COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD EXAMINES NORWAY’S REPORT

The Committee on the Rights of the Child today concluded its consideration of the combined fifth and sixth periodic report of Norway on how it implements the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Presenting the report, Linda Hofstad Helleland, Minister of Children and Equality of Norway, noted that Norway’s laws provided good safeguards for children, and that children had the right to participate and exert influence in all areas of concern to them. In 2014, the protection of children’s rights had been further strengthened with the inclusion of a new provision on children’s rights in the national Constitution, whereas amendments to health and care legislation strengthened and clarified the legal position of children and young people as patients and users. Child welfare services were constantly being improved in line with the Convention, but they needed to be reinforced in terms of personnel and expertise. The Government prioritized combatting violence and sexual abuse committed against children. Children’s houses had been established to ensure that children who may have suffered violence and sexual violence received good and coordinated follow-up. On 7 May 2018, the Norwegian Parliament had consented to the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse of 2007, also known as the Lanzarote Convention. In addition, the Government had recently proposed an amendment to the Marriage Act, setting an absolute minimum legal age of marriage at 18, without any exception.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts also observed reluctance from the Government to mandate the Children’s Ombudsman to receive complaints from children, and voiced concern about the impact of oil extraction activities in the Barents Sea on children and particularly on Saami children. Experts further inquired about budgetary allocations for children’s issues, regional differences in child welfare services, definition of the child, statelessness, intersex children’s right to change their names according to the newly acquired gender, sexualization of children in the media, separation of juvenile offenders from adult offenders, review of the Child Welfare Act, teaching of religion in schools, cultural sensitivity of child welfare personnel, and respect for children’s privacy. Committee Experts expressed concern about emergency removals, which seemed to target migrant children, who were four times more likely to be removed from their families. Other issues raised concerned training of State officials on the Convention provisions and the Committee’s recommendations, education for children with disabilities, respect for the best interest of the child and the child’s views, violence against children, online sexual exploitation and abuse of children, separation of siblings in foster care, disappearance of unaccompanied minors from reception centres, detention of children in the context of migration, dealing with former child soldiers, and care for and provision of health services to children diagnosed with behavioural difficulties.

In concluding remarks, Hatem Kotrane, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Norway, said that the Committee was convinced that the majority of children in Norway had their rights protected and that they went through their childhood without major difficulties. Mr. Kotrane, nevertheless, highlighted some regional discrepancies, the lack of competence of the Children’s Ombudsman to receive complaints, challenges in juvenile justice, and the situation of refugee children.

Emma Stenseth, Director General of the Ministry of Children and Equality of Norway, noted that the Government was pursuing a policy that would lay the basis for a safe childhood for all children in Norway, and a social policy that would not allow anyone to fall through the cracks.

Renate Winter, Committee Chairperson, expressed hope that the Government of Norway would fill in the questionnaire for the ongoing Global Study on children deprived of liberty.

The delegation of Norway included representatives of the Ministry of Children and Equality, the Ministry of Local Government and Modernization, the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the Ministry of Justice and Public Security, the Ministry of Education and Research, the Ministry of Climate and Environment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations Office at Geneva.


The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 1 June, at 5 p.m. to close its seventy-eighth session.


Report

The Committee is considering the combined fifth and sixth periodic report of Norway (CRC/C/NOR/5-6) under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Presentation of the Report

LINDA HOFSTAD HELLELAND, Minister of Children and Equality of Norway, thanked the Committee for the work it was doing to advance the rights of children across the globe, and thanked Norwegian civil society, human rights organizations, the Ombudsman for Children, the Saami Parliament of Norway, and the youth editorial board for the reports they had submitted to the Committee. Those supplementary reports demonstrated the commitment, expertise and concern for children in Norway, and were a useful corrective to the Government’s work to improve children’s rights. Children in Norway had the right to participate and exert influence in all areas of concern to them. Norway’s laws provided good safeguards for children. In 2014, the protection of children’s rights had been further strengthened with the inclusion of a new provision on children’s rights in the national Constitution. Amendments to health and care legislation had been adopted to strengthen and clarify the legal position of children and young people as patients and users. Those included the right to receive information, to be heard, and to have their opinion considered according to their age and maturity.

