Regional democracy in Norway

Mr President,

On behalf of the Minister of Local Government and Regional Development, Mrs. Erna Solberg, I thank you for this opportunity to address the Chamber of Regions on issues regarding regional democracy in Norway. I am honoured to be given the opportunity to stand here today. Unfortunately the Minister had to attend the Parliament today, but as you all know she will be here on the 27 ^th> of May. If you have questions left after today you will be given the opportunity on Thursday.

The Recommendation (141 (2003)) on regional democracy in Norway focuses on highly important issues. The recommendations are very interesting regarding the current debate in Norway on regional democracy and the distribution of responsibilities between the levels of government.

The Recommendation 141 (2003) highlights very important aspects that will be taken into consideration by the government. As part of the preparation for the general election in 2005 the political parties have put the regional level on their agenda, and the organisation of the county authorities is frequently being discussed in the media.

Before I go into detail I will give you some background information about Norway. It is obvious that questions about the structure of regional self government and the need for reform must be discussed in the light of the concrete situation in the country.

Historically local democracy is strong in Norway and in present day politics it is considered maybe more important than ever. Despite being a rich and fortunate nation Norway will be challenged by the consequences of changing demography and centralisation, as well as the population’s increasing expectations regarding welfare services. To be able to handle these challenges a functional local democracy is of crucial importance.

Norway has three levels of government. The country is divided into 434 municipalities and 19 county authorities. The capital Oslo is classified as being both a county authority and a municipality. Compared to other European countries Norway has a relatively small population with its 4.6 million inhabitants.

The municipalities vary significantly regarding size, topography and population. More than half have less than 5000 inhabitants and eight have more than 50 000 inhabitants. Most of the welfare services provided are produced by the municipalities and the county authorities. Local government represent two thirds of Norway’s production of public services and is as such an important factor in the country’s economy.

The framework of the activities of the county authorities and the municipalities is laid down by the parliament through legislation and decisions regarding local government financing. The parliament determines the division of responsibilities between the different levels of government. Government can only assign new functions to local government by means of legislation or decisions made by the parliament. However, it is an important principle that the county authorities and the municipalities voluntarily may assume tasks that have not been assigned to others by law. Thus the present distribution of responsibilities is partly the result of decisions made by the parliament and partly of initiatives taken by local government.

The regional level – the county authorities – are at present being discussed in Norway. In this debate The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities is and important contributor. The discussion focuses mainly on the role and responsibilities of the county authorities. Nevertheless the discussion can not be isolated from the role and responsibilities of the municipalities, nor from the broader context of modernisation of the public sector.

One of the main principles of the government’s reform of the public sector is the delegation and decentralisation of responsibility and authority. This entails giving importance to local responsibility and strengthens local autonomy. Decentralisation of responsibilities and authority is a crucial step towards genuine local democracy and an efficient and user friendly administration.

In 2002 the present government initiated a reform which rendered the county authorities a more important role in regional development. The reform was outlined in a White Paper in which the government submitted its recommendations regarding the distribution of responsibilities between the different levels of government. The recommendations were to a large degree adopted by the parliament.

The same year as the White Paper was submitted the responsibility for the hospitals was taken over by the state. Until 2002 this had been the responsibility of the county authorities. Today the county authorities have the responsibility for upper secondary school and task related to regional development such as transport, county roads, and planning.

In the White Paper the government considered the distribution of responsibilities between the county authorities and the county governors and between the county authorities and the municipalities. The main emphasis was put on the revision of responsibilities in the areas of the environment, agriculture planning and land management. The principle for the consideration was that the changes in the distribution of responsibilities should reduce the bureaucracy, that the county authorities should not assume superordinate authority and that decisions should be made as close as possible to the people they affect.

One of the main principles of the government’s reform of the public sector is the delegation and decentralisation of responsibility and authority. This entails giving importance to local responsibility and strengthen local autonomy. Decentralisation of responsibilities and authority is a crucial step towards genuine local democracy and an efficient and user friendly administration.

As part of the reform the county authorities’ role as regional development stakeholders was renewed and strengthened. This implies that the county authorities are to be developed from being mainly an exercising authority to becoming a motive power in the regional development. To make this possible the county authorities have been given increased power in the administration of rural and regional policy instruments. It is important that the county authorities take a leading role and functions as a partner in regional development. This means that they must take the lead and the necessary initiative to further develop the regional partnerships. At the same time regional development must become a joint responsibility for the county authority, municipalities and the business community in the region.

When it comes to the organisation of the county system – meaning the number of county authorities and their geographical division - the government holds the view that the county authorities voluntarily and on the basis of their current responsibilities may consider whether the present county system is appropriate. This is consistent with the principle of local self government which is at the basis of the government’s policy regarding the county authorities and the municipalities.

The government has implemented pilot projects involving alternative models for organising the public sector. The pilot projects started in January this year and will last for four years. The projects are of two kinds. The first kind, called a unitary county, involves organising the County Governor and the county authority in a single administrative body. The second kind involves the differentiation of responsibilities. This means that some county authorities and municipalities are assigned one or more state or county responsibility. The differentiation of county authority and municipal responsibilities is consistent with the principle that responsibilities should be assigned and decisions made as close as possible to the people they affect.

The unitary county involves the integration of the county authority with the County Governor’s Office to form a single regional body. The new administrative body attends to both traditional state responsibilities such as the review of legality, appeals supervision, as well as providing public services and regional development. The unitary county consists of a central government part and a county part that is subject to the authority of the county council. It is a requirement that the supervisory and the appeals responsibilities are kept separate from the other responsibilities of the unitary county. The unitary county may be considered a simplification of public sector administration by the public at the regional level. It may also reduce the duplication of bureaucracy.

The distribution of responsibilities between the different levels of government is currently based on what is termed the generalist local authority system. This means that all municipalities and county authorities are intended to fulfil the same functions associated with democracy, the production of public services, legal safeguards and local development responsibilities. The differentiation of responsibilities entails that municipalities and county authorities are assigned different responsibilities than they otherwise would be given. The purpose of the pilot projects is to open the possibility for untraditional solutions that may improve the quality of the public services.

As part of the reform the government will assess the county authorities. This will be done in two phases. In 2005 the government will submit an assessment of the county authorities to the parliament. This will mainly be restricted to an assessment of the county authorities’ new role as regional development stakeholders and an assessment of the regional partnerships. However, a general account of the status of the county authorities’ roles and responsibilities will also be given.

During the next session of the parliament - that is from 2005-2009 – the government will implement a broad research based evaluation of the county authorities and the organisations of the regional level in general. The evaluation will include the pilot projects with unitary counties and the differentiation of the responsibilities of the municipalities and county authorities. Both the assessment and the evaluation of the county authorities will involve contact with The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities. The recommendations from the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities raise highly interesting questions that will be taken into consideration.

Mr. President, Members of the Chamber of Regions, as you may have understood from my presentation regional democracy is given top priority on the political agenda of my government. The Congress’ initiative to prepare a monitoring report on the situation on regional democracy in Norway has turned out very successfully.

On behalf of the Minister of Local Government and Regional Development I thank the Congress, and particular the Chamber of Regions, for their valuable contribution regarding regional democracy in Norway. I am appreciative of the work done by you, Mr President Di Stasi and I thank you for your initiative. Many thanks also to the rapporteur Mr Roberto Ruocco assisted by the expert Mr Fabrice Hugot for making an exellent report, and to the Congress Secretariat Mr Günter Mudrich and Mrs Irina Blonina for their contributions and excellent cooperation.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for listening. I am now prepared to answer your questions.