Biannual address to the Storting on important EU and EEA matters

Check against delivery
Translated from the Norwegian.

Mr President,

As Europe is the focus of my address here today, I will begin with a few words about the situation of our Nordic neighbour, NATO ally and EEA partner Iceland. Iceland has been severely affected by the economic crisis. In the light of the gravity of the situation, the Norwegian Government is assessing all possible means of showing support and solidarity with our sister nation. The Prime Minister and several of my Government colleagues are in constant, close dialogue with the Icelandic authorities about the development of the financial crisis. We also have close contact with the other Nordic countries.

Our message is clear: Norway is positive about assisting Iceland. The situation in Iceland is complex and requires careful consideration. We have stressed how important it is that any Norwegian and Nordic support is based on Icelandic requests and adapted to their needs.

In the light of this, the Prime Minister has sent a delegation from Oslo to Reykjavik to get an overview of the situation, and they have had several meetings with the Icelandic authorities both yesterday and today. In addition to representatives from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Norges Bank, a Swedish senior official is participating in the delegation. These meetings will provide a good basis for assessing Norwegian measures and for the discussion between the Nordic prime ministers, foreign ministers and finance ministers in connection with the Nordic Council session to be held in Helsinki at the beginning of next week.

Let me add that we had contact concerning supporting measures even before there was an acute crisis. In May this year, the Scandinavian central banks entered into a currency swap agreement with the Central Bank of Iceland corresponding to EUR 1.5 billion. On 14 October, Iceland drew down EUR 200 million from Norway and EUR 200 million from Denmark, i.e. EUR 400 million altogether.

This assistance is appreciated in Iceland. At the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 15-16 October, Denmark and Sweden succeeded in getting a reference to Iceland’s difficult situation included in the Presidency conclusions. The Council expressed its solidarity with Iceland as an EEA country and noted that the country requires the support of the international community in its efforts.

This is the economic side of the situation. It does, of course, also have a political side. We want to support our sister nation in its difficulties. This is a matter of solidarity, but also of our desire to help ensure that our ally Iceland can continue to play a vital role in the important efforts to ensure stability and predictability in the North Atlantic, which is now seeing a general increase in traffic.

In my last address to the Storting on important EU and EEA matters – which was on 22 April – I said that these addresses give us an opportunity to discuss developments in our neighbouring areas. Today I began with Iceland. In April it was the EU’s internal development that was the focus. Since then, the institutional reform process in the EU has met with resistance, following Ireland’s no vote on the Lisbon Treaty in June.

At the same time, the parliaments of 24 of the 27 member states have ratified the treaty. The member states are therefore under considerable pressure to find a solution. The parliaments of the Czech Republic and Sweden are also expected to approve the treaty by the end of the year. The outcome of the ratification process will be of great significance for the further development of EU cooperation. Norway will follow this situation closely.

During the past few months we have once more seen that the occurrence of events may have a decisive effect on the EU agenda. Important issues during the French Presidency have been the war in Georgia and the international financial crisis. These are events that pose a challenge to all EU countries and that test the EU’s ability to take common action.

France deserves credit for taking the initiative on behalf of the EU. The EU became the single most important external actor that helped to conclude the peace agreement in the Caucasus. The Union also provided the framework for the European countries’ efforts to coordinate their responses to the financial crisis.

However, this last crisis also shows that the various countries have emphasised their need to act in accordance with their own traditions and concerns. This is only natural. But generally speaking, there has been closer coordination and cooperation between Europe’s major economies at this juncture than we have seen previously in similar situations.

The Government has maintained close contact with the bodies of the Storting as regards the outbreak of war in the Caucasus. I would now like to sum up and underscore Norway’s position.

It is dramatic when two European countries engage in full-scale hostilities over disputed political and territorial issues. Of all the continents, Europe is the one that has the political and diplomatic tools needed to enable countries to seek non-military solutions. That was not what happened.  