The role of child welfare was to ensure that all children received the help and care they needed at the right time. Child welfare services were constantly improved in line with the Convention. Parliament had recently approved amendments that would strengthen the legal safeguards of parents and children in child welfare services. For example, children had a statutory right to receive child welfare measures they required, as long as the conditions in the act were met. But simply changing law was not enough. Child welfare services also needed to be reinforced in terms of personnel and expertise. The Government had, thus, presented a strategy aimed at improving the expertise of municipal child welfare services, and it had increased staffing levels in those services through earmarked funds.

Violence and abuse were the two most serious threats to a safe childhood. The Government prioritized combatting violence and sexual abuse committed against children. Children’s houses had been established to ensure that children who may have suffered violence and sexual violence received good and coordinated follow-up. Several secondary units had also been set up to help children in distant counties. In 2016 and 2017, several major cases of online abuse of children had been uncovered and investigated by the Norwegian police. On 7 May 2018, the Norwegian Parliament had consented to the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse of 2007, also known as the Lanzarote Convention. In addition, the Government had recently proposed an amendment to the Marriage Act, setting the absolute minimum legal age of marriage at 18, without any exception.

As for children’s development, all kindergartens in Norway had to build on the core values set out in the Kindergarten Act and international conventions Norway had joined. Kindergartens had to address children’s need for care and play, and promote learning and formation as a basis for their holistic development. The authorities had begun work to modify curricula in compulsory education to ensure that later on in life children and young people could cope with work and family life better. Unaccompanied minors arriving in Norway were an especially vulnerable group that had to be given priority. The Child Welfare Act applied to all children in Norway, and the Government aimed to ensure that unaccompanied minors received proper living and care provisions. In 2016, the Government had presented its action plan to combat human trafficking, and in 2017, Parliament had asked the Government to set up a central unit to follow up underage victims of trafficking and to advise local child welfare offices in cases of suspected trafficking. Turning to children in detention, Ms. Helleland informed that a trial project with a special unit for imprisoned children had been made permanent, and that a second unit had been opened. Child responsible personnel in prisons were responsible for taking better care of children with imprisoned parents.

Questions by Committee Experts

Opening the dialogue, RENATE WINTER, Committee Chairperson, said that the Committee had received information that the Norwegian Parliament had refused to ratify the Optional Protocol on a communications procedure, justifying that decision by saying that the Committee did not have sufficient competences. That was shocking for Committee Experts, and Ms. Winter assured that Committee Members had relevant expertise and she asked the head of the delegation to present members of the Norwegian Parliament with a decision of the International Court of Justice which affirmed the competence of treaty bodies to interpret international conventions. Ms. Winter also reminded that the Committee on the Rights of the Child was a treaty body and not a court that judged State parties.

AMAL SALMAN ALDOSERI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Norway, inquired about the comprehensive national strategy on children, budgetary allocations for children’s issues at the local level, and whether the State party observed the Committee’s General Comment No. 19 on public budgeting for the realization of children’s rights.

Ms. Aldoseri observed reluctance from the Government to mandate the Children’s Ombudsman to receive complaints from children. Who was mandated with that responsibility? Could children themselves lodge complaints? What happened if the subject of a complaint was one or both parents? Who coordinated the implementation of the Convention across municipalities?

Turning to children’s rights and business activity, Ms. Aldoseri inquired about the impact of oil extraction activities in the north of the country, namely in the Barents Sea, on Saami children. Had there been any consultation with Saami children on such activities?

As for the definition of the child, Ms. Aldoseri asked about entering marriage before the age of 18 for certain religious and ethnic groups in the country. Did Norway recognize the marriage of refugee couples when one of them was a minor?

With respect to statelessness, Ms. Aldoseri inquired about the preliminary results of the mapping exercise undertaken in Norway. What was the state of integration of minorities, while preserving their identity?

