The government’s revenue system committee proposed on Monday that power municipalities should share 10 percent of the income with other municipalities. – We propose a moderate equalization of income, said committee leader Marianne Haraldsvik when she handed over the report to Minister for Municipalities and Districts Sigbjørn Gjelsvik (Sp). The following day, Heidi Greni, municipal political spokesperson for the Center Party, announces that she “will already cancel large parts of the recommendation”. – The committee proposes a number of changes that would have served to centralize and give local communities less in return for natural resources that are managed in their municipalities. None of this will happen with the Center Party in government, she says. She adds that the committee “received its mandate from a higher government” (the Solberg government in 2020), and that the new government is “working for a different course”. – We are going in the opposite direction, she says. I already want to cancel large parts of the recommendation, says Heidi Greni, municipal policy spokesperson for the Center Party. Photo: Vidar Ruud / NTB – Glad that the parliamentary group is so clear The Hurdal platform says that local communities that make their natural resources available should get more in return. Anders Vatle (Sp) is mayor of Eidfjord, which is the third largest power municipality in the country (after Suldal and Sirdal). – I am happy that the parliamentary group is coming up with such a clear position on this recommendation, he says. A similar signal comes from the Frp, Venstre, Raudt and KrF. – For us, it is important that people throughout the country have access to equal and good welfare services. This is not always the case today, and it is important that we look at this anew, says Lene Vågslid (Ap), who is head of the Storting’s local government and administration committee (see quote box for a longer answer). – A bad idea to shake up the system André N. Skjelstad, Liberal Party – Our party has not taken a position on this proposal in the past, but on a general basis it is important for the Liberal Party to maintain the municipalities as viable local democracies. In that case, the municipalities must have independent sources of income and not be controlled in detail by the state. Helge André Njåstad, Frp – For the Frp, it is important that the municipalities are not governed even more by the state through framework funding and rather live on their own tax revenues. We want mayors and councilors who get up in the morning and think how to get more people and more businesses to the municipality, rather than how to get more money from the finance minister. Dag Inge Ulstein, KrF – For KrF, it is important to maintain the social contract with municipalities and counties that undertake to develop power, and we think it is a bad idea to shake up this system. Lene Vågslid, Labor Party – We have announced a comprehensive review of the income system, and this is a basis for discussion and work on it. For the Labor Party, it is important that people throughout the country have access to equal and good welfare services. This is not always the case today, and it is important that we look at this anew. I would also like to add that there are also some guides in the Hurdal platform that are stuck. We know that there are big differences in tax income, and that small changes can have big consequences. The committee also proposes to adjust the kindergarten key and place greater emphasis on living conditions. The committee also proposes changes within child protection. It is interesting to take a closer look. Now we need input from the municipalities and get a good overview of how changes will play out before we start looking at changes to the revenue system for the municipalities. We will have regular and close dialogue with our mayors about what should be changed. Tobias Drevland Lund, Raudt – We will read the proposal from the committee carefully. Nevertheless, we can already say that the proposal that municipalities that have income from power generation, aquaculture and the like should give 10 percent of this to the equalization scheme, is a proposal that should be put in the drawer. This is completely at odds with Raudt’s policy that the municipalities where the power is produced, through the current power income system, should retain a larger part of the value creation. Mudassar Kapur, Høgre – Now we will spend plenty of time to familiarize ourselves with the solution and obtain input from both our own party and external actors before we decide on individual elements. For Høgre, local self-government is a fundamental principle and it will be the driving force behind our approach to all aspects of this resolution. It is important that the revenue system makes it possible for municipalities to create good services, develop an environment of competence and solve today’s and tomorrow’s challenges. We believe that everyone should have access to good services and vibrant local communities, the same everywhere in Norway. Then we also have to see what the government subsequently submits for consideration in the Storting. Summarize: Parts of the recommendations to the Revenue System Committee are politically dead, after just one day. – I completely agree with Heidi Greni that this proposal must be placed in a drawer, as soon as possible, says the mayor of Høyanger (pictured), Petter Sortland (Ap). Photo: Visit Norway – Exploitation of local natural resources must be compensated Previous attempts to redistribute Norwegian power billions have also failed. In 2020, the Solberg government reversed itself after major protests from a total of 200 hydropower municipalities. Other proposals in the recommendation will be subject to political tug-of-war until the Storting adopts a new system for income distribution next year. news has been in contact with several of the members of the Revenue System Committee. – On a general basis, there is nothing sensational about a report from a committee becoming the subject of political discussion, says Anne Lise Fimreite, who represented academia on the committee. Leader of the committee replies Committee leader Marianne Haraldsvik: – The committee’s mandate has been to carry out a professional review of the income system, and this committee has laid the foundation for our work. We are aware that there are different opinions on several of our proposals, but it has nevertheless been important for the committee to show that there are professional reasons for reducing the significant income differences between the municipalities, which today lie outside of income equalization. The main rationale is the review of equal services, while at the same time there is a development where there is an increased expectation of equality in service production through staffing standards and legal confirmation. We believe that we have laid a good basis for a further discussion, and hope that there will be a good discussion about how the income system should be shaped. Chairman of KS, Gunn Marit Helgesen, tells news that “even though four representatives from the municipal sector have participated in the committee, KS does not necessarily agree with all the conclusions in the committee’s report”. – For us, it is still important that the income system should provide a basis for equal services for residents regardless of where they live, while at the same time that municipalities that provide land for the use of local natural resources should be compensated for the disadvantages it entails, says Helgesen. KS has invited to a seminar on the proposal in September. – This weakens the local anchoring of the municipality’s income Hugo Thode Hansen, chairman of the Norwegian Municipal Directors’ Forum – The committee has reasons for its proposal to redistribute parts of the income from power generation, aquaculture and the like. But this redistribution will result in municipalities and local communities getting less to put their nature and land at their disposal for power production and aquaculture operations. This weakens the local anchoring of the municipality’s income. In sum, the redistributive effect of the proposal is such that money is moved from north to south and from the periphery to the centre. It will create debate. Gerd Helen Bø (Sp), mayor of Suldal municipality – This is a redistribution that has a very centralizing effect. One takes from small district municipalities and gives to populous municipalities near the big cities and large cities such as Oslo, Trondheim, Bergen and Stavanger. Many of these municipalities also own power plants. If this is carried out, it will have a negative effect on the green shift. It is natural that the municipalities in the future will be reluctant to make their natural resources available if there is such a change. Knut Harald Frøland (Bygdelista), mayor of Samnanger municipality – This proposal is useless. If one should first look at “unfair” income or costs in public Norway, one should not start with power municipalities. Roald Aga Haug (Ap), mayor of Ullensvang municipality – The committee will give other municipalities financial compensation for nature encroachment in, for example, Ullensvang. Imagine that Bærum and Oslo will receive financial compensation for Ringedalsfossen and Tyssestrengane being completely dry. – There is nothing sensational about a report from a committee becoming the subject of political discussion, says a member of the Revenue System Committee. Photo: Christine Fagerbakke / news – Uncertainty must not remain for too long – We hope the uncertainty the selection has created about future power revenues will not remain for too long, says Jon Rolf Næss, who is the leader of the National Association of Water Power Municipalities (LVK). He adds that those who will benefit the most from the restructuring are large municipalities such as Oslo, Bergen, Stavanger, Kristiansand, Bærum and Asker. news wrote yesterday that the proposal arouses great opposition among Norwegian power municipalities.
ttn-69
