Committee on Rights of Child examines report of Norway

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today reviewed the fourth periodic report of Norway on how that country is implementing the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Introducing the report, Audun Lysbakken, Minister for Children, Equality and Social Inclusion of Norway, said that, over the past 20 years, the Convention on the Rights of the Child had played an important part in raising awareness about children’s living conditions and rights in Norway, and it had set the agenda for Norway’s children’s and family policy. The Government recognized the need for strengthening the child welfare services in Norway and had provided authorities with additional funding in 2010 to make it possible to establish 400 new positions for that work. Some children experienced domestic violence, either directly or as witnesses. New legislation required local authorities to provide shelters for those that were affected by domestic violence. It was also the Government’s goal to ensure that all unaccompanied minor asylum-seekers between the ages of 15 and 18 years old were under the care of the child welfare authorities, but the current resource situation indicated that it might be difficult to achieve that goal in the next four-year period.

With reference to the Committee’s concern regarding the right of children to be heard, Mr. Lysbakken said it was the Norwegian Government’s goal to ensure that children and young people were able to exert greater influence in local and central decision processes. In 82 per cent of the municipalities in Norway there was now a mechanism for the participation of children and young people in local issues. Moreover, in 2011, a pilot project would be launched that would allow young people to vote in local elections in certain municipalities from the age of 16. The right of children to be heard was also important in asylum cases. In that connection, new immigration legislation had entered into force this year which had resulted in statutory requirements for children to be heard in all cases that affected them.

In preliminary concluding observations, Committee Expert Lothar Krappmann, who served as Rapporteur for the report of Norway, said that many questions had been discussed and many answers and explanations had clarified problems and brought better understanding on what Norway was doing or planned to do. Norway had developed good practices in many fields. But there were also areas where the Committee would urge it to strengthen practices, such as with regard to its child welfare services, disparities in the provision of services among the different municipalities, concerning mental health services and others.

During the course of the two meetings, Other Experts raised a series of questions pertaining to, among other things, the right of the child to be heard; the missing mandate of the Child Ombudsman to deal with complaints; whether religious and ethical instruction in schools was genuinely neutral; “virtual” dependencies on new technologies by children and adolescents; what method was used to assess the age of an unaccompanied and undocumented child asylum-seeker; and how cases of forced marriages and female genital mutilation were dealt with, as well as preventive action in those areas. The Committee was also concerned that the family income supplements varied depending on the place where a family lived and not depending on the extent of poverty.

The Committee will release its formal, written concluding observations and recommendations on the fourth periodic report of Norway towards the end of its three-week session, which will conclude on 29 January 2010.

The delegation of Norway also included representatives from the Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations Office at Geneva; the Ministry for Children, Equality and Social Inclusion; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Justice and Police; the Ministry of Health and Care; and the Ministry of Education and Research.

When the Committee reconvenes on Friday, 22 January, at 10 a.m., it will consider the initial periodic report of Liechtenstein under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC/C/OPAC/LIE/1).

Report of Norway

According to the fourth periodic report of Norway (CRC/C/NOR/4), the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children today has a completely independent and non-partisan role. The Ombudsman for Children and the Ministry for Children and Equality have an agreed understanding that the Ombudsman has a completely independent role, and that the arrangement functions according to its purpose. The Ombudsman for Children has, however, raised the question as to whether the Ministry or Parliament should be responsible for the appointment of the Ombudsman.

Addressing emerging issues in children’s rights, the report notes that a new Biotechnology Act, adopted in 2003, provides for children born by assisted fertilization with the help of donor sperm, upon attaining the age of 18, to have the right to receive information concerning the donor’s identity. Only the child has the right to request the information about the sperm donor. It is up to the parents to tell the child that he/she has been born as a result of medically assisted reproduction involving sperm donation. The provision does not have retroactive force, and only applies to children who are conceived after the provision entered into force on 1 January 2005. The Government will also put forward proposals regarding amendments of the Marriage Act, the Children Act, the Adoption Act etc. to allow same-sex marriages the right to adoption and which will give lesbian couples the right to medically assisted reproduction. At the same time, amendments to the Children’s Act will be proposed, so that children of lesbian couples conceived by medically assisted reproduction are treated legally as children born in heterosexual relationships. Another goal is for lesbian and homosexual couples and families to make use of the family counselling services to a greater extent than today. To that end, methods of assistance for same-sex couples will be further developed, among other things, by strengthening the competence with the family counselling offices in this type of relationship and families. This increased effort will also be beneficial for children and young people.

