2/2009

Editorial

Precision in drafting laws

Kerttu Pellinen
Chairman of the Association of the Finnish University and Research Establishment Staff (YHL)

Following many twists and turns, the disputed amendment to the Act on the Protection of Privacy in Electronic Communications was enacted in early spring. Initially, as demanded by business, the aim was to expand employers’ rights to follow up personnel’s internet behaviour and e-mail communications without any unambiguous regulation on how to guarantee appropriate application of the law. Following an intervention by the Chancellor of Justice, the government bill, which clearly diminished personnel’s protection of privacy safeguarded by the Constitution, was returned for re-drafting. In connection with the second hearing to adopt the law, the Parliament was promised, among other things, that the application of the law be supervised appropriately. To this end, a possibility of the office of the data protection ombudsman to oversee the application of the law was brought forward. High level of control and sufficient control resources were the central preconditions for the amendment to be adopted. The law is now due to become into force in the beginning of June. Now in mid-May, the Confederation of Finnish Industries supported by the Ministry of Transport and Communications is refusing the right of the office of the data office ombudsman to oversee the correct application of the law. The question is whether too many loopholes unnoticed by the parliament were left in the law and whether the points causing differences in interpretation were actually intentional. Did the parliament rely too much on an assumption that the intention of the law will prevail despite the inaccuracy of the letter of the law?

The drafting of the Universities Act is in the final stretch. The report long prepared by the Constitutional Law Committee includes unconditional demands for changes and suggestions for re-examining the contents of the law in respect of the law prescribing the autonomy of the universities. The university act amendment directly affects the status of over thirty thousand university staff as well as the formation of employer policy so strongly that any unnecessary fumbling needs to be avoided in every possible way. In the long run, the consequences of the changes will have an effect also on the students and the maintenance of the whole of the Finnish educational community. Expressions leaving room for conflicting interpretations must not be left in the law.

We must learn from our previous experiences; this applies to each of us as well as to the parliament. A fresh example of a contradiction between the letter and the intention of the law will hopefully contribute to a common understanding of the articles of the Universities Act to both the legislative body and those interpreting the law.