Referanse: 773559 Dato: 12.11.2025 Svartype: Med merknad Hearing Response – Proposed Amendments to Section 2-5 of the National Insurance Scheme (Folketrygdloven) Subject: Law on social-security membership for locally employed staff at Norwegian foreign missions I submit the following response concerning the proposed changes to Section 2-5 of the National Insurance Scheme regarding locally employed staff at Norwegian foreign missions. Deficiencies in Process and Consultation The process leading to this proposal has lacked transparency, early involvement, and genuine dialogue with those most affected. Directly concerned employees and their union representatives have repeatedly been denied access to information. The proposal was circulated without consultation with UDLAF or the group of locally employed staff, in breach of the Utredningsinstruksen (§§ 2-1, 3-1). This approach has caused deep uncertainty and loss of trust , contrary to the employer’s stated values of openness and predictability. Legal Misinterpretation and Selective Reasoning The proposal misinterprets both the EEA Social Security Regulation (883/2004) and the Vienna Convention . Article 16 of Regulation 883/2004 already allows bilateral flexibility, making the proposed amendment unnecessary. The Vienna Convention is irrelevant to social-insurance jurisdiction and has been misused to justify domestic changes. Comparable EEA states, including Spain and Germany, have opted for continuation rights rather than exclusion, respecting both individual choice and legal predictability. Fairness, Equality, and Trust The proposal is perceived as unfair and arbitrary : long-term members of the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme would be forced out of a system they have contributed to and trusted for years. Previous communications from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explicitly promised “freedom of choice for the individual employee.” The current draft breaks that promise and undermines the credibility of the administration. The unequal treatment between categories of state employees breaches the principle of equal value for all who serve the Norwegian state, regardless of their posting or contract form. Fundamentally, this issue concerns trust between employer and employee —a cornerstone of responsible public governance. Constitutional and Legal Concerns The amendment conflicts with Article 97 of the Constitution (prohibition of retroactive laws) by stripping rights from employees who are already lawful members. It also conflicts with Article 98 (equal-treatment principle), creating unjustifiable differentiation within the state’s own workforce. The proposal therefore weakens both rule-of-law standards and Norway’s international credibility as a fair employer. Economic and Administrative Weaknesses The financial assumptions in the hearing note are unsupported by evidence and one-sided, focusing solely on potential cost savings. No cost-benefit or null-sum analysis was performed, contrary to the Utredningsinstruksen . The estimated savings (NOK 13–17 million) are speculative and minor compared to the legal, social, and reputational costs of the reform. Lack of Transitional and Safeguard Provisions The complete absence of transition rules is unacceptable and inconsistent with administrative standards. Employees with existing compulsory membership must be allowed to continue under current terms for as long as their employment persists. A continuation scheme would be both equitable and financially sustainable and be in line with all the promises made by MFA saying the goal is to give us a choice. Social Protection and Ethical Considerations The proposal effectively reduces social protection for Norwegian citizens working for their own government abroad. “Adequate local insurance” is undefined and, in many countries, inferior to Norwegian folketrygd coverage. This approach risks what can only be described as social dumping , inconsistent with Norway’s international labour standards and ethical commitments. Structural and Procedural Issues The proposal introduces a status-based division within the civil service, contrary to the position-neutral character of the National Insurance Scheme. The draft was not reviewed by the Legislation Department (Lovavdelingen) as required by § 4-2 of the Utredningsinstruksen , making the process procedurally incomplete. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on all evidence and input from affected parties, it is clear that: The proposal lacks a solid legal, factual, and ethical foundation . It violates constitutional protections , EEA obligations, and procedural law. It undermines employee trust, equality, and long-term security . Accordingly, the undersigned and the contributors represented herein strongly recommend that the proposed amendment to Section 2-5 of the National Insurance Scheme be withdrawn in its entirety. Should revision nevertheless proceed, it must be undertaken in close collaboration with affected employees and unions , ensuring: The right of individual choice between systems; Inclusion of transition provisions preserving current rights; and Full compliance with constitutional, EEA, and administrative standards. Arbeids- og inkluderingsdepartementet Til høringen Til toppen