Presentation of Report

AUDUN LYSBAKKEN, Minister for Children, Equality and Social Inclusion of Norway, said that, over the past 20 years, the Convention on the Rights of the Child had played an important part in raising awareness about children’s living conditions and rights in Norway, and it had set the agenda for Norway’s children’s and family policy. It also underpinned Norway’s policy on day-care centres and schools, child welfare services and on the inclusion of children from minority groups.

Mr. Lysbakken noted that one of the Committee’s observations on Norway’s third periodic report had been that Norway should continued efforts to ensure that national legislation was in full conformity with the Convention. In 2008, therefore, an external, independent legal assessment had been initiated to follow-up on that recommendation. The report concluded that Norwegian legislation was generally in line with the objectives and principles of the Convention. Certain areas, however, were judged to need improvement and the Government had a comprehensive follow-up plan for those findings.

The Government also recognized the need for strengthening the child welfare services, Mr. Lysbakken said, and had provided authorities with additional funding in 2010 to make it possible to establish 400 new positions for that work. In particular, many children found themselves in a situation where their parents no longer lived together and it was important to provide a framework that helped parents to care for their children both before and after a separation. As of 2010, counselling groups would be started for children who were affected by the break up of their families.

Some children experienced domestic violence, either directly or as witnesses. New legislation required local authorities to provide shelters for those that were affected by domestic violence. Six children’s houses designed to help children who had been subject to violence or abuse had been established in a short period of time. A seventh would be opened this year, Mr. Lysbakken added.

It was also the Government’s goal to ensure that all unaccompanied minor asylum-seekers between the ages of 15 and 18 years old were under the care of the child welfare authorities, but the current resource situation indicated that it might be difficult to achieve that goal in the next four-year period. Here, Mr. Lysbakken observed that Norway was among the European countries had received the most unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, and it had been difficult to deal with such high numbers.

With reference to the Committee’s concern regarding the right of children to be heard, Mr. Lysbakken said it was the Norwegian Government’s goal to ensure that children and young people were able to exert greater influence in local and central decision processes. In 82 per cent of the municipalities in Norway there was now a mechanism for the participation of children and young people in local issues. Moreover, in 2011, a pilot project would be launched that would allow young people to vote in local elections in certain municipalities from the age of 16.

The right of children to be heard was also important in asylum cases. In that connection, new immigration legislation had entered into force this year which had resulted in statutory requirements for children to be heard in all cases that affected them, Mr. Lysbakken said.

The proportion of children living in poverty in Norway was low in an international context, but Mr. Lysbakken noted that the proportion of children in low-income families had increased in the period from 2000 to 2007. The Government wished to provide a framework that gave all children and young people the opportunity to develop and participate in the community, regardless of their parent’s economic and social situation. It was also the Government’s goal to ensure good day-care facilities for all children, which was an important element in Norway’s integrated approach to childcare and learning.

Turning to the recent devastating earthquake in Haiti, Mr Lysbakken said that Norway was deeply concerned about the extremely difficult situation which was now unfolding there and had responded to the United Nations appeal by pledging a contribution of approximately $17 million. That would be partly channelled through the United Nations Children's Fund in order to target the large number of children who were faced with that disaster.

Questions by Experts

LOTHAR KRAPPMANN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Norway, noted that Norway was one of the nine States parties that had always submitted its reports to the Committee on time. He also noted that during his visit to Norway last October he had met with about 60 children in Oslo and that the Committee had received interesting results of a survey initiated by the Government on children’s awareness and comprehension of the Convention.

The Committee recognized that Norway was a highly committed State party, Mr. Krappmann underscored. Norway was involved in numerous child-rights activities in countries such as Tanzania, India, Angola, Malawi, South Africa and others. The Committee considered Norway as one of its strong allies.

Turning to the right of the child to be heard, Mr. Krappmann said that children with whom he had talked in Oslo had declared that often, too often, that they were not heard by their parents, teachers and social workers. They had said they were not heard in school matters, in crisis situations, or in the community; and that they often felt that they were not believed. Could the Government do more to change such widespread attitudes towards children? There also seemed to be some gaps in judicial procedures, child welfare services, participation in the community and in children’s dialogues with ministries.

Also, were complaint mechanisms easily accessible to children? In its last dialogue with Norway, the Committee had discussed the missing mandate of the Child Ombudsman to deal with complaints, Mr. Krappmann recalled. Had the State party reconsidered its position?

Children and other observers had also agreed that social workers were often not reachable and that the initiation of help often took too much time. Follow-up was missing or unsatisfactory, emergency services were overburdened and capacity for prevention was widely missing. While noting that 400 new staff positions had been created by the 2010 State budget, Mr. Krappmann wondered if that was enough in view of Norway’s 430 municipalities.

