Annika Strandhäll defends the decision to poke Ann-Marie Begler in KU

In april 2018 petades suddenly the Agency's director-general Ann-Marie Begler by the government. It was the start of a protracted conflict where the minister responsible Annika Strandhäll (S) said that the government has long expressed dissatisfaction with the myndighetschefen, while Begler said that political reasons were behind the decision.

On Thursday, a year after the decision, asked for social security out in Vietnam about how she acted when Ann-Marie Begler petades and what was behind the decision.

Annika Strandhäll that she previously brought up – that it has long been criticism of the social Insurance by individuals, public authorities and other actors. It led to an ”unusually” large number of meetings with the authority, and eight different government mandate to get health Insurance and Ann-Marie Begler, to strengthen collaboration and coordination with other parties.

In the spring of 2018, we were able to conclude that despite the fact that we sent such clear signals were received, these are not the authority, " says Annika Strandhäll.

The focus of the hearing in KU is the question of how the criticism was presented and whether it was justified to poke the director-general. It required exceptional circumstances to direct the redeployment of a general director, but according to Annika Strandhäll built the decision on a consensus with Ann-Marie Begler that she could not continue without the government's confidence.

social security says that even the agency's board of directors was informed of the criticism, but the chairman has previously said that it has not been an big issue for the board.

answering journalists ' questions after the hearing, she says the government did what was necessary when they moved on to Ann-Marie Begler. She also reiterates that the board certainly was informed of the criticism.

– Chairman of the board was present at several of the dialogues at the department, " says Annika Strandhäll to DN.

" I think we have handled it in the way that was necessary to do. It had of course been a lot easier to at the end of april before making a choice to settle on your hands and hope that someone else will handle the situation. But with the information we had on our table, and the clear signals that we have received from different actors for a long time, so chose the government to act, " says Annika Strandhäll to DN.

Read more: Two authorities led by the relief workers one year after the Begler was kicked

" I don't know what it is we would hide, or whatever it is for additional cards that will be put on any table. We have made a difficult decision to distinguish a director from her mission. It is the decision we have made, and we have made it informed. the

She also think that she looks signals that the situation with Insurance now improved.

the Agency's acting director-general – Maria Hemström Hemmingsson – according to an internal email obtained ”outraged calls from the ministry” after that meeting notes between Annika Strandhäll and Ann-Marie Begler provided to TV4. Government offices threatened with serious consequences, for cooperation with the authority, and Maria Hemström Hemmingsson demanded that she come would decide whether the documents would be disclosed.

Read more: Criticism of the government after the DN:s disclosure

the Revelation led to harsh criticism against the government offices and myndighetschefen. Both the Moderates and The sweden democrats has demanded that the KU will also review the new data. It was not the case during Thursday's hearing.

a year ago petades the Agency's director-general Ann-Marie Begler by the government. Photo: Magnus Hallgren

also had Ann-Marie Begler submitted a written response to the committee's questions. She rejects the description given by Annika Strandhäll and her former state secretary, that it was a voluntary agreement between her and the government.

”For me it was a total novelty that we were in agreement on the decision and that I would have left my employment voluntarily,” it says in the Beglers response.

Read more: ”the Government was afraid to lose the election.”