Why could intersex children not change their names according to the newly acquired gender before the age of 16? What was the level of engagement of the media in the protection of children? What could be done to curb down the sexualization of children, particularly of girls, in the media?

HATEM KOTRANE, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Norway, welcomed the engagement of Norwegian civil society with the Committee. Mr. Kotrane expressed concern about Norway’s reservation to article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the separation of juvenile offenders from adult offenders. Would the State party consider withdrawing that reservation?

Mr. Kotrane further inquired about the review of the Child Welfare Act in order to ensure that it was in line with the Convention, and asked for information about the child welfare cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights.

Turning to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Mr. Kotrane voiced concern that articles 2, 4 and 16 of the national Constitution placed emphasis on Christian values and placed the Lutheran Church in a position that was privileged vis-à-vis other religions. Did the State party envisage taking measures to guarantee freedom of thought, conscience and religion to all citizens, including children?

Had there been cases in which steps had been taken by the Government to ensure that the right of privacy of children was respected, especially on the Internet?

RENATE WINTER, Committee Chairperson and Rapporteur for Norway, inquired about the training of State officials working with children on the Convention provisions and the Committee’s recommendations. Was there dissemination of the Convention and the Committee’s recommendations in all minority languages?

MIKIKO OTANI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Norway, asked the delegation to clarify the provision in the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act that both children and seniors could be treated unequally because of their age. Were causes for discrimination of Saami children identified and special measures developed?

Turning to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children, Ms. Otani inquired whether they were accepted in the context of the family, school and community. Did they experience bullying or discrimination? Did parents and teachers have sufficient knowledge and understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex issues and the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children? Did children with disabilities and immigrant children feel safe and were they treated equally and with dignity by teachers and peer students?

Ms. Otani also expressed concern that girls were often represented in oversexualized and objectifying manner in the media. As for the best interest of the child, it was of concern that immigration authorities were not required to explicitly determine the best interest of the child. Was respect for the views of the child practiced and did children feel that their views were heard and given weight in the family and school? Was the right to be heard practiced in all legal and administrative cases, such as custody, asylum and expulsion cases? Were children’s views respected in relation to their parents’ separation or divorce?

As for violence against children, Ms. Otani asked whether children were informed about their rights and whether they could seek protection if they experienced abuse and violence. Did they know how and where to report violence? Did they have confidence in reporting mechanisms? Could they access the helpline? Had the Government taken any action to implement the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women regarding sexual abuse cases in the Saami community?

Replies by the Delegation

LINDA HOFSTAD HELLELAND, Minister of Children and Equality of Norway, clarified that since 2009 the county governor of Troms had worked to develop municipality guidelines for the implementation of the Convention. The programme was called the Giant Leap. That method systematically improved the expertise of county governors in the implementation of the Convention.

The delegation stated that the Government had initiated several processes to strengthen the complaint mechanisms for children, such as the establishment of a special court for children and family matters, and an administrative court for migration issues. The county governor’s office handled complaints related to child welfare cases. In healthcare, patients and users who had reached the age of 16 and those who reached the age of 12 and understood healthcare rules could lodge a complaint. Children could report bullying directly to county governor’s offices, and children had to be heard when those offices handled bullying cases. In addition, the role of county governor’s offices in such cases should be publicly known.

The Norwegian Government and the Supreme Court fully understood that the Committee’s General Comments were relevant in the implementation of the Convention, even though they were not binding. The Convention was translated in Norwegian, but not in minority languages.

Global and environment challenges posed dangers for children, including Saami children. Norway had undertaken to reduce gas emissions by 40 per cent and to be carbon neutral by 2030. Even though Norway was devoted to developing sustainable energy resources, oil and gas would play a role in the global energy dynamics in the future. The Government included the views of the Saami community in its assessment of extractive industry activities, such as the one in the Barents Sea. Children were encouraged to use nature for sports and recreation; those were fundamental elements of the Norwegian culture.

