Generalstaatsanwalt Tuomas Pöysti has responded to criticisms of how far the proposed bill has progressed in the legislative process before it was rejected by Parliament ‘s Committee on Constitutional Affairs last week.
The bill proposed to restrict the movement of people in the areas of the country most affected by the coronavirus epidemic.
At a press conference on Tuesday afternoon, Pöysti said he did not think the government should have been prevented from submitting the proposal to parliament, even though he was criticized for overseeing the proposed bill.
He justified this on the grounds that the government must be able to make new proposals to Parliament that include interpretations of the Constitution.
Legislative opinions are not unanimous
Pöysti also pointed out that parts of the constitution often need to be interpreted, and expert opinions on the proposed restrictions on movement were not unanimous.
"A number of opinions were expressed for and against the proposal, which contributed to the scope for interpretation," he said.
His office also published a detailed article on the Chancellor of Justice Website (external link in Finnish) explains the background of the process.
"The government did not act illegally, although the constitutionality of the government’s proposal can be interpreted in the light of past practice, as did the Constitutional Committee, which has decided in its assessment of a different situation from the government," He wrote.
However, critics say the submission of the bill to Parliament showed that the Chancellor of Justice, who is responsible for overseeing government action, has not exercised adequate oversight.
Evaluation of old practices
Pöysti had participated in government negotiations on the proposed legislation.
"These long-standing practices give the impression that the Chancellor of Justice is a member of the government group, leading to concerns about whether there will be blindness to what is happening there," Pöysti said at a press conference on Tuesday afternoon.
The preparation of movement restrictions was made particularly difficult by the perceived urgency. Pöysti further pointed out that the proposed bill was prepared remarkably quickly, even taking into account exceptional circumstances.
The preparation process also did not include a consultation procedure, as is usually the case, which, according to Pöyst, could have a negative impact on the quality of the proposal.
Quelle: Die nordische Seite