Mr. Krappmann also noted that younger children could not contact the Welfare Service without their parents being informed. That obligation could be counterproductive, he noted. Would Norway consider giving the right to children under 12 years of age to address the service independently of their parents?

Mr. Krappmann also noted that there were disparities between the kinds of services available among the different municipalities in Norway. Those could range from well established to almost non-existent provisions. Such disparities were also found in the schools and in the health system. Those disparities endangered an equal implementation of children’s rights. Was it possible to guarantee that a good standard was met everywhere?

Other Experts then raised a series of questions pertaining to, among other things, the relationship between the business sector and human rights. What was Norway doing to enable the private sector to properly respect human rights and also for it to meet its social and environmental responsibility vis-à-vis the rights of communities and their children? Also, what was Norway doing with regards to Norwegian companies operating in foreign countries? Was there any mechanism in place to monitor their activities?

Another Expert asked for more information on the pilot project which would give voting rights to 16 year olds. How would those adolescents be introduced to civil rights?

Other questions and comments by Experts included a request for clarification on whether all children born in Norway were automatically registered at the time of birth, and if a birth certificate was systematically issued; whether religious and ethical instruction in schools was genuinely neutral; how Norway assessed that the best interests of the child were guaranteed in the procedures currently in place; and reports that asylum-seeking minors were not systematically being heard during asylum procedures.

On access to inappropriate information through the Internet, such as pornography, an Expert noted that Norway had a software programme that prevented undesired access and asked how that worked in practice. In a similar vein, Experts asked the delegation to elaborate on the situation of abusive access and cases of virtual dependencies on new technologies by children and adolescents. What was done to address advertisements that induced patterns of unhealthy consumption in children and adolescents? Could consumers’ associations intervene in such cases?

Response by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said, regarding the right to be heard, that it was an issue that they would put high on their agenda when going back home. More adult awareness was a good place to start in addressing that issue. According to the Children’s Act, parents should listen to their child before taking a decision affecting him or her. Research had showed that there were improvements in this field, and that the majority of children over seven years of age had the opportunity to be heard in Norway. Children over seven had also the right to state which parent they wanted to stay with in divorce cases.

A dialogue forum between youth representatives and the Ministry for Children, Equality and Social Inclusion had also been created, which tried to meet once a year, the delegation added. Norway was aware of shortcomings in this area and was looking to improve.

The delegation also acknowledged the importance of spreading knowledge about the Convention through the education system. The Government would try to include courses on the Convention in trainings of professionals dealing with children. However, universities and colleges were independent institutions and the Government could not determine the content of their curricula. In 2008, the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, with financial support from the Ministry for Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, had published a book on the Convention. An event to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Convention had also been organized in Norway.

On the child welfare system, the delegation said that a Ministerial Committee of the Ministry for Children, Equality and Social Inclusion had published a report last December to improve coordination for children at risk. That report would probably lead to several new laws on the matter. As an example, the Ministerial Committee had suggested the creation of mandatory municipal healthcare and psychiatric services for children.

Regarding the need for more positions in the child welfare service, the delegation said that this year’s budget had provided funding for an additional 400 positions in the municipal services. That number was only a part of the needed increase; they would need 1,500 new positions in the near future. But that need of staff was also a positive sign. It demonstrated the population’s trust in child welfare services and the rise of the number of children in contact with those services.

Concerning child victims of violence or sexual abuse, the delegation indicated that the Ministry of Justice had established six children’s advocacy centres for such children. From January 2010 a law guaranteed shelter for victims. Such shelters were mandatory for municipalities, which were also obliged to make sure that employees working there were well trained.

The Government had also sent a Bill to Parliament in 2008 on corporal punishment, which included light slaps, even if made in the framework of the child’s education, as violence, the delegation confirmed. The Bill had seen some delay in Parliament but would be dealt with this coming March (2010).

Further Questions by Experts

During the second round of questions, the Rapporteur, Mr. Krappmann said it was rather strange to raise the poverty issue with reference to Norway, which was, with regard to the gross domestic product per capita, among the top economies of the world. Yet, there was inequality in family incomes and there were poor families. The Committee was concerned that the family income supplements varied depending on the place where a family lived and not depending on the extent of poverty and he asked for a comment from the delegation on that.

Preliminary information on the results of the research project “Do measures against child poverty reach children and young people” would be welcome. Mr. Krappmann observed that children in poor families might also be hampered in their development through the low quality of their social environment. Further, information showed that municipal housing projects were not child-friendly environments. Were there plans to make them friendlier?

