(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
After being presented with the discrepancies between tender budgets and accounts, the chairman of the board and part owner of Link AS, Morten Jørgensen, gave Ny Tid an answer by email.
Does Link AS regard the tender contract budget as legally binding?
«Link enters into a contract with the UDI after tender competitions with negotiations. The details of the budget are not negotiated, but the operational framework. It is these limits that are agreed in the operating agreement. The budget is the budget. It indicates what estimates we have for the various costs associated with operating reception. The UDI does not set any other requirements for budgetary follow-up other than to have information when redistributions are made. For us, a budget is a framework for what funds are available – funds that can be used but which must not be used up. That would be a waste. "
NOK 860 less than budgeted in 000 was spent, and NOK 2011 less than budgeted in 600 on salaries at Torshov Transittmottak. What is the background for that?
"In our tender budgets, we assume sickness absence corresponding to the public sector. Active HSE work (work with health, environment and safety, editor-in-chief) means that we often have significantly lower sickness absence than the public sector. This is money 'saved'. If the difference is four per cent lower sickness absence than the public sector, this alone amounts to NOK 600–000. Another important variable is the use of extra help and substitutes beyond what is used for sick leave. "
In March 2011 did Link UDI apply for extra funds for guarding at Torshov, while the salary budget was not fully used?
“Guardianship is not included in ordinary labor costs when receiving asylum. These are costs that are related to separate agreements that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has with a security company. The need for extra security is assessed by the UDI. ”
At Torshov Transittmottak, NOK 2011 was budgeted for children and young people in 80, but only NOK 000 was spent. At the same time, you applied to the Lebra Fund for support, and received NOK 41 from them for children and young people – even though the budget had not been used up?
"We have not only managed to make it cheaper. We have also in collaboration with UDI managed to make it better in terms of content. ”
“I do not know the reason for the application to the Lebra Fund, as this is managed by the individual receptionists themselves. To the question of under-consumption of the record for children and adolescents, this may be due to something as simple as fewer children than assumed when the budget was created. Torshov was also known for his very good work among children and young people at the reception, ”says Jørgensen.
Search in public mailing lists shows that Link AS in 2011 applied for extra funds for child care at the Torshov Transit Reception.
At Torshov you have a bigger profit than budgeted in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. What is the explanation for each year that you make a substantially larger profit than budgeted?
"The explanation lies in good operation and a cost-conscious management," replies Jørgensen.
New Time Search in public mailing lists showed that Link AS in 2013 applied for coverage of extraordinary costs for measures in reception.
Audit reports from June this year show that there were large discrepancies between budget and accounting at both Spydeberg, Vestnes and Søre Sunnmøre reception. Link was instructed to explain the discrepancies. Why are there budgetary and accounting discrepancies on these receipts?
“It's like answering how the hell reads the Bible. The explanation is so simple that we chose not to report the changes during the year. Partly because we did not have sufficient enough accrual, and partly because the UDI in the years before we thought it was too complicated in our reporting. ”
Three out of six in management have worked in the UDI before. Some would say that this gives you benefits others do not have?
'Yes, of course, some can say. In such a large field as the refugee field has become, it is only natural that employees go in and out of the UDI. ”
Morten Jørgensen points out that up to 1987, the Red Cross had the exclusive right to operate asylum reception centers. Jørgensen writes that the price for a reception space in 1987 was NOK 300 per person, while the price today is at 180. He believes that companies like Link AS streamline operations:
"We have not only managed to make it cheaper. We have also, in collaboration with the UDI, managed to make it better in terms of content. To waste state money is to spend money that should not have been spent. One week ago, Link AS helped open emergency accommodation in Kristiansand. 53 residents came driving to Kristiansand in the middle of the night in taxis. In some only one or two people, but all came from the same place. This is a waste of public funds, but since it is done by the state itself, it is clearly perfectly okay. The budgets must be used up… »writes Morten Jørgensen to Ny Tid.
Report after audit at Link:
Ny Tid has reviewed several of the inspection reports the UDI has published on its website after conducting inspections at Norwegian asylum reception centers. The review shows that the UDI has given several of the Link-run receptions orders, including for financial default. Of the six Link-run receptions the UDI has published inspection reports from, all the receptions were ordered – five of them for "financial default" in the period 2013-2015:
Spydeberg state reception for single minor asylum seekers (40 seats), Søre Sunnmøre state reception (220 seats) and Vestnes state reception for asylum seekers (174 seats) received the following orders:
Deviations between accounting for 2014 and budget for 2014 are not sufficiently explained. Any major discrepancies between accounting and budget, ie discrepancies of more than 10 percent in the negative or positive direction, will be explained briefly. This applies to items of 100 000 or more.
The total state reception (210 seats) received the following order after supervision:
The UDI has made a check on basic payments at the reception and found that some residents are being paid the wrong amount.
Vestnes' state reception for asylum seekers (174 seats) received the following order after supervision:
Samples in Sesame show that there was no postpaid basis after adjusting the rates.
Gibostad state reception for single minor asylum seekers (68 seats), Spydeberg state reception for single minor asylum seekers, Søre Sundmøre state reception and Vestnes state reception for asylum seekers received the following order:
For each operating year, the receipt will prepare a preliminary statement of revenues and expenses that must be paid to the UDI within 1. April. A budget and accounting form should be used. The preliminary presentation of revenues and expenses must be signed by the representative of the operator. For operating operators with an audit obligation, the statement must be certified by the auditor. This was not done at the receivers.
Vestnes' state reception was also ordered to:
During an inspection of the building in Vyrdslatunet, no smoke alarms were observed (….) In the same building, fire blankets were missing.
Volda government reception was also given orders for the following:
During the inspection of Holtegården, it was discovered that it was not possible to use the designated escape route. During the inspection of Smiths gate 5, it was discovered that the mattresses had no flame retardant properties.
In addition, Mysebu received transit orders for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers (128 seats) three orders, including for failing to register residents, and for refusing to stay at the reception on suspicion of old age.
Link-driven receipts without audit reports:
Starum reception for single asylum seekers (EMA) (2015): 60 seats.
Tvedestrand EMA (2015): 40 seats.
Northern Country (2008): 160 places.
Hareid EMA (2015): 40 seats.
Hol EMA (2014): 40 seats.
