The assistant health director’s handling of a shareholding in a medical company is rated by a well-known lawyer.
Nakstad is a board member of the company and holds a shareholding of 2.6 percent.
Following the outbreak of Covid-19, sales of the insulator accelerated sharply – turnover doubled in 2020 – from five to NOK 100 million. Nordea’s Investment Director Robert Næss values the company at between NOK 1 and 1.5 billion, which means that Nakstad’s shareholding is worth somewhere between NOK 26 and 39 million.
– It does not inspire confidence
– In my opinion, it is obvious that Nakstad can not take part in decisions about health preparedness in Norway at the same time as he is a board member and has a valuable shareholding in a company that lobbies actively to influence health preparedness in Norway.
Lawyer Eirik Vinje, partner in Garmann Mitchell, who himself has a past in the Ministry of Justice, told Nettavisen on Wednesday afternoon. Earlier Wednesday, he fired heavily at the double role in a Facebook post:
“It is apt for astonishment that Nakstad apologizes with his own subjective motivation that no one else can have insight into. He thus has such a high morale that he cannot be led by the fact that he makes money on the investment. Ergo, it certainly does not matter that he makes a lot of money on this. That he thinks we should settle down with his moral self-declaration does not inspire confidence. “
– It is obvious that he is incompetent
The Deputy Directorate of the Norwegian Directorate of Health himself believes that he has clarified his role in the company:
– I have naturally declared myself incompetent in all potential cases related to this invention with previous and current employers, in line with the Norwegian impartiality regulations. Although the Norwegian Directorate of Health as an administrative body is not in the management line of the health trusts or hospitals in Norway, last year I asked for an assessment of my work tasks and impartiality from the Ministry of Health and Care Services, to be on the safe side, said Nakstad to Nettavisen on Tuesday.
He downplayed the importance of the shareholding:
– I am today one of the inventor representatives on the board. It is an unpaid board position. The inventors’ shareholdings are a conversion of previous work effort in the start-up years. I have never received a salary from the company and no dividend has ever been taken out.
Also read: Alarms about e-commerce: – No way back
But lawyer Vinje believes that the perception of his own impartiality clarification does not hold water, and deepens the criticism of Nettavisen:
– He has been involved in adopting intervention measures. It is not decisive whether he makes decisions aimed at a specific company, but whether the civil servant has a vested interest in the decision that is made.
Shares in an industry that has an interest in the decision are sufficient, Vinje believes:
– If you work in the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, for example, it becomes hopeless to take part in making general decisions about the industry and at the same time have shares in an oil company. If you are Chief of Defense, it goes without saying that you cannot own shares in the Kongsberg Group.
Vinje emphasizes that it is not incapacity in itself that is worthy of criticism, but to participate in a decision-making process where he is incompetent:
– It is obvious that he is incompetent, because he is so high up in the system and then gets an interest in, for example, measures for increased preparedness. It does not take long before such role conflicts arise.
– He must choose between the job or the shareholding
EpiGuard clearly has an interest in health preparedness in Norway, says Vinje, who points out information on the company’s website and a separate event in Arendalsuka on emergency preparedness policy.
– It also goes without saying that an assistant health director must be able to take part in decisions about health preparedness in Norway. It is absolutely central to his job. So it means in practice that Nakstad must choose between the job or the shareholding and the board position, says Eirik Vinje.
– Are the rules of probity clear enough?
– They are very generally designed, but so must they be. But it is very special that a top bureaucrat in the health care system has shares in a company that delivers to the health sector at all – it is very unusual. I think putting yourself in this situation in itself is very striking.
Also read: Experts have studied what pays off in mutual funds. The conclusion is surprising
– It is common to sell out
Vinje will not speculate on whether Nakstad has deliberately exploited his position:
– I do not know, but it is striking for a doctor and lawyer to come up with such a justification as he does – that he does not take commercial considerations into account. This is never asked, and it is also impossible to assess what kind of inner motivation an official has. The important thing is not only what kind of judgment you have actually had, but how this appears to the outside world.
– What do you think Nakstad should do?
– The administrative body, ie the Norwegian Directorate of Health and the Ministry, must consider this. It is not forbidden to own shares, but it is common to sell out when you get into such a situation.
– He himself states that he does not come close to purchasing decisions?
– No, but he can affect the level of preparedness, which can lead to procurement. I think it is strange for someone in his position to have shares in a Norwegian health trust at all. It is a good civil servant spirit to create the least possible conflict of interest.
– He affects the level of preparedness
There is also no doubt that the assistant health director actually affects the level of preparedness, says Vinje, who in his Facebook post points out that Nakstad has been a spokesperson for a stricter line throughout the pandemic:
“It is interesting that Nakstad throughout the pandemic has argued for stricter and more long-term measures than others. He has also taken on a very independent role towards politicians and other health authorities (NIPH). “
– To put this at the forefront: Let us imagine that Nakstad had assessed the epidemic management in the same way as the Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell. Had Nakstad gained a foothold for a Swedish openness model, it would have had dramatic consequences for the health service and emergency preparedness, and thereby also suppliers to the health service, including EpiGuard, Vinje tells Nettavisen.
Also read: Øystein Stray Spetalen warns green investors: – They will lose all their money
– He has disqualified himself
The lawyer emphasizes that he personally has no opinion on Norwegian or Swedish pandemic management.
– The point here is that those who lead the pandemic management should be able to make a completely professional free assessment with the least possible impact on self-interests. And if they consider the Swedish model to be the best academically, they should be able to recommend it regardless of the consequences for their own wallet. Through his shareholding and board position in EpiGuard, Espen Nakstad has disqualified himself from participating in that assessment.
This is not just about Nakstad, but also about employees he has directly under him, Vinje believes. He points to Section 6 of the Public Administration Act, which states that a direct subordinate is considered incompetent if the boss is.
Professor Emeritus Jan Fridthjof Bernt, at the University of Bergen, has also assessed Nakstad’s situation. His view is that share ownership is not strictly illegal, but he also recommends a strict practice of the rules:
– One possibility is that employees are completely barred from dealing with matters that may be of significance to companies in which they have ownership interests or other affiliation. The best protection against criticism and suspicion will, however, be to completely ban employees from having financial interests in or other connections to companies that are actors in areas of concern at the directorate, Bernt told Nettavisene on Friday.
Espen Rostrup Nakstad has been presented with these statements from Eirik Vinje, but does not want to comment on the case beyond what he has already said.
–