Other Experts asked further questions on topics including, among others, the fact that parents whose children did not attend day-care facilities or kindergartens were receiving money from the Government so that they could organize care themselves. Had the Government considered that parents, in particular poorer and migrant parents, might have an incentive to keep their children out of pre-school education so as to benefit from these payments? An Expert also wondered about the anti-bullying programme in kindergartens. Did the Government feel that children in kindergarten were so aggressive that such a programme was needed? What methods were being used in the anti-bullying programme? As children’s behaviour often reflected problems they encountered at home, were parents involved in the programme?

On child trafficking, an Expert asked what measures had been taken to detect child trafficking; what services child victims could obtain; and what had been done to appropriately repatriate and re-integrate such children to their countries and in their families?

Other questions by Experts included what was being done to assess the mental health of children whose parents were in jail and how child-parent contact was preserved in such situations; what method was used to assess the age of an unaccompanied and undocumented child asylum-seeker; concern about cases of forced marriage among some of the minorities in the country and what awareness-raising measures existed to combat them; and reports that cases of female genital mutilation had been dismissed by the police due to the lack of resources, and that there was not enough collaboration between the various competent bodies in this area. An Expert, noting information that diet was often linked to the problem of attention-deficit disorder affecting children in Norway, asked how that issue was being tackled in schools and by the health services.

On the justice system, the minimum age for legal responsibility was 15 years in Norway, but what happened to children under 15 years of age who were in conflict with the law? Could such a child be deprived of liberty or be held in preventive detention and what sanctions could he receive? On children in conflict with the law between 15 and 18, what sort of alternative measures existed to custodial sentences? Some children in Norway were being detained in prisons with adults, could the delegation justify why this was so? Also, on police custody what were the time limitations on provisional detention for minors? Regarding sexual abuse, the delegation had noted the creation of safe houses for children, which seemed an excellent solution, but an Expert asked how those were linked with the advocacy centres.

Response by the Delegation

Responding to those and other questions, the delegation said that all children were registered at birth in Norway. Regarding religious education, the “religion and ethics” courses in schools had been replaced, starting with the 2008/09 school year, by a new subject called “religion, view of life and ethics”. They had made amendments to the provisions dealing with that subject in the Law, which now stated that the goal and content of the lesson should be in line with human rights. Thus, all religions should be treated equally in those lessons. It was not a lesson where religion was being practised, but a lesson to look at the topic from a neutral point of view.

On the immigration issue, the delegation reported that the current legislation said that the best interest of an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child should be considered, but that the child’s point of view could not always be implemented in the final decisions. That was due to a conflict between immigration policy and the Convention. Unaccompanied minors were appointed a lawyer. The delegation acknowledged that translation was sometimes a problem in such cases.

Turning to age discrimination, the delegation said that legislation currently only applied to employment-related subjects. However, children and young people were being protected from age discrimination by the international conventions to which Norway was a party. Only employees were currently being protected from explicit age discrimination. However, there was currently a Bill before Parliament which looked at whether age discrimination provisions should be extended to other areas than employment.

On children’s right to privacy, the delegation noted that technological developments provided a lot of positive opportunities and possibilities, but had also created some new threats. Distributing data about one’s child publicly could be prosecuted in Norway. There was, however, a problem of awareness of that provision by parents; many were unaware of their child’s privacy rights and the threats to which they could expose their child when publishing information about him/her. Several ministries had initiated projects on safe use of media for municipalities, schools and private persons. There were regular investigations on the issue of children’s use of new media. There was currently also a project run by the Norway’s media supervision body on that subject, and the Government was looking forward to the results of that project.

A hotline for children had been opened last year. It was funded by the Ministry for Children and offered a secure contact with the appropriate service, depending on the needs of the child.

On business and human rights, the delegation said that Norway, as the main sponsor of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, was both familiar with and supportive of the framework the Special Rapporteur had developed. A proposal the Government was currently looking into was to create an ethical Ombudsman for Norwegian business. That had been proposed by a non-governmental organization, but no decisions had been taken on that yet.

Concerning how authorities determined the age of an unaccompanied asylum-seeker, the delegation indicated that dental and hand/wrist X-rays were being used. But those methods were disputed and not accurate. The Government was currently looking into how to develop alternatives. No methods could give the precise age of a child. In any case, asylum-seeking persons were given the benefit of the doubt, for example if test gave an age between 17 and 19, the person would be given the status of a child. There were projects to implement clinical examinations done by a physician. The purpose of that was to raise the quality of the age assessment.

On the issue of poverty and living standards, the delegation said it was an important issue, also in Norway’s internal debate. It was indeed a paradox that a rich country like Norway had not been able to eradicate child poverty. They were trying to use the best means to reduce it. Norway would continue to improve welfare policy measures for families through several measures, such as by improving and lowering day-care costs. The Government had also increased the rate level for social assistance over the past year.