Georgia unquestionably shares part of the responsibility for the outbreak of the conflict. Nonetheless, there was cause to take a clear stand against the scope and extent of the Russian military operation. The scope of the operation constitutes a breach of European and international rules and norms and was, rightly or wrongly, perceived as a signal that Russian leaders are willing to use military force in an international conflict. The recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is a violation of Georgia’s territorial integrity and cannot be accepted. Russia’s actions suggest a return to power politics, which we regret and deplore.

Time will tell to what extent this really is a break with the foreign policy pursued by Russia in recent years. There are signals indicating that the friction between Russia and Western countries has increased. And Russian rhetoric has at times been confrontational and aggressive, and there have been indications of a new strategy that includes the right to spheres of interest.

The most important thing is to reduce the level of conflict at the international level.

Like the EU, Norway has stated its views on the conflict clearly, and our statements have been along the same lines as those of the EU. We have supported the EU’s active efforts to bring the hostilities to a halt and get the conflict on to a political track. The channels to Russia must be kept open.

It is worth noting that Russia has looked to the EU as a channel in the conflict with Georgia. With the French Presidency in the lead, the EU mediated the six-point agreement between the parties in the first phase of the conflict, and also the follow-up agreement of 8 September.

According to this agreement, all Russian troops were to be pulled out of undisputed Georgian territory within 10 days after a minimum of 200 EU observers had been deployed in Georgia. The Russian troops were to be withdrawn to the positions they held before the fighting broke out. The EU fulfilled its part of the agreement and deployed its civilian observers by the deadline. It was then up to Russia to withdraw its troops by 10 October. In a statement on the same day, EU High Representative Solana confirmed that the Russian troops had been withdrawn from the “buffer zones” outside the break-away areas. The EU seems to be prepared to continue implementing the agreements of 12 August and 8 September on this basis.

Norway quickly signalled its willingness to the EU to assist in this European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) operation, but contributions from third countries were not sought initially. However, the EU appreciated Norway’s offer and has indicated that it may be accepted at a later date.

The EU also quickly began to mobilise international support for reconstruction and development in Georgia. The donor conference held in Brussels yesterday demonstrated the international community’s commitment to supporting the country. Norway signalled that we would increase our support for Georgia’s economic development.

Norway has also been concerned about strengthening contact with the Georgian authorities and getting a first-hand impression of the situation, and State Secretary Raymond Johansen therefore visited Tbilisi and Gori at the beginning of the month. Based on the needs expressed by Georgia, we plan to increase our support to the country in 2009, with a focus on humanitarian assistance, democratic governance and development of the hydropower sector. As the members of the Storting know, Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, will make a long-planned visit to Oslo next week.

I would like to add that we have again seen a demonstration of the problems caused by the use of cluster munitions. We have taken this up with the parties, who are both, in our view, guilty of using this type of weapon. We have reminded them of the conference to be held in Oslo at the beginning of December to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Norway has also actively supported the OSCE’s role during the conflict. The Finnish OSCE Chairman in Office must be commended for responding quickly to the challenges and securing a strengthened OSCE presence in the area. Norway, too, is participating in this, and we have expressed our willingness to increase our contribution to 10-12 military observers if the OSCE should agree that the presence should be increased.

The Council of Europe, with the support of Norway, among others, has also become engaged in the situation. The Swedish Foreign Minister is currently chairing the Committee of Ministers and convened an informal meeting of foreign ministers on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York last month. There it was agreed that enhanced monitoring of Russia’s and Georgia’s obligations and commitments as members of the Council of Europe should be established. We now foresee an increase in the number of cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, probably both by Georgians and by citizens of South Ossetia. Once more, this illustrates the importance of the Council of Europe’s instruments.

It must be taken for granted Russia will fulfil its obligations as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as a member of the Council of Europe and the OSCE, and as a key cooperation partner for both NATO and the EU.

Norway enjoys good bilateral relations with Russia. And we intend it to continue that way. In the course of the past few weeks, I have had frank conversations with my Russian colleague on a number of matters. Norway has made clear its views on Russia’s use of military force, both bilaterally and together with NATO and the EU. The Georgia conflict has had major, negative repercussions for the Russian economy, and Russia’s reputation in the international business community has suffered.