The delegation clarified that the minimum age of marriage of 18 only applied to marriages contracted in Norway, not abroad. The Government, however, would look into the recognition of foreign marriages, especially if they were forced marriages. According to the Penal Code, forced marriage was an offence. Religious extrajudicial forced marriages fell out of that scope at the moment.

The mapping of statelessness in Norway had been completed in 2015. In 2016, the Government had instructed the immigration authorities to ensure that no child born in Norway remained stateless. The Government was still working on those proposals.

As for the preservation of the identity of minority groups, education played a very important role in the preservation of Saami identity. However, there was a lack of qualified Saami teachers. The Government had instituted a student fee waiver for those who had completed teaching courses. Creating a positive school environment, and providing sufficient language training and introductory courses were most important for the integration of minority groups.

Responding to the Experts’ question on countering racism against indigenous peoples and minorities, the delegation noted that the Government was working on an action plan to counter discrimination, as well as a strategy against hate speech. Age discrimination was prohibited in all areas of life. Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex children felt that they did not fit society’s expectations and struggled with poor mental health. The Government had in place an action plan to combat discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. Intersex children between the age of 6 and 16 could change their name and legal gender with their parents’ consent.

Addressing the sexualization of girls in the media, the delegation explained that there were strong gender roles and gender stereotypes in Norway. Also, the pressure on young people had increased recently due to consumerist trends.

Twelve complaints concerning the Norwegian child welfare system had been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court had not found any violation of the Convention. All the cases had been thoroughly considered by the Norwegian courts. The general impact on the system would be known only after the detailed reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights.

As for Norway’s reservation to article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it could not currently be lifted. There were circumstances under which it was not considered in the child’s best interest to be detained together with adult offenders. Special regulations on the treatment of juvenile offenders applied in all prisons, and instructions were communicated to prison personnel to ensure that minors were treated appropriately.

With respect to the teaching of religion in schools, the national curriculum prescribed teaching knowledge about Christianity, other religions, and ethics in a non-preaching manner. The current curriculum would soon be reviewed. Competence related to children’s rights was specifically referred to in the new programme of training and education for teachers. There was a need for more knowledge on bullying. The Ministry of Education was preparing a survey on the use of force on students.

Turning to children’s right to privacy, especially on the Internet, the delegation explained that the Government had provided funds to raise awareness about the safe use of the Internet among parents and children. The Norwegian Media Authority strove to provide a safer Internet environment. The Safe Internet Centre provided counselling to parents and children through chats.

The best interest of the child was prescribed as the fundamental principle for the interpretation of acts that dealt with children’s issues, most notably in the field of child welfare and immigration. The best interest of the child was a primary consideration in family immigration issues. The Immigration Appeals Board had hired a child psychologist to help assess the child’s situation. The Immigration Act stipulated that the child could be heard even if parents resisted. The Government wanted to ensure that children were heard orally in immigration cases more often than it was currently the case.

The Health and Care Service Act regulated patients’ and users’ rights without any discrimination. All patients and users had the right to receive health and care services. The best interest of the child was a fundamental consideration in actions that concerned children in the health and care sector. The delegation reiterated that recent amendments ensured that children were heard in all decisions related to child welfare services.

Second Round of Questions by Committee Experts

AMAL SALMAN ALDOSERI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Norway, asked about the amendments to the Child Welfare Act and when they would be adopted. What culturally sensitive programmes on parenting were available for minority parents? Had there been any study on the increase in demand for child welfare services in some counties? Had any concrete measures been taken to reduce the separation of siblings?

How did the State party guarantee that training was provided to social workers on the best interest of the child before they made a decision to place children in alternative care? What was the percentage of children with disabilities in inclusive education and those receiving special education? Did the law guarantee full inclusive education to children with disabilities? What measures had been taken to prevent the abandonment of children with disabilities?

On mental health, Ms. Aldoseri raised the problem of psychostimulant drugs, and especially the high rate of use of such drugs on boys. Some 76 per cent of children and adolescents in institutions had been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. What kind of procedure was in place for the regular assessment of those children?