Turning to measures to combat forced marriages and female genital mutilation, the delegation said that several young people had been in contact with Government services because of forced marriages or fears regarding forced marriages. The authorities had put in place three action plans, which contained 40 new and continuous measures and involved eight different ministries to combat forced marriage by preventing its occurrence and helping the persons that were victims of such practices.

Further, in 2008, 40 minority counsellors had been appointed to schools that had been carefully chosen; these were all schools where more than 20 per cents of the pupils were of migrant origin. Also, the availability for accommodations for victims of forced marriages had been improved; flats were at the disposal of victims in secret places. The Government’s preferred option was, however, prevention – to reach out to these communities early on. There had been cases of female genital mutilation that had been uncovered in Oslo, but those were investigated. There was no question of such cases being dismissed by the police due to the lack of resources.

The delegation further informed the Committee that there was also an issue with the long processing time of cases of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Asylum applications from that group had to be given priority and be dealt with in the six months following their submission. However, they were quite a long way away from achieving that target for children aged 15 to 18.

On the disappearances of minors from reception centres, the delegation confirmed that a number of minors had disappeared from such centres. The centres were for asylum-seekers who had been issued temporary stay permits. It was voluntary to stay in a reception centre, though minors were strongly encouraged to stay in them. Children at reception centres received education and were given various information on the asylum application procedure as well as on return to their country. There was no legal provision to forcibly keep asylum-seekers in the centre. Some of the disappearances had also been linked to the fact that the person’s cases had been rejected.

On children whose parents were imprisoned, the delegation indicated that children’s visiting rights were always based on the best interest if the child. Extended visiting hours would always be considered and a number of prisons had established so-called “visitors houses” to accommodate children’s visits. Children were also getting longer telephone hours. There were currently no facilities were imprisoned mothers could serve their sentences with their child, but stay in care facilities, such as for young mothers in hospital, was counted towards a prisoner’s sentence.

On children in conflict with the law, for minors under 15 years of age could not be prosecuted. However, police still had to conduct an investigation into those cases, and the investigation’s results were sent to the child welfare services where they served to provide a better basis for their intervention with the child, the delegation said.

For children in conflict with the law between 15 and 18 years of age, imprisonment was used only if no other alternatives had been found. A Green Paper for possible new punitive actions had recently been circulated. It would be followed by a White Paper in 2011. For the delinquent for whom there were no other alternatives to imprisonment, Norway was currently planning to open separate special detention units for children. Two such units were planned, with a total of 10 places. Norway did not want to expand this capacity, so as not to expand the offer. Further, no child was ever placed in high-risk units.

On the anti-bullying programmes in kindergartens, the delegation said that that was part of Norway’s policy of preferring early intervention rather than allowing a situation to become worse. The programmes were also important in order to ensure than no child became isolated. Working with the parents was also important in such cases. The Government was trying to enhance teachers’ response with regards to bullying and a new course had been introduced in the teacher’s curricula on the promotion of tolerance, respect and dialogue between persons of different background.

On school meals, the delegation said that this question was currently causing a lot of controversy in Norway and was the subject of considerable political debate. The Committee’s point was very relevant – there was indeed a correlation between good meals and the effects on learning. In primary school, fresh fruits and vegetables were being offered, thanks to a new reform and many schools offered meal programmes. However, there was currently no countrywide legislation on the issue.

Turning to the issue of drug use and alcohol, the delegation said that the Ministry of Health was involved in efforts aimed at increasing knowledge on those issues. Norway had a very restrictive policy with regard to drug use and alcohol. Norway also had a ban on advertising for alcohol and tobacco.

Concerning commercial pressure on children, that issue was taken seriously. While direct advertising to children was not allowed in Norway, it was difficult to stop indirect advertising towards children, especially at a time when children were looking at TV channels from around the world and had access to the Internet. There were no easy political answers to these issues but Norway would continue to look into these questions.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

LOTHAR KRAPPMANN, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Norway, in preliminary concluding observations, noted that many answers and explanations had clarified problems and brought better understanding on what Norway was doing or planned to do for children. The country had developed good practices in many fields.

But there were also areas where the Committee would urge Norway to strengthen its practices, such as with regard to child welfare services, disparities in services among the municipalities, with regard to mental health services and others. Quite a number of concerns had been voiced by the Committee today, but one should also commend Norway’s activities. It was evident that Norway had done a lot to implement children’s rights, but as the Minister had said, there was always room for improvement. Mr. Krappmann concluded by saying that he had a lot of positive expectations for Norway.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record