Searching Questions
John McTernan had an interesting article in the Telegraph the other day - about the detailed vetting that people are put through by the Security Services - before being allowed to work at Number 10 Downing Street.
John McTernan was a political adviser to Tony Blair as Prime Minister - during his latter years in office - and having been through the process himself John clearly knows what he's talking about.
Here's what he had to say - the obvious conclusion being that the Security Services must have a record of what Andy Coulson was asked and what his answers were - before taking up his post at Number 10.
So somewhere in Whitehall - or wherever MI5 hang out these days - the mystery of 'who said what to whom' can be resolved.
"Why did Number 10 let Andy Coulson through the front door?"
Number 10 must have vetted Andy Coulson thoroughly
“Have you seen Mr McTernan drunk?”
"How do you think he manages his money? Does he gamble?’
“And when he’s drunk, what’s he like with his children?”
These were the questions my friend felt able to repeat to me after he was interviewed by the Security Service.
Before you start at No 10 you need to be security cleared or DV-ed (Developed Vetting which allows routine and unrestricted access to material marked “top secret”). Part of this process is nominating three people as referees – and you have to provide a mix of people who have known you over time, and people who have seen you in social and professional contexts. At first your mates think it’s a bit of a joke, and they’re tempted to say: “He gets pissed all the time, and he gambles so much the kids go to bed without food some nights.”
Then they realise that this would be stupid and dangerous – the man in the mac from MI5 is serious. A bad report and your friend will not be allowed anywhere near Downing Street. And so, they tell the truth.
That, of course, is only part of the scaffolding. There’s full disclosure of financial records – my five different bank accounts and wildly fluctuating balances were a source of concern until I patiently explained that I was a freelance journalist and consultant. And there’s your travels. My visits to the Soviet Union (to meet emerging social democratic parties in 1990) and to Nicaragua (to see a friend who ran a health centre) were still, in 2004, suspicious. But I refrained from saying “surely Islamism is the enemy, not communism”. No one’s a liar or a smart-arse to these guys. They are the real thing, tracking back and asking the same questions in different ways – a real interrogation. Friendly, but steely and determined.
Which makes me wonder, what were they doing when they interviewed Andy Coulson? I was not a public figure when I joined the No 10 Policy Unit. My press cuttings were my own articles. Coulson, however, had a record – and an audit trail – that the sleepiest cop in the world would have come across. Did they really not ask about it?
The officers who vet you never show their hand, but the topics they focus on – drinking, gambling, money, sex – all signal their interests. Did they really not probe the possibility that Coulson’s past might impact on his proposed role in No 10? It seems so unlikely. Did the PM, or his team, do no due diligence on Coulson? Really?
Like so many stories this turns on the following questions: Who knew what? When did they know it? And did the vetting fail to find out the blindingly obvious?
John McTernan was a political adviser to Tony Blair as Prime Minister - during his latter years in office - and having been through the process himself John clearly knows what he's talking about.
Here's what he had to say - the obvious conclusion being that the Security Services must have a record of what Andy Coulson was asked and what his answers were - before taking up his post at Number 10.
So somewhere in Whitehall - or wherever MI5 hang out these days - the mystery of 'who said what to whom' can be resolved.
"Why did Number 10 let Andy Coulson through the front door?"
Number 10 must have vetted Andy Coulson thoroughly
“Have you seen Mr McTernan drunk?”
"How do you think he manages his money? Does he gamble?’
“And when he’s drunk, what’s he like with his children?”
These were the questions my friend felt able to repeat to me after he was interviewed by the Security Service.
Before you start at No 10 you need to be security cleared or DV-ed (Developed Vetting which allows routine and unrestricted access to material marked “top secret”). Part of this process is nominating three people as referees – and you have to provide a mix of people who have known you over time, and people who have seen you in social and professional contexts. At first your mates think it’s a bit of a joke, and they’re tempted to say: “He gets pissed all the time, and he gambles so much the kids go to bed without food some nights.”
Then they realise that this would be stupid and dangerous – the man in the mac from MI5 is serious. A bad report and your friend will not be allowed anywhere near Downing Street. And so, they tell the truth.
That, of course, is only part of the scaffolding. There’s full disclosure of financial records – my five different bank accounts and wildly fluctuating balances were a source of concern until I patiently explained that I was a freelance journalist and consultant. And there’s your travels. My visits to the Soviet Union (to meet emerging social democratic parties in 1990) and to Nicaragua (to see a friend who ran a health centre) were still, in 2004, suspicious. But I refrained from saying “surely Islamism is the enemy, not communism”. No one’s a liar or a smart-arse to these guys. They are the real thing, tracking back and asking the same questions in different ways – a real interrogation. Friendly, but steely and determined.
Which makes me wonder, what were they doing when they interviewed Andy Coulson? I was not a public figure when I joined the No 10 Policy Unit. My press cuttings were my own articles. Coulson, however, had a record – and an audit trail – that the sleepiest cop in the world would have come across. Did they really not ask about it?
The officers who vet you never show their hand, but the topics they focus on – drinking, gambling, money, sex – all signal their interests. Did they really not probe the possibility that Coulson’s past might impact on his proposed role in No 10? It seems so unlikely. Did the PM, or his team, do no due diligence on Coulson? Really?
Like so many stories this turns on the following questions: Who knew what? When did they know it? And did the vetting fail to find out the blindingly obvious?
