Damian McBride: why did Andy Coulson escape the vetting process?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/25/damian-mcbride-andy-coulson-vetting-process

Version 0 of 1.

Given the fact that the moment the verdict on Andy Coulson was announced in the House of Commons, George Osborne began using the "A-ha! What about Damian McBride?" defence, it's safe to assume this is what's known as the "line to take" for the Tories. Doubtless we'll hear it again when David Cameron makes his own apology to the Commons.

Let's forget for a moment the whole business of equating my behaviour – however reprehensible – with the criminal activities for which Coulson has been convicted. If others want to get exercised about that, be my guest. I believe a far more important point needs to be made.

When I was employed by Gordon Brown as his head of communications at the Treasury, it was on the back of an unimpeachable and pretty successful seven years working as a civil servant. There was no reason for concern about how I was going to do that job. So Gus O'Donnell interviewed me and recommended me for the role.

Nevertheless, to prove there were no reasons for concern, I had to undergo the developed vetting (DV) process, and have my finances, love life and past activities thoroughly looked into by the security services. I was not allowed to start doing the job properly until I'd received my DV status. And, as I wrote two years ago: "I'd defy anyone to go through that process and come through with their secrets still hidden."

So was Brown wrong to employ me, or make me his political press adviser two years later, or take me with him in that role to Downing Street two years after that? With the benefit of a huge slice of hindsight, the answer might be yes to all of the above. But at the time those decisions were made there was no reason not to, whatever warnings various people now claim they sounded, which is why all three appointments were uncontroversial.

Now, look at Coulson. When he was employed by Osborne and Cameron as the Tories' head of communications, it was on the back of having had to resign as News of the World editor after Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire were convicted of phone hacking. It was a hugely controversial appointment, as was making him No 10's director of communications even after serious doubts had been raised about the "one rogue reporter" defence, which Coulson had maintained since leaving the News of the World.

Their explanation is that they believed in second chances; they trusted Coulson's assurances that there was nothing more to "come out" about him, there were no complaints about the way he did his job at the Conservative party headquarters or No 10, and so – even if it has ultimately proved a bad call to employ him – it was the wrong judgment made for all the right reasons.

But here's the problem. There's a reason the DV process exists, as do similar services provided by private firms to organisations like the Tory party: it's to take the subjectivity out of potentially risky or sensitive appointments; it's to ensure that two nice blokes like Cameron and Osborne don't have to feel embarrassed asking their mate Coulson whether he is still receiving payments from his old employers, or whether he has had a sexual relationship with any newspaper editors, or whether he's telling the truth when he says he knew nothing about phone hacking.

If those questions were never asked, or if that kind of vetting process was conveniently and inexplicably sidestepped when Coulson went to No 10, then that ceases to be an issue of judgment and becomes something more serious.

So if the Tories want to keep using the "What about Damian McBride?" line, so be it, but they cannot then dodge the follow-up question: "Fine, if you want to make that comparison, why was Coulson not put through DV for the director of communications job in No 10 when McBride was, for a far more junior job in the Treasury?"

• This was originally posted at http://damianpmcbride.tumblr.com