Response to interpellation 2024/25:158 on direct awards at the Office of the Chancellor of the University
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns direct awards and suspected cronyism at the Swedish Council for Higher Education (UKÄ). Linus Sköld (S) argues that the government is responsible for a corruption scandal where a director-general hired a friend as a consultant without a competitive tender 1. He criticizes Johan Pehrson for not acting more resolutely and argues that the government lacks confidence in handling such matters 2 3. Johan Pehrson (L) responds that he takes the allegations seriously and that the department has had a direct dialogue with the director-general 4. He emphasizes that agencies themselves decide on internal governance 5 and that the Competition Authority examines the procurement rules 4 6. He argues that the government has confidence in the agency heads as long as nothing else is reported 5 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me what additional measures I consider required for citizens to feel secure that the authority follows applicable procurement rules, what additional measures I consider required for citizens to feel secure that the authority's work is not characterized by cronyism and conflict of interest, and what responsibility I have to act to rectify the deficiencies that Dagens Nyheter has uncovered.
I want to begin by emphasizing that I take the tasks that have emerged very seriously. As I wrote in my response to the written question that Linus Sköld posed on 17 October this year, the Ministry of Education has called the Director-General for conversations and most recently had a follow-up conversation with him on 19 November. The dialogue with the Director-General has been very direct and clear. In our contacts, we have also ensured ourselves that the Director-General has a plan to strengthen confidence in the agency. The Ministry of Education follows the issue in our ongoing contacts with the agency at various levels.
As I wrote in my response to Linus Sköld's previous written question, government agencies shall follow the applicable regulations. This includes UKÄ. A review by the Competition Authority regarding procurement rules is currently underway. I cannot, of course, anticipate this review, but I assume that UKÄ will take the measures that may be required.
Linus Sköld also asks what additional measures I assess are required for citizens to feel secure that the authority's work is not characterized by cronyism and conflict of interest. An authority decides for itself in matters of internal governance, organization, and resource allocation. UKÄ must now work to strengthen trust so that the public can feel secure regarding the authority's work.
The Ministry of Education has an ongoing dialogue with the authority and follows the development closely.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! In order for this debate to be understandable for those listening to it, I thought I would start from the beginning.
This is about what until yesterday was the latest known corruption scandal that this government is responsible for. Previous examples exist, such as the appointment of the national security advisor who is a childhood friend of the Prime Minister or, for that matter, Anna Kinberg Batra's well-known note in the reception when she was to recruit at the County Administrative Board in Stockholm. The revelation yesterday was that Henrik Landerholm in turn has made sham tenders of positions and failed to security-clear personnel who are to handle information regarding the state's security.
This is, however, supposed to be about the Office of the Chancellor of Higher Education. What is it that has happened there? Well, the Swedish National Audit Office criticized the Office of the Chancellor of Higher Education in a report for having high consultancy costs. The incoming director general made the completely incomprehensible decision for me to hire a consultant to reduce the consultancy costs. Not only did he make this incomprehensible decision; he also made the decision to hire a friend without putting the friend's services out to tender. One is allowed to do that. It is called direct procurement. But when the amount limit of 700,000 kronor is exceeded, the service must be put out to tender according to current law. That did not happen, and the consultant friend—who also brought in members of his family to perform the assignment—continued to bill up to 1.2 million without being put out to tender.
Furthermore, the consultant friend and the director-general have had an email exchange on the director-general's public email and have commented in a very inappropriate manner on employees' efforts and also threatened employees in a dialogue or trialogue between the director-general, the consultant, and the employee.
The consultant eventually delivers a report. This report is criticized by people in leadership positions at the agency for being so substandard and directly addressed only to the director-general that it should not see the light of day. The report is reworked a little, and then it still sees the light of day.
As is evident from the media reporting, the consultant friend continues to work on assignment as a coach to his director-general friend.
What responsibility does Johan Pehrson have for this? Johan Pehrson has the responsibility to act, and Johan Pehrson has acted by calling the director-general to the Ministry of Education.
This raises some follow-up questions. Is it over now, if the consultant friend still continues to work for the agency? I would like to know what the conversations with the Director General contained. Has Johan Pehrson considered acting in a more resolute way in this cronyism scandal?
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! It is very important, Mr. Speaker and dear listeners, that we adhere to the constitution. It appears very clearly from it that it is the Office of the Chancellor of the Universities that has to decide on issues regarding internal governance, organization, and resource allocation after the granted appropriation. We govern, of course, with instructions, rules, and regulatory letters, but otherwise, it is the authorities themselves who manage the operations in Sweden. It is very important. Should I think otherwise, Mr. Speaker, there would be a KU report against Minister Pehrson.
