Second supplementary budget for 2016

Key points of the debate

The debate focused on the second supplementary budget for 2016, in particular central government debt accumulation, the sufficiency of employment appropriations, additional capitalisation of Terrafame, and a crisis package for agriculture. The government parties considered the proposal responsible and highlighted investments in areas such as informal care and turning the economy around. The opposition, in turn, criticised the Government for austerity policies, a lack of employment measures, and overlooking the distress in agriculture.

• –Should more appropriations be allocated to managing employment in the supplementary budget?
• –Is the additional capitalisation of Terrafame (Talvivaara) with 144 million euros justified?
• –Should the crisis package for agriculture have already been included in this supplementary budget?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The group supported the supplementary budget and stressed the Government's responsible financial management, the front-loading of cuts, and the effort to move towards supporting employment and growth following the Competitiveness Pact.

  ”Ihan olennainen osa sitä, että voitaisiin päästä tästä leikkausmoodista eteenpäin, on se, että nyt on etupainotteisesti kannettu vastuuta valtiontaloudesta ja tehty jo tämän vaalikauden alussa ne vaikeat ratkaisut.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The group supported the appropriation increases in the supplementary budget, such as informal care and forest management, while expressing concern over the high costs of immigration and central government debt accumulation.

  ”Lisätalousarviossa esitetään muutamia hyvin tärkeitä ja hyviä määrärahalisäyksiä.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The group supported the proposal and considered investments in informal and family care, forestry, and securing operating conditions and jobs at Terrafame to be important.

  ”Ehdottomasti kärjessä hienoissa saavutuksissa on se, että omais- ja perhehoitoon satsataan nyt kunnolla. Tämä säästää kuntataloutta, se on inhimillistä, ja tämä on erittäin pitkään odotettu panostus.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The group opposed the approach of the proposal and criticised the Government for neglecting employment appropriations, weakening purchasing power, and increasing debt accumulation.

  ”Tästä lisätalousarviosta puuttuvat kaikki elementit, jotka lisäisivät työllisyyttä.”

• GreensAgainst

  The group criticised the proposal, in particular for additional funding for the Terrafame mine without a clear wind-down plan, as well as the absence of a crisis package for agriculture and investments in employment.

  ”Hallitus jatkaa edelleen puutteellista työllisyysmäärärahapolitiikkaansa. Kuten aiempien lisätalousarvioiden kohdalla, taas — jälleen kerran — peräänkuulutamme työllisyysmäärärahoja.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The group was disappointed that the proposal did not increase appropriations for managing acute unemployment and pay subsidies, and demanded an increase in public investment to stimulate the economy.

  ”Me olemme pettyneitä, että tässä lisätalousarviossa ei edelleen yhtään euroa annettu akuutin työttömyystilanteen hoitamiseen.”

• Swedish People's PartyAgainst

  The group criticised the Government for failing to allocate support in the supplementary budget to agriculture, which was in a severe crisis, while granting large sums to Terrafame.

  ”Regeringens andra tilläggsbudget försummar helt och hållet den kris vi har i modernäringen, i jordbruket.”

• Christian DemocratsAgainst

  The group was concerned about continued debt accumulation and considered measures to ease the plight of agriculture and support the growth of SMEs to be insufficient.

  ”Lisätalousarvio on todellakin aina tietysti tämmöinen varsinaista budjettia täydentävä, mutta tämäkin kuitenkin jatkaa sillä valitettavalla linjalla, että velkaantuminen jatkuu ja lisää tarvitaan velkarahaa.”

This digest was generated by AI from 160 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.