Because of the Georgia conflict, the EU has also put the negotiations on a new partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia on hold while the Commission reviews all the aspects of EU-Russian relations. The results of this review will be presented to a meeting of EU foreign ministers on 10-11 November, and will form the basis for deciding whether the negotiations on the agreement can be resumed. The EU and Russia will come together for a summit meeting during the same week. 

While we hope to see a solution to the conflict in Georgia, a normalisation of the situation is in our interests as well. I therefore hope that the EU-Russia summit on 14 November will contribute to this.

In my view – and in an overall perspective – this situation underscores the need to continue our efforts to extend and strengthen the Euro-Atlantic institutions. This is the path to a more peaceful Europe – a path that Norway will help to chart both at European level and in our neighbouring areas. 

Here I would like to point out that we have been seeking, both bilaterally and through the Government’s High North Strategy, to develop stable cooperation with Russia by means of visible, concrete measures. In my view, the practical approach we are taking in the border regions, together with an open, direct dialogue with the authorities in Moscow, has provided us with a solid platform for developing our bilateral relations. I note that the Standing Committee on Defence recently made a visit to Moscow. According to the feedback I have had, they had frank, direct discussions with the central and regional authorities.   

A status report on the implementation of the High North Strategy and our project cooperation with Russia can be found in the budget proposal for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The EU, too, has an extensive framework for relations with its neighbours to the east. The most important instruments are the strategic partnership with Russia and the European Neighbourhood Policy, vis-à-vis other neighbouring countries to the east. Norway has close contact with the EU concerning the cooperation with Russia. We are for example participating in a programme, known as Kolarctic, that is now being developed to strengthen the cross-border cooperation between Russian, Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish regions in the north. We also have close contact with the EU concerning Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and the republics of the Caucasus. At the same time, the Commission is preparing an EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, where relations with Russia are key. Norway is participating in the work on this strategy.

Some of our efforts are channelled through the Northern Dimension, which is a common platform for cooperation in the EU, where Russia, Norway and Iceland take part on an equal footing. A ministerial meeting within this framework is being held in St. Petersburg next Tuesday. The European Commission is participating in the Barents Cooperation, where Russia and Norway are key actors. The Baltic Sea Cooperation is also an important part of this architecture. The energy cooperation under the Baltic Sea Region Energy Cooperation (BASREC) is an example of practical cooperation between Russia and the EU countries around the Baltic Sea on concrete, complex challenges.

In other words, Norway is a participant – or plays a supporting role – in many of the processes that are helping to bring east and west in Europe together. Considering our relations with Russia and our relations with the EU, this is only natural. These are all key aspects of the Government’ active European policy.

Now I will turn to two other major fields in the EU and the EEA where we must follow developments closely: first, justice and home affairs, with a focus on immigration policy; and second, the climate and energy package. As you will recall, in my address in April I discussed research in addition to climate issues.

I will begin with justice and home affairs.

The French Presidency has sought to put a special focus on immigration policy. In July a draft of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, which covers all the major challenges in this policy area, was submitted to the Council of the European Union.

As you know, the Government will submit a white paper on Norwegian refugee and immigration policy in a European perspective in 2009. Norwegian asylum and immigration policy must be drawn up in the light of general international trends. A sustainable policy in this area must take account of global migration flows and of our European neighbours’ refugee and immigration policies.

Immigration policy and integration policy influence each other, and the EU countries’ integration policies are also of interest to us. These countries have retained their national decision-making authority in this policy area. The Commission has, however, drawn up a common framework for integration and established a network of national contact points. The Norwegian Government has been granted permanent observer status in this network, and has participated in a number of EU ministerial conferences on integration.

However, the EU member states show little willingness to unite behind a common policy on legal immigration. This area has been regarded as a national concern. But the many amnesties granted in several of the member states are an example of how matters of national concern most definitely can have an indirect effect on the other countries. The countries that have granted such amnesties have been criticised because the generalised regularisation of the status of illegal immigrants may exacerbate the problems of human trafficking and illegal immigration. The EU devotes considerable resources to combating these problems.

