Language abilities required of police

Deputy-Ombudsman Lindstedt criticises drafting of decree

27.3.2006

In the view of Deputy-Ombudsman Jukka Lindstedt, drafting of a decree on the language abilities required of police officers was not a complete success. 

The Deputy-Ombudsman has investigated four complaints containing criticism of the fact that the decree did not provide for a transition period to allow for those who had begun their studies before the reform and thus already completed language studies at the Police School. The complainants also regarded Swedish teaching at the Police School as inadequate.

The amendment to the Decree on Police Administration containing the provisions on language requirements entered into force on 1.5.2004. It caused widespread uncertainty among police officers and persons training for the police and prompted five written questions to the Minister of the Interior in the Eduskunta. The Ministry of Justice also had to issue a set of guidelines clarifying application of the Decree.

Transition period

Deputy-Ombudsman Lindstedt emphasises in his decision that the police wield considerable powers as guarantors of legal security and therefore it is important that police officers have an adequate ability to operate in both of Finland's national languages. However, the Deputy-Ombudsman does not in his decision appraise the level of language abilities required of the police, but rather the drafting of the Decree.

The effects of the Decree and the necessity of a transition period should have been taken more thoroughly into account from the initial stage of drafting it. The appraisal should have included allowing for the fact that language teaching at the Police School has not been capable in practice of guaranteeing that students have adequate skill in Swedish - mainly due to great differences in the student?s starting levels.

The Ministry of the Interior admitted in its explanation to the Deputy-Ombudsman that, looking at the matter with the benefit of hindsight, provision for a transition period would have made things easier for those students who had begun their studies or been admitted to study before the amendment entered into force, because the interval between promulgation and entry into force was very short. 

For its part, the Police School said that it had from the beginning stressed the importance of a transition provision and regarded the level of the language ability requirement as too demanding. The Deputy-Ombudsman takes the view that this should have been taken into consideration in the drafting, because in practice the Police School certainly knew best what kinds of abilities those graduating from the school would have to perform practical police work also through the medium of Swedish.

While the complaints were being dealt with, the Decree was amended by adding arrangements for a transition period and thereby eliminating in this respect the problems that had been highlighted in the complaints.

Language requirements did not actually change

According to the explanation received by the Deputy-Ombudsman, those drafting the Decree had failed to prepare for the eventuality of problems arising, because in reality the language abilities statutorily required of police officers remained unchanged. The same language requirements should have applied also earlier in police administration. However, it emerged that the language skills required of police and practical demonstration of these skills had not necessarily been fully observed in practice in the way that they should have been. For that reason - although the requirements written into the Decree already existed - a public perception that the demands had substantially changed was created.

The clarity of the Decree left something to be desired

The Deputy-Ombudsman further notes that also the clarity of the Decree could have been improved. Legislation should be so clear that people are able to understand their rights and obligations without explicatory guidelines having to be issued retrospectively, as had happened in this case.

Additional information will be provided by Legal Officer Mikko Sarja, tel. + 358 (0)9 432 3364.