Turning to the extraction of fossil fuels in the Barents Sea, Ms. Aldoseri asked about the State party’s plan to curb the gas emissions from Norway’s oil and gas exports, and about the plan to protect the food chain from the toxic waste dumped in fjords.

What was the reaction of the parents of Muslim children to the introduction in the school curriculum of a course on Christianity, religion, philosophies of life, and ethics in 2015?

Finally, Ms. Aldoseri inquired about children’s leisure time, and about the participation of children with disabilities in leisure and recreational activities.

HATEM KOTRANE, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Norway, expressed concern that unaccompanied minors in Norway were received in reception centres of lower quality, and that frequently they were not in school. They could be sent to unsafe countries, in violation of the principle of non-refoulement, and could be held in detention lasting up to one week.

As for juvenile justice, Mr. Kotrane welcomed the modifications made to relevant legislation, namely the abolition of solitary confinement for juvenile offenders. What further steps had been taken to avoid the detention of children and make it the measure of last resort? What was the maximum period of detention for children?

Turning to the follow-up on the Committee’s concluding observations and recommendations from 2005, Mr. Kotrane asked about measures adopted to ensure that the Criminal Code was fully in line with the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. He also underlined the importance of adopting specific legislation on the obligations of Internet providers with respect to online child pornography, and on extradition.

MIKIKO OTANI, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Norway, asked about plans to develop special measures for street children. She also inquired about the statistics on the prevalence of online sexual abuse and exploitation, including in the form of online grooming, extortion and child pornography.

What constituted rape for children above the age of 14 in the Penal Code? Was there any plan to strengthen the follow-up to reporting of violence against children?

RENATE WINTER, Committee Chairperson and Rapporteur for Norway, asked how many parents with children were in prison. Did judges consider the fact that convicted mothers had children or expected children? What measures had been taken to assist children with imprisoned parents and to protect them from discrimination and hardship in communities?

What measures were in place to provide legal assistance to child witnesses? What protection measures were available to child witnesses of trafficking and domestic violence? What provisions were in place to deal with former child soldiers recruited outside Norway? Was it true that Norway declined giving asylum to former child soldiers?

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation explained that budgetary allocations for child welfare services were done through general grants and municipalities decided how to spend them. From 2013 to 2016, there was a 19 per cent increase in such grants. Differences still existed between municipalities in terms of staffing and coverage. Municipal authorities were responsible for ensuring that child welfare services were sufficiently staffed. In 2017, the Norwegian Parliament had adopted a child welfare reform, and as part of it the Government had initiated measures to improve local leadership and control in municipalities.

With respect to regional differences in child welfare services, they were due to demographic variations, standard of living and opportunities. There was a need for more research on that matter. The child welfare reform included training and education, especially on early intervention work. The participating municipalities would receive considerable financial support to increase the use of preventive measures to help families to have children stay at home.

Siblings should not be separated in foster care, unless there were strong reasons for separation. Municipalities received guidelines on how to treat siblings, who should stay in contact whenever possible. The decision to separate siblings should always be based on the best interest of the child. The authorities were currently investigating models for foster homes for siblings. The Government had appointed an expert committee to study the level of financial support for ordinary foster homes. The United Nations Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children had been translated in Norwegian. The Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs had been tasked to implement the guidelines at the municipal level.

An order to place a child in institutional care could only be issued if the child was abused or neglected. The order was based on an individual assessment of the child’s situation, and it should be defined in the child’s best interest. Only the county welfare board, which was an independent body with competences of a court, could issue such an order. Parents had important legal rights in that process, such as the right to legal assistance, to be heard and to appeal.

In response to a question about emergency removals, which an Expert said seemed to target migrant children, who were four times more likely to be removed from their families, the delegation said that there was a reduction in the number of emergency removals, which were sometimes necessary to protect children from harmful situations. Norway had ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and its article 8 on the right to private and family life.

The delegation explained that as part of the child welfare reform, the Government had initiated a national strategy for professional competence 2018-2024 to ensure that child welfare personnel could assess the best interest of the child, and to improve child welfare services at the municipal level. The cultural sensitivity of child welfare personnel was crucial and a trust-building issue that helped when working with minority parents. A course on cultural sensitivity was offered to municipal child welfare personnel.