With the European Pact on Asylum and Immigration, which was adopted at the top-level summit last week, France has brought the EU one step closer to a common policy for legal immigration. According to the Pact, an annual debate is to be held on the member states’ immigration and asylum policies. The EU wants a more effective means of regulating family migration and an ambitious policy to promote integration. The Pact also expresses the European Council’s agreement to limit the use of generalised regularisation.

Through the Schengen cooperation, Norway is part of the border-free travel area in Europe. This means that the policy developed in the EU will also have a bearing on Norway’s policy choices, regardless of whether or not we are formally aligned with it.

This year we have seen a steep increase in the number of asylum-seekers coming to Norway. There may be several reasons for this. It is partly due to the policies and practices conducted by our neighbours. For example, now that Sweden has concluded a return agreement with Iraq, more Iraqi asylum-seekers are coming to Norway.

If the countries are to be able to protect those in need of protection, illegal immigrants must return to their countries of origin. This is important if we are to maintain the integrity of the institution of asylum. In recent years, the EU has worked to establish rules for the return of illegal immigrants to their countries of origin.

In June the Council of the European Union agreed on a directive that will harmonise return routines and procedures. It is expected that the Return Directive will be adopted at a meeting of the Council tomorrow, 24 October. This is relevant for us in a Schengen context, and Norway has worked to ensure that the directive is as far as possible compatible with Norwegian law. Nonetheless, if it is to be incorporated into Norwegian law, this will entail some amendments to our immigration legislation. The countries of Europe have different practices as regards return. Thus, if harmonised rules are to be put in place, the various countries will have to adapt their legislation in different ways.

Let me give you an example. As regards the duration of re-entry ban, the general rule in the existing and the new Norwegian Immigration Act is that it may be permanent or limited to a specified period. According to the Return Directive, as a general rule, the duration of the re-entry ban is not to exceed five years. The Return Directive also includes provisions on the right to free legal aid. The question whether these provisions would require changes in our own legal aid scheme will have to be examined more closely.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion will, in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, draw up consultation documents concerning proposed amendments, and a proposition to the Odelsting, which will be submitted to the Storting. This work will begin in the course of the autumn.

In February this year, the European Commission proposed the establishment of an electronic system for recording entry and exit dates of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Schengen area as part of what is known as the border package. This could be an effective mechanism for identifying third-country nationals who enter the Schengen area legally but overstay the deadline for leaving. The system would also make it possible to simplify border-crossing procedures for bona fide travellers, i.e. travellers there is reason to believe will follow the rules.

This could present new opportunities for how we carry out controls along our part of the Schengen area’s external border in the north. Now that 108 000 people cross the border at Storskog annually and our Consulate General in Murmansk grants 98% of visa applications, it should be unnecessary to spend an equal amount of time and resources on every person who wants to cross this border.

In other words, we need a system that both facilitates simplified electronic checks of bona fide travellers and ensures effective control. This is an important element of our High North strategy.

The EU proposal is still in its initial phase. First of all, the technical feasibility and the costs need to be assessed. A concrete proposal from the European Commission is not expected until 2010. In the light of existing EU legislation in similar areas, we have reason to believe that the system will be developed in accordance with basic principles of privacy protection and that basic rights will be safeguarded, including the right to seek asylum. For Norway, these will be important considerations during our active participation in the preparation of the legislation.

Another element of the border package is the European Commission’s proposal for a system for electronic surveillance of the external borders, focusing particularly on the southern maritime borders and the eastern land borders. The main element of this concept, which is called Eurosur, will be the establishment of a common technical framework to provide support for national border control efforts and improve cooperation between member states and with third countries. In the proposal, it is envisaged that the system will be developed in three phases, with the aim of establishing an integrated electronic border-management system by 2013. In the first phase, the Commission proposes that national coordination centres should be set up in each of the participating countries.

