Facilitating foreign employment in critical sectors

Key points of the debate

The debate addressed temporarily extending the right to work for foreign nationals already in Finland in order to secure security of supply and agriculture after borders were closed. The proposal was widely considered necessary, but was assessed as being insufficient on its own to make up for the labour shortfall in the harvest season. Disagreement arose in particular over how broadly different sectors should be opened up and how domestic labour could also be encouraged onto farms.

• –Should the right to work be limited only to agriculture and forestry instead of covering other sectors?
• –Will the legislative amendment be enough to solve the acute labour shortage in agriculture?
• –How could laid-off Finns and young people be encouraged into seasonal work without losing their unemployment benefits?

• Social DemocratsIn favour

  The proposal promptly secures domestic food production and security of supply under exceptional circumstances by drawing on the work input of people already in the country while observing the rules of working life.

  ”Tällä esityksellä on tarkoitus varmistaa suomalaisen yhteiskunnan pärjääminen ja esimerkiksi suomalainen ruoantuotanto.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The amendment is vital for launching the harvest season in agriculture and horticulture, enabling workers to move flexibly from one farm to another.

  ”Kannatan tätä hallituksen esitystä. Se on osa ratkaisua.”

• GreensIn favour

  In an exceptional situation, the legislative amendment is a commendable way to enable workers to move from one role to another and ensure self-sufficiency in food production.

  ”Kun Suomeen ei tällä hetkellä voi matkustaa käytännössä muista maista eikä uutta työvoimaa ulkomailta ole käytännössä mahdollista juurikaan saada, on esitys erittäin kannatettava.”

• Left AllianceIn favour

  Expanding the right to work is essential to safeguard the food supply and security of supply, as long as workers' rights and obligations to re-employ are adhered to.

  ”Tämän huoltovarmuuden varmistamiseksi, kotimaisen ruoan turvaamiseksi nämä muutokset ovat minun mielestäni välttämättömiä tässä vaiheessa, ja lisää varmaan tarvitsee tehdä jatkossa.”

• Swedish People's PartyIn favour

  The proposal responds quickly to the distress of farmers and the horticultural sector and ensures the functioning of the domestic food supply chain during the crisis.

  ”Meillä on tärkeä ja hyvä esitys nyt keskustelussa varsinkin ruokaturvallisuuden kannalta.”

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The proposal is indispensable for security of supply and keeping the wheels of the economy turning, but additional measures are needed to attract foreign labour and dismantle incentive traps.

  ”Tämä hallituksen esitys on tuiki tarpeellinen Suomen huoltovarmuuden näkökulmasta.”

• Finns PartyIn favour with reservations

  Employing foreign nationals already in the country in agriculture was supported, but opening the list of sectors to construction and transport was opposed, and the proposal was considered insufficient without incentives aimed at Finns.

  ”Perussuomalaiset näkivät valiokuntakäsittelyn yhteydessä, että kriittiset alat pitäisi rajata esityksessä huomattavasti tiukemmin maa-, puutarha- ja metsätaloussektorille.”

• Christian DemocratsIn favour

  The bill is important and necessary, but insufficient in scale to eliminate the labour shortage in agriculture, which is why heavier additional measures were demanded from the Government.

  ”Tämä esitys on kannatettava ja tärkeä.”

This digest was generated by AI from 55 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.