Fourth supplementary budget for 2020

Key points of the debate

The debate centred on an exceptionally large supplementary budget of approximately 5.5 billion euros, which supported municipalities, business, education and economic recovery in the midst of the coronavirus crisis. The government parties considered extensive debt-funded stimulus and safeguarding services essential to avoid a deep recession and the mistakes of previous depression years. The opposition considered the spending increases excessive and criticised the package for increasing central government debt and for lacking structural employment measures.

• –Was debt-funded stimulus scaled correctly, or was the central government debt burden increased too much?
• –Did the proposal contain enough genuine, permanent measures to improve employment?
• –Were there items included that did not belong to the immediate management of the coronavirus crisis?

• Social DemocratsIn favour

  The group considered the supplementary budget decisive for safeguarding employment, public services and people's livelihoods without cuts.

  ”Tämä lisätalousarvio on äärimmäisen tarpeellinen työllisyyden kannalta.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The group considered the extensive supplementary budget and borrowing in an exceptional situation essential to repair crisis damage, support municipalities and stimulate the economy.

  ”Tämä viiden miljardin lisäbudjetti merkitsee mallikasta siirtymistä kriisin hoidosta elvytykseen.”

• GreensIn favour

  The group supported the proposal because it combines recovery from the coronavirus crisis, investments in education and ecological reconstruction.

  ”Lisätalousarvion kestävällä elvytyksellä panostamme samaan aikaan sekä ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntaan että työllisyyden parantamiseen.”

• Left AllianceIn favour

  The group considered the proposed stimulus measures and the safeguarding of social justice to be the right economic policy for overcoming the crisis.

  ”Suomi voi nousta koronakriisistä entistä vahvempana vain panostamalla hyvinvointiin, osaamiseen ja ekologiseen jälleenrakennukseen.”

• Swedish People's PartyIn favour

  The group supported the package to safeguard the economy and people's wellbeing through the crisis, while also noting the future need for fiscal consolidation.

  ”Nyt yritetään pelastaa taloutta, rakennetaan siltaa tämän kuopan yli, lähdetään pikkuhiljaa elvyttämään.”

• National Coalition PartyAgainst

  The group opposed the proposal due to its enormous amount of debt and the lack of employment and structural reforms, although it considered individual items good.

  ”Kokoomuksen kritiikin kärki on siis nimenomaan siinä, että hallituksen esityksestä puuttuvat kaikki toimet, joilla saataisiin pysyvästi työllisyyttä nostettua Suomessa, ne rakenteelliset uudistukset.”

• Finns PartyAgainst

  The group criticised the proposal for inflating the public sector with borrowed money and accused the Government of sneaking ideological spending into the crisis package.

  ”Siksi ne eivät olekaan elvytystä, vaan julkisen sektorin edelleen paisuttamista velaksi.”

• Christian DemocratsAgainst

  The group criticised the proposal for lacking plans to balance the finances and increase employment.

  ”Kristillisdemokraattien kritiikki tätä lisätalousarviota kohtaan ei ole yksittäisissä määrärahalisäyksissä, joissa on sinällään ihan hyviä, tärkeitä kohteita”

• Movement NowAgainst

  The group considered that stimulus should target businesses and innovation rather than increasing public sector spending.

  ”Julkinen sektori kuluttaa joka tapauksessa, ja paljon kuluttaakin. Se ei tarvitse stimulusta.”

This digest was generated by AI from 186 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.