Our participation in the Schengen cooperation also means that we participate in certain aspects of EU police cooperation, but this cooperation is much closer than the Schengen cooperation itself. For example, the EU rules on enhanced police cooperation, which are based on the Prüm Treaty, fall outside the Schengen cooperation.

The most important element of these rules is improved information exchange between police authorities in EU member states. One important measure is that states will provide other states’ police authorities access to national databases containing information on DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration data. The rules also include extensive provisions on data security and privacy protection.

My point is that the Prüm Treaty makes a useful and important contribution to improving police cooperation. The Government considers it important for Norway to be able to join this enhanced cooperation. We are therefore pleased to note that France has expressed its hope that it will be possible to conclude the negotiations with Norway during the French Presidency.

I will now turn to the second major field. In my previous address on EU and EEA matters, in April, I talked about the Commission’s climate and energy package, and I would like to return to this topic now. At the meeting of the European Council last week, various countries called for greater flexibility as regards the objectives and timetable for the climate and energy package in the light of the financial crisis. The EU nonetheless reaffirmed its original objective of reaching political agreement on the content of the package before the end of the year. According to plan, the European Parliament will pass the whole package in one reading at the beginning of December, and it should be formally adopted by the Council early in 2009.

The French Presidency has given high priority to the issue of climate change, as it has to asylum and immigration policy. There is broad agreement that it is important for the EU to establish clear positions well ahead of the climate summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. The key elements of the climate and energy package will probably be EEA-relevant.

With its far-reaching climate and energy proposals, the EU has placed in itself in a leading position internationally, setting ambitious targets for reducing CO2 emissions and for the use of renewable energy. The EU is establishing new rules in the area of climate change, which are likely to have a broad global impact and will definitely affect our country.

The European Commission has announced that it will set even more ambitious targets for emissions reductions in the EU if the international community reaches agreement on global solutions for the period after 2012.

In my address in April I mentioned Norway’s extensive research cooperation with the EU and the Union’s efforts to draw up a roadmap for European research infrastructure. I am now pleased to say that two Norwegian proposals, both related to climate research, look set to be included in the updated roadmap. One of these is for a project on carbon capture and storage and the other for a project on Svalbard’s role as a research platform. This will strengthen Svalbard’s position as an international focal point of climate and environmental research.

Another important element of the climate and energy package is the proposed new Renewable Energy Directive, under which the EU establishes an overall binding target to increase the share of renewable energy in its energy mix from 8.5% in 2005 to 20% in 2020. The targets for individual member states vary, partly according to their GDP.

The EU also proposes to differentiate countries’ obligations under the amended Emissions Trading Directive and other parts of the climate and energy package according to their economic strength. This will make it possible for the EU to increase its overall effort.

We have high ambitions as regards renewable energy, and therefore welcome the EU’s commitment in this area. However, Norway is in a different position from the other European countries, with the exception of Iceland. Renewables – mainly hydropower – already account for about 60% of our energy mix. This is a far higher share than in any of the EU countries. The draft Renewables Directive is now being considered by the European Parliament, with a view to adoption by the Council in spring 2009. The Government is pursuing this matter actively to safeguard Norway’s interests.

The development of renewable energy sources in Norway is closely linked to Nordic and European cooperation, and it will be important for us to participate in pan-European markets in future as well. My point is that Norway is in a unique position to contribute to Europe’s energy supplies. The main thrust of the Government’s policy line vis-à-vis the EU in this field will be to safeguard and further develop Norway’s advantages and position together with our European partners.

Norway was among the first countries to put a price tag on CO2 emissions. We produce more renewable energy relative to energy use than any EU member state. We have spearheaded efforts to promote carbon capture and storage (CCS). We now see that support for this type of technology is increasing. This is a topic that comes up in virtually all our meetings with EU colleagues. Norwegian experts have also been involved in developing the legislation in this field envisaged by the EU.

The Government is pleased to note that the EU – as indicated in the climate and energy package – is prepared to facilitate the construction of up to 12 pilot plants for CCS. However, it is not yet clear how these pilots will be funded. Norway will work actively to promote CCS in Europe. This is a field where Norwegian efforts can make a difference. 