On disappearances of unaccompanied minors from reception centres, the delegation stated that it was a complex issue, but that the authorities believed that those minors had left voluntary. The Government would work to address the reasons for disappearances.

As for mental healthcare in the child welfare system, the delegation clarified that a significant portion of children in institutions had mental disorders. The Government had initiated several measures to ensure better coordination of services for children in terms of mental healthcare. Responsible agencies were developing models and systems to ensure that children were examined for mental disorders early on. A position of a child welfare officer in mental healthcare in institutions had been set up. The Government was preparing the opening of two new care and treatment institutions for children in need of long-term care outside the home, which would be located in the north and south of the country, and were scheduled to open in the fall of 2018.

Children with behavioural challenges (ADHD/ADD) received treatment measures by highly trained professionals who helped families to create a better environment at home, and treated underlying causes of behavioural difficulties. Child welfare services could provide different assistance measures to help children stay at home, such as parent training, and functional family therapy for children with behavioural difficulties. The authorities were preparing a national plan for assistance measures, which would be a long-term professional programme to that end. Medical treatment of ADHD/ADD should never be the first choice. The Convention on the Rights of the Child had precedence over Norwegian law, and furthermore, according to the Norwegian Constitution, the best interest of the child governed all decisions in the healthcare sector.

The helpline for children and adolescents had opened in 2009 and was part of the child welfare services, which was available when other services were not. Children were increasingly using the helpline, and were involved in its evaluation.

Answering the question about the separation of children with disabilities from their parents, the delegation said that most such children lived with their families. Parents received various grants to adjust their homes to the needs of their children with disabilities, and to allow them to participate in society.

The authorities placed great importance on comprehensive sexuality education from an early age, which included themes of family life, gender roles, and respect for bodily autonomy. They were currently examining the possibility of including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex issues.

Norway had defined sexual abuse and violence as a health issue. Work against that phenomenon had to be multisectoral, and one line of follow-up was for the Children’s Ombudsman to conduct a survey on child victims of sexual abuse and violence. The Government had invested resources in research in order to come up with knowledge-based measures to fight sexual abuse and violence. Norway was currently applying trauma-based cognitive treatment for children victims of such violence.

Follow-up Questions by Committee Experts

An Expert asked whether anything had been done to ensure that children with intellectual disabilities were actually educated in schools and not just entertained. There was a lack of school personnel familiar with the language of Saami children with disabilities. Young girls with disabilities were an easier target of sexual abuse and violence. Were there any special measures to protect them from such violence? What was being done to detect disability early on?

Turning to harmful practices, Experts inquired about the availability of a mechanism to prevent female genital mutilation and early marriage.

As for the mandate of the Children’s Ombudsman, what was the rationale for not entrusting it with the power to investigate cases of violation of children’s rights? Did children have the right to know about their biological origin?

AMAL SALMAN ALDOSERI, Committee Experts and Rapporteur for Norway, asked when the assessment of ADHD/ADD was done and what kind of training personnel received for such assessment.

Replies by the Delegation

Children with disabilities had the right to receive education in an inclusive environment. If a student was entitled to special needs education, her or his needs were first assessed, and then she or he was placed in an appropriate school. However, special education needed to be improved in order to yield better learning outcomes. The relevant white paper on special needs education would include education for Saami children. As for early identification of disability, and diagnosis of ADHD/ADD, it was done by professionals with appropriate competences.

The reactions to the introduction of the course on Christianity, religion, philosophies of life, and ethics in school curriculum were difficult to assess, but there was no indication that Muslim communities were more sceptical than Christian ones. There had been no dropout due to the introduction of the course. Teachers who had completed courses on Saami language received fee waivers, and teachers’ education included courses on human rights and children’s rights.

