990s recession and mass unemployment.

  ”Tällaisena aikana hallituksen on toimittava nopeasti, ja on hienoa, että meidän hallituksemme on niin myös pystynyt tekemään.”

• Swedish People's PartyIn favour

  The SPP supported the proposed package as a prompt and necessary measure to ensure healthcare capacity and prevent a liquidity crisis for businesses.

  ”Ensinnäkin kiitos hallitukselle erinomaisesta lisätalousarviosta. Näitä tulee varmasti lisää lähiaikoina.”

• National Coalition PartyIn favour with reservations

  The NCP considered the supplementary budget to be a step in the right direction but too modest, and in their dissenting opinion proposed substantial increases in direct business subsidies and appropriations for healthcare protective equipment and testing.

  ”Rehellistä lienee kuitenkin sanoa, että esitys on näiden päivien aikana jo vanhentunut ja mittakaava jäänyt liian vaatimattomaksi”

• Finns PartyIn favour with reservations

  The Finns Party considered the supplementary budget a necessary start, but in their dissenting opinion called for more direct support for businesses and additional investment in border security and coronavirus testing.

  ”Koronatoimien vuoksi ongelmissa oleville yrityksille pitää harkita tukea palkkakustannuksiin — ei siis pelkkää lainaa tai lainojen takausta vaan myös suoraa tukea.”

• Christian DemocratsIn favour with reservations

  The Christian Democrats were largely satisfied with the supplementary budget, but in their dissenting opinion proposed additional investments especially in expanding infectious disease testing and protective equipment.

  ”Koronaviruksen leviämisen hidastamisessa avainasemassa on testaaminen, koska vain sillä, että testataan, voidaan tietää, millä tavalla nämä tautiketjut kulkevat”

• Movement NowIn favour with reservations

  Movement Now considered the supplementary budget necessary, but noted that loans do not help businesses out of a cash crisis without direct grants such as rent subsidies.

  ”Siksi toivonkin, että hallitus tukisi suoraan yrityksiä.”

This digest was generated by AI from 115 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.