This discussion of the fight against climate change brings me to some other EEA matters of current interest. The Government has set ambitious goals for carbon capture and storage. Norway’s efforts in this field are one of the ways we are addressing climate change. Support has therefore been provided for a pilot project for CCS at the Mongstad power plant. When we notified the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) of the establishment of this test centre, we argued that it should be legitimate for the state to promote the development of technologies that are crucial to achieving reductions in CO2 emissions.

We are therefore pleased that ESA has now decided that the Norwegian state’s investment in the test centre at Mongstad is compatible with the rules on state aid. This project is an important element in European efforts to address climate change.

The CCS project at Mongstad is a key element in the development of forward-looking CCS technologies. But the objective goes beyond capturing CO2 from one specific plant in Norway. The aim is to promote large-scale application of such technologies. In order to achieve this, we must organise our efforts as effectively as possible. In the Government’s view, state aid is essential to ensure that the best projects go ahead.

In May 2008, the Ministry of the Environment concluded an agreement with 14 trade associations on cuts in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The organisations are to play a part in ensuring that Norway meets its NOx commitment under the Gothenburg Protocol. To do this, emissions must be reduced by 30 000 tonnes by the end of 2011.

The Government is pleased that ESA has approved Norway’s NOx solution, which combines taxation with an agreement concluded with the business sector. The agreement is expected to lead to large-scale use of NOx reduction technologies and cuts in NOx emissions.

The Government has now drawn up plans to ensure that Norway carries out the emissions reductions that are necessary in order to meet our NOx commitment under the Gothenburg Protocol as soon as possible.

On 16 July, the Government was informed of ESA’s decision on the Norwegian National Allocation Plan for greenhouse gas emissions for the period 2008–2012. ESA raised objections against certain elements of the plan, but these were not related to its environmental objectives. Thus, the Government’s ambitions for an environmentally sound emission trading scheme with a strict national allocation plan remain unchanged.

In the Government’s view, it is crucial to ensure that the emission trading scheme is ambitious, with a strict national allocation plan. When we have adjusted our plan in response to ESA’s objections, it will still play a part in achieving effective emissions reductions nationally and globally, and it will strengthen the EU ETS. The Government aims to have an approved National Allocation Plan in place by the end of the year.

In previous addresses to the Storting, I have pointed out that changes in the EU’s working methods can pose a challenge for Norway because they are not automatically mirrored in the institutional structures of the EEA Agreement. Let me give you an example of this.

In a broader, European policy perspective, we are now seeing a growing tendency for the European Commission and the EU Presidency to launch overall strategies and legislation packages – precisely to signal the priority a particular policy area is given. The climate and energy package is a good example.

Dealing with such extensive packages is demanding, both for the individual EU members and for the EU institutions. These processes also represent a considerable challenge for Norway. Formally speaking, Norway will be affected by the content of such packages through the EEA and Schengen agreements. And we generally wish – and are expected – to respond actively to the whole breadth of EU policy.

The challenges relating to cross-sectoral proposals from the EU are increasing with the growing importance of the European Parliament. Discussions in the European Parliament and between the Council and the Parliament have become more important, and as a result Norway is focusing more closely on the Parliament’s work in Brussels and Strasbourg. It is important for us to become involved as early as possible in these processes so that we can develop Norwegian positions at an appropriate stage.

A package that is currently in the pipeline is the Commission’s Renewed Social Agenda, which covers access to the labour market and social services, opportunities for all and solidarity between the generations, i.e. a cross-sectoral package that includes working life, social policy, equal treatment, health, migration and education. The purpose of the package is to develop the EU’s social dimension in an era of globalisation and when social patterns and people’s daily lives are changing.

The package includes 19 initiatives of varying form and content. The most concrete proposals so far are the three proposals for directives on European works councils, non-discrimination, and cross-border healthcare. It is these in particular that affect us directly and are relevant for incorporation into the EEA Agreement. I will therefore say a few more words about them.

