Danish prisons chief spends €97,000 annually on personal drivers

The director of Denmark’s prison service has employed two part-time drivers at a yearly cost of 720,000 kroner (€97,000) to transport her between work, meetings, and her private residence, Danish broadcaster DR reports.

Ina Eliasen, head of the Danish Prison and Probation Service, has faced sharp criticism over the arrangement, which opposition politicians and legal experts argue violates public sector rules. Anders Vistisen, justice and finance spokesperson for the Danish People’s Party, called the practice “completely unacceptable” and insisted no public official at her level should have access to a personal driver.

“There are no managers in the public sector at that level who are entitled to a private chauffeur,” Vistisen told DR’s P1 Morgen programme. He acknowledged that special taxi arrangements could be approved in exceptional cases but stressed that no Danish official of Eliasen’s rank required a dedicated driver.

Per Nikolaj Bukh, a professor of public financial management at Aalborg University, initially assumed the reports were a misunderstanding. He told DR the arrangement appeared to breach Danish law, as reimbursement for commuting costs would constitute a taxable benefit—something prohibited under state employment rules. “If travel to and from work is covered, it becomes a form of remuneration, which is not permitted for state employees,” Bukh said.

The Prison and Probation Service defended the arrangement in a statement to DR, citing guidelines from the Ministry of Finance and Interior that allow chauffeur services if “necessary for the performance of official duties”—including travel to and from work. However, Bukh dismissed this justification, noting the referenced rules apply to regional council chairs and mayors, not state agencies.

The service further claimed the drivers were needed due to “the organisation’s critical situation” and the sensitive nature of Eliasen’s work, arguing that public transport could compromise confidentiality. Vistisen rejected this reasoning, pointing out that senior police and defence officials manage without chauffeurs. “Of course the director can organise her work without it affecting quality,” he said.

Bukh acknowledged the desire for efficiency but called the practice a slippery slope. “This logic could be used by any agency director. It defies common sense.”

DR and B.T. requested interviews with the Prison and Probation Service, but the agency declined, referring instead to its written statement.