The Government has tasked Statskontoret with conducting an agency analysis of Universitetskanslersämbetet, a task that was reported in February 2024. The analysis and the report revealed that the agency delivers good results within the core operations themselves. At the same time, the analysis pointed out certain internal problems with, for example, governance, which must be considered a background to what has now occurred.
The government is in a continuous dialogue with UKÄ, and we have been informed about the internal change work that is ongoing to ensure that more efficiency and an even better operation are achieved.
It is always the case that we have confidence in the authorities and the authority leadership as long as nothing else is reported. That is what applies now. We have, through my State Secretary, had two meetings with the Director General to ensure that this is handled in a good way. The Competition Authority has the task of looking at the procurement itself, and therefore there is nothing that I can in any way anticipate.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is extremely pleasing that Johan Pehrson respects the constitution. We have previous examples in debates similar to this one where he possibly has not done so.
Here, Johan Pehrson and the government have the power of appointment at their disposal. It is not just agency dialogues, regulatory letters and instructions, but it is also the power of appointment that Johan Pehrson has at his disposal.
In his interpellation answer, Johan Pehrson said that he had convinced himself that the director-general has a plan to restore confidence in the agency. I would like to know what that plan looks like, because so far there is nothing that can be seen a trace of in public. There is nothing that has left the agency's four walls.
I would like Johan Pehrson to account for this. What does the plan look like to restore confidence in UKÄ?
This is an incredibly trust-damaging scandal, just like the other scandals characterized by cronyism that I mentioned initially. This scandal, together with them, forms something that gives a rather awkward trust in the government's way of handling this type of matter. Johan Pehrson should be interested in that the trust for the government's ability to govern the country in a way that aligns with good governance increases.
I therefore believe that the questions remain. Is Johan Pehrson considering doing something more resolute than calling the director-general for a cup of coffee? And what does the plan look like to restore confidence in the agency?
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! As is known, we have recurring authority dialogues with all heads of agencies within my department's area of responsibility, but also within others. A good deal of refreshing conversation takes place there, but exactly what those conversations contain is nothing that I will report.
It is entirely possible for Linus Sköld and, for example, the Education Committee to meet with directors-general in a committee format if there is an interest in how they view the operations and such more direct questions.
I can only state once again that the government takes these tasks very seriously. Consequently, two focused agency dialogues have been held with the Director General in order to restore confidence. It is about UKÄ having a good and effective operation where the agency fulfills the mission it has to carry out. That is nothing else UKÄ is to do. That is how one gains good respect, and that is how one gains a good reputation and broad confidence among the citizens for its agency task.
I hear how Linus Sköld is trying to spin a web here, but we have to wait and see what the question about direct procurement leads to. It has been reported to the Competition Authority as the responsible supervisory authority, and as long as that review is ongoing, I, as Minister for Education, cannot comment on it.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! I mean, this government and its cronyism! The Prime Minister's childhood friend was appointed to a non-political position as national security advisor. In non-political positions, merit and skill should be guiding. Anna Kinberg Batra put up a notice in the reception, and then she appointed her old friends to high executive positions with fat salaries at the County Administrative Board in Stockholm. Yesterday, the revelation came that a similar sham recruitment has occurred at the Government Offices in the Government Offices, without a security clearance. These are sham recruitments.
When Johan Pehrson is responsible for the Office of the Chancellor of the University as an authority, he chooses to refrain from intervening when scandals that are clearly cronyism are unfolded. Johan Pehrson wriggles out of it and says that he cannot disclose what is said between the head of the authority and the Ministry of Education. No, that may be true. But a better plan to restore trust in the authority than just approving business as usual - for that was what Johan Pehrson said just now - he should still come up with.
I summarize the debate by stating that it has been clarified and revealed by Dagens Nyheter that extensive cronyism and a poor working environment characterize the work at the Office of the Chancellor of the University. And Johan Pehrson chooses to do nothing about the matter.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! An important task in the Swedish administration is that the department or the responsible minister, in this case I or my State Secretary, have ongoing development talks. But it is nothing one invites Linus Sköld to. I understand that he would have gladly liked to be included, but I promise that we went all out, as they say, in the evaluation to explain how seriously we view this. Furthermore, we are, of course, awaiting the review that is now taking place at the Competition Authority.
Whether one is talking about CSN or about individual universities, the responsible directors also sometimes make decisions that can be discussed on good grounds in hindsight and which may not always have been so successful. In those cases, one works with a modern, present, and clear leadership and ensures that things are not repeated. It is an important way to ensure that agency heads also dare to make decisions, because there is well nothing one can be so worried about as having agencies that do not make decisions.
I do, however, completely share Linus Sköld's view that all decisions in every agency must be completely correct. At the same time, it applies that the government has confidence in agency heads until otherwise notified. That does not mean that we do not have refresher development talks.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.