Firstly, the directive on European works councils, which is not really new, but rather a revision of an existing directive. The system of European works councils is to be improved so that employees in transnational companies are better informed and consulted in connection with changes and restructuring. The changes will affect 15 million employees in the EU and their 19 000 employee representatives. The proposal clarifies what is meant by information and consultation, and introduces new procedures in cases where existing agreements are to be altered or terminated, as well as more obligatory meetings and stricter reporting requirements.

Moving on now to the second directive – on non-discrimination. The objective of the proposed directive is to prohibit discrimination outside the labour market on the basis of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The existing legislation covers discrimination within the labour market, including gender discrimination. The proposed directive is thus the last stage in the EU’s non-discrimination legislation. It emphasises that legislation on matters such as marriage, adoption, and the nature of any relationship between organised religion and the state will continue to be regulated at national level.

And now to the third. One of the objectives of the proposed directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare is to establish a clear framework that ensures the free movement of health services and protects the health of people living in the EU. Other objectives are to provide sufficient clarity about the right to reimbursement for healthcare provided in other EU/EEA states, and to ensure that the necessary requirements for high-quality, safe and efficient healthcare are met. The rights of the member states to organise, finance and deliver health services and medical care are fully respected. According to the Commission, the provisions on the right to reimbursement of costs in the proposal are essentially a codification of case-law of the European Court of Justice.

This is all I will say for now about the European Commission’s set of proposals – or package – for the Renewed Social Agenda.

I would like to close with a few words about three other issues.

As regards the Services Directive, the Government has held a public consultation on the consequences of implementing this directive in Norwegian law. A consultation document was published on 1 July and was widely distributed, and the deadline for comments was 20 October. After the adoption of the Services Directive in the EU, a working group chaired by the Ministry of Trade and Industry was appointed to identify amendments to Norwegian legislation that may be necessary in response to the directive. In addition, six external actors were commissioned by the Ministry to explore various issues related to the directive.

The consultation document presents the results of these studies and examines in detail the content of the directive and its consequences. The document discusses different solutions for implementing the directive in Norwegian law if it is incorporated into the EEA Agreement. After this round of consultation, the Government will examine all the available material on the directive before a decision is taken on whether it is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

There are a number of aspects of the directive that are important for Norway. It concerns the services sector, which accounts for a large and growing part of the economy of the European countries. And it raises the question of whether we will be able to maintain and further develop our policy on safeguarding workers’ rights. In other words, this is an important matter that merits careful consideration before the Government draws its conclusion. In this context, the Government will attach decisive importance to safeguarding workers’ rights and maintaining our high level of ambition in our efforts to prevent social dumping.

During the course of the autumn, the European Parliament will consider the proposal for a directive on working conditions for temporary workers, and a proposal for amendments to the existing Working Time Directive. The objective of the former is to ensure equal treatment of temporary workers and permanent workers. It is presumed that both directives may be EEA-relevant, but the amendments that would be needed in Norwegian legislation have not yet been clarified.

I would also like to add that – as the bodies of the Storting are already aware – we have now started negotiations with the EU on new financial contributions to reduce economic and social disparities in the EEA. The negotiations will be tough, and our aim is to reach agreement well before the current financial mechanisms expire on 30 April 2009. The Government will in the usual way keep the bodies of the Storting informed about the progress of the negotiations.

Finally, I would like to inform you that the Government launched the EEA Database on the European Portal – i.e. a Ministry of Foreign Affairs Internet portal – two months ago, on 22 August. The public now has direct insight into the public administration’s work on EU legislation that is being considered for incorporation into the EEA Agreement.

The launch of the EEA Database will make it easier for both experts and the general public to keep up to date with work on EU legislation that has consequences for Norway. The website will also provide general information on the EEA Agreement and how it works.

The EEA Database is a useful tool in our efforts to identify and develop a position on new initiatives from the EU at the earliest possible stage. Direct insight into work on EEA matters is of great significance for the principle of maximum access to public information and is thus in line with the Government’s intention of pursuing an open and active European policy.