The course on domestic violence for newly arrived migrants would be updated to spread awareness about harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation and early marriage. As for the role of school nurses in detecting violence against children, they were trained in health procedures and their confidentiality. The previous national action plan against domestic violence had expired in 2017, and the Government was now considering a new action plan, which would include specific measures to combat domestic violence in Saami communities.

The Ministry of Children and Equality had recently launched a digital resource to educate children about their rights and to be protected from violence, forced marriage, and online abuse. There was also an online training platform for adults working with children, which included information on the needs of Saami and migrant children. Guidelines had recently been published to address violence against children with disabilities.

The Children’s Ombudsman was independent and its role was to monitor the authorities’ compliance with the Convention provisions. However, it did not receive complaints. The current Adoption Act stipulated that adopted parents should tell their children about their ethnic, religious and linguistic background.

On juvenile justice, the delegation said that the number of children in detention had decreased in the past several years. Special regulation measures for juveniles in detention had come into force in 2015. The imprisonment of children should be the measure of last resort; instead principles of restorative justice were applied. The Government agreed that solitary confinement of children should be prohibited as both a disciplinary and preventive measure.

Sentenced mothers with children might have their sentences reduced, or serve their sentences in special homes. In 2015, child responsible personnel were introduced in all prisons to ensure that the child’s perspective was present as a cross-cutting issue across the correctional system. A prisoner should always be placed in a prison as close to her or his home as possible, and the best interest of the child was the primary consideration in that regard.

There was an increase in online exploitation and abuse of children. The police had reported that the scale and complexity of cases had increased. Boys were also under pressure from such online content, and there was a trend of an increased number of minors being reported for rape. However, more scientific knowledge was needed about the dynamics of online sexual abuse and exploitation.

Care for unaccompanied minors above the age of 15 was carried out by the Norwegian Immigration Authority. In 2017, Parliament had instructed the Government to regulate care for unaccompanied minors. The Child Welfare Act applied to all children in Norway, including to unaccompanied minors in reception centres. The Government had initiated several measures to address disturbances in reception centres for minors, such as increased funding and staffing. Each demand for protection by asylum-seeking children was assessed individually, and the authorities had to pay due attention to their age and maturity. Unaccompanied minors received a lawyer and free legal aid. No children would be returned in breach of the principle of non-refoulement, including former child soldiers.

As for the detention of children in the context of migration, children and their families could be held in such detention up to three days. Detention could only be extended under special circumstances. The police were obliged to apply detention as a measure of last resort. The Government was looking into establishing separate migration open detention centres for families with children.

The Government could not ratify the Optional Protocol on a communications procedure at the moment due to considerable concerns that political issues could be transferred to the legal domain. The Government was of the view that additional communications to the Committee would not necessarily be in the best interest of the child, particularly when prolonged.

The Government’s objective was to reduce the number of homeless children, and to offer assistance to people who had lost their homes through housing allowances and subsidized housing.

The Government prioritized climate change and its climate policy was based on respecting the territorial sovereignty of States, which meant that the responsibility for gas emissions lay with countries that imported oil and gas. Norway had adopted a new Climate Act, which set limits for carbon emissions, and it was committed to curbing emissions abroad. Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative worked to offset the negative effects of deforestation in developing countries. The Government had concluded that the negative effects of waste disposal in fjords on the food chain were acceptable.

Concluding Remarks

HATEM KOTRANE, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Norway, said that the Committee was convinced that the majority of children in Norway had their rights protected and that they went through their childhood without major difficulties. That was why the Committee was so demanding in Norway’s case. Mr. Kotrane, nevertheless, highlighted some regional discrepancies, the lack of competence of the Children’s Ombudsman to receive complaints, challenges in juvenile justice, and the situation of refugee children.

EMMA STENSETH, Director General of the Ministry of Children and Equality of Norway, thanked the Committee for the constructive dialogue and feedback. The Government was pursuing a policy that would lay the basis for a safe childhood for all children in Norway, and a social policy that would not allow anyone to fall through the cracks.

RENATE WINTER, Committee Chairperson, expressed hope that the Government of Norway would fill in the questionnaire for the ongoing Global Study on children deprived of liberty.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CRC18.020E