DEVELOPED VETTING is the most thorough form of security clearance used by the British security services. About 7,000 people in the United Kingdom undergo it each year.
The procedure was recently in the news when it was revealed that David Cameron’s former director of communications Andy Coulson had not been developed- vetted before taking up his post in Downing Street.
The people who undergo developed vetting are usually those with long-term, frequent and uncontrolled access to highly sensitive information.
The procedure starts with detailed examination of the subject’s identity documents and employment and education records. The subject is then asked to fill in a security and financial questionnaire and to furnish details of all addresses at which they resided and of anyone else who lived there. They must also grant blanket permission to access all their bank accounts. Criminal records and credit references are checked. Personal referees, former employers and persons associated with education institutions attended by the subject are written to and, in some instances, interviewed. A vetting officer then interviews the subject comprehensively, going over every aspect of the subjects life and cross-checking to confirm that what the subject tells them is consistent with what others said about them and their past.
Those who have undergone developed vetting describe it as the most gruelling and intrusive of procedures. Whereas other interviews and assessment processes seek to establish a candidate’s qualifications, competencies or experience, developed vetting seeks to probe deeply into their moral fibre and ensure they are incorruptible.
In this country we have nothing nearly as comprehensive when it comes to security clearance. The only individuals subjected to anything remotely like developed vetting in Ireland are those who contest presidential elections, with the additional dimension that this vetting is done in public.
Some of our previous presidential elections have been intrusive and at times nasty but the fall of David Norris earlier this week suggests the bar has now been set even higher. If they have not done so already, each of the candidates in the field or anyone proposing to enter it would do well to hire a “dust buster” of the type played by Kathy Bates in the film Primary Colors, which was loosely based on Bill Clinton’s first presidential election. Her function was to dig the dirt on her candidate before opponents or the media got to it, thereby allowing defence strategies to be put in place.
Norris made a mistake. He identified the core of that mistake in his resignation statement when he expressed regret at his failure to display sufficient sympathy for the plight of the victim of Ezra Yitzhak Nawi’s crime.
It is wrong, however, to argue, as many have this week, that he should not have written the relevant letters. The tone of some of the objections to what Norris did has been to suggest nobody should seek to plead for mercy for a person convicted of having sex with an underage person. Even those convicted of the most grievous crimes are entitled to have arguments made in favour of mitigation. More often than not these include testimony or testimonials from persons who know the convicted well.
The letter Norris wrote is overlong and rambles in places but contains of itself nothing objectionable, especially given that it was clearly written in what must have been, for Norris, highly emotional circumstances.
Norris erred also in not telling his campaign staff of his involvement in this case on Nawi’s behalf. The passage of time, the pain he felt at the time, and the desire to deny or forget it since go only to explain that error, especially when his campaign had already been convulsed by previous utterances about sexual behaviour involving older men and young adults.
These errors might have been barely surmountable if they were isolated and if Norris already had a nomination. He was, however, relying on disparate Independent TDs and Senators for support and hoping to embarrass the main parties into then lending him the necessary remaining signatures. This vulnerability, and the sense that there would be no let-up on the revelations or the attacks, meant his campaign was doomed.
On Monday afternoon he bowed to the inevitable, and managed to do it with some charm and dignity.
It had already been a busy presidential election campaign. In the last four weeks Fine Gael has selected Gay Mitchell and Labour has picked Michael D Higgins. In addition, Seán Gallagher and Mary Davis have got the necessary commitments from county councils to nominate them when the writ has been moved. Notwithstanding these developments, Norris, even though he did not have a nomination, was the front runner.
The field is now wide open between the remaining contenders and as regards potential entrants. A handful of county councils could yet let someone new into the race. More importantly, there is also a large bloc of TDs and Senators still uncommitted. Fianna Fáil’s Oireachtas members still do not know if their signatures will be required on the nomination paper of a Fianna Fáil candidate. Sinn Féin’s deputies and Senators are in a similar position. The 15 Oireachtas members previously committed to Norris, including Norris himself, are also now free to nominate someone else.
There will be a few twists in this presidential tale yet.