At the beginning of the election period, great expectations were placed on the reform of the Land Use and Construction Act (MRL) from political decision-makers, officials and stakeholders. MRL was expected to be one of the most significant legislative reforms of this government period. However, the bill has gone through a storm and now that the government has presented the proposal to the parliament, only a scrap is left of it.
The starting point of the MRL reform was the streamlining of zoning and construction regulation. Instead of a complete reform, the government is now moving forward only with the Construction Act and a number of supplementary laws, such as the Act on the Built Environment Information System (RYTJ). Criticism must be given both on the preparation of the legislation and on the content of the law.
Regarding the Construction Act, the public has mainly highlighted the facilitation of the construction of a shed or sauna. However, this insignificant change gives the wrong impression that the law reform would make construction work smoother. In reality, the exact opposite is happening.
In the preparation of the law, Pokka would have been needed instead of poka
In the spring of 2022, a significant policy change was made in the preparation of the MRL reform, when the political parties could not reach a consensus on the content of the land use section. The reform was reduced to just a construction law, which the government has now presented to the parliament. The law on the use of areas remains unchanged at this stage.
After the situation fundamentally changed, a wide group of stakeholders demanded a new round of statements. The Ministry of the Environment did not agree to the demands of the stakeholders, but organized a nominal, ten-day consultation round around the Easter holidays. Hardly ten days to familiarize yourself with and recite the law, which however has 200 articles and about 450 pages. It is worth noting that the legislation evaluation council also considered that the demands of the stakeholders were justified and that a new round of opinions should have been organized.
The preparation of the law has been impermissibly bad, and the law has been pushed like a snake into a gun. It is quite exceptional that the working group and experts appointed to prepare the project are completely bypassed at the end of the law preparation. In addition, the impact assessments have been incomplete and the attention of stakeholders has been ignored. The statement and consultation round and the expert working group seem like pseudo-inclusion, when it seems that different perspectives have not even been taken into account.
The Ministry of the Environment has been asked to move forward with the widely criticized law, but I myself would have missed Pokka. The body of law is so significant that a director with a deep understanding of land use and construction law should have been appointed to it.
The plate is there, but the steak is missing
Based on the new laws, several decrees are being issued, which actually contain the actual content of the regulation - that is, the meat of the entire law. However, the content of the regulations is not yet known or is only being prepared in the ministry. This is despite the fact that the law and its regulations will come into force at the beginning of 2024 and construction projects that will start then are already on the planning table.
For example, the regulations "reducing emissions and promoting digitalization" are unfinished. According to the bill, a climate report must be drawn up in connection with the construction permit in the future, detailing the emissions caused by the project. The assessment model, limit values and other matters relevant to the climate assessment are set by regulations, but nothing has been heard about them since the 2021 opinion round. Moreover, they were then completely alienated from reality and practice.
The same problem exists with the RYTJ Act, which regulates the information system of the built environment. Based on it, a regulation is issued, which determines which information about building permits must be exported to the new public information system. The law was discussed in the summer, but the content of the regulation is still unknown. In addition to that, the RYTJ Act has contradictions with the Construction Act itself and its goals are unclear.
There are also several other flaws in the Construction Act. For example, it stipulates the responsibility of the principal contractor (main contractor), whose purpose is to improve the quality of construction. The article and the reasons are unclear, and it does not show to whom the principal responsible implementer answers, what the content of the responsibility is and how long the responsibility lasts.
It is justified to ask whether the show with all its problems can and should be taken forward this autumn. The future legislation is long-lived and will have an impact for decades to come. The ball is now in the parliament's court. There, it is necessary to carefully consider whether to let a bill with problems and contradictions go forward, or whether it would be worthwhile to pull the emergency brake and prepare an important legal package carefully, listening to the viewpoints of the stakeholders.
Anu Kärkkäinen
Director, Economic Policy Affairs
anu.karkkainen@rt.fi + 358 50 337 6699Building Construction Industry Association
Well argued.