His deputy did, his predecessors did, but for some reason Andy Coulson did not have to undergo the most rigorous security clearance given to senior British public officials who would have to deal with sensitive materials. As the person responsible for communicating the Governments positions to the world, one would have to assume he should have.
Labour called on the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, to reveal who inside Downing Street decided not to seek the highest level of security clearance for the former News of the World editor and whether the decision was discussed with the prime minister. Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, said it was "now a matter of urgency that this information is put into the public domain otherwise it will fuel the belief that there was knowledge about Andy Coulson's involvement in illegal activities before he was employed".
Craig Oliver, a former BBC executive who replaced Coulson when he resigned from Number 10 in February, is undergoing "developed vetting" – a rigorous probe into his background and finances aimed at uncovering anything that could make him vulnerable to blackmail or other compromises. Coulson underwent less stringent checks.
Guardian article discussing the Cameron Coulson aspect
So did people inside David Cameron’s government know that Andy Coulson might have had issues passing the more rigorous level of interviews and questionnaires that would have been necessary for Mr. Coulson to get developmentally vetted?
Is this something that is common in the position?
Lance Price, Tony Blair's former deputy political spokesman, said Coulson's lower level of security clearance would have made it almost impossible to advise on issues including Nato,European security, Afghanistan, the terror threat to the UK and the situation in Northern Ireland.
"I find it breathtaking that the director of communications would have anything less than the full level of security, because in that kind of job you have to be able to see and assess just about everything that passed the prime minister's desk in terms of communications strategy and how it might impact," Price said.
"I would see papers relating to negotiations in Northern Ireland which were pretty sensitive, I attended private meetings with Tony Blair in Washington with Bill Clinton and the secretary of state for defence. The implication of him not having the highest level of vetting is that there would have been quite a lot of papers he wouldn't have been able to see. Even in my work, it would have been extremely difficult to have done the job properly and I was in a less senior position than Coulson."
Snip
Coulson was cleared to "security check" level, a standard that grants regular access to material classified as secret, but only "occasional, controlled access" to top-secret documents. Roles involving unsupervised access to top-secret material require higher-level developed vetting, according to official guidance. It involves an extra questionnaire, criminal record, security services and credit reference checks, and an extended, typically three-hour interview, plus reference checks by phone or in person.
Guardian article discussing how could this be?
As I’ve begun to truly enjoy the Queens English allow me to use a term from over the pond to describe this situation...bollocks.
h/t to Annettek who brings up this very salient point from the questioning from former Metropolitan Police official John Yates
Q912 Steve McCabe: I want to understand what you said about Mr Coulson. Have you spoken to him since he was employed by Mr Cameron?
John Yates: I have spoken to Mr Coulson at No. 10, with other officials.
Q913 Chair: When was that?
John Yates: I will have to look in my diary. It was probably relatively early on. I think two or three officials were present.
Q914 Chair: About these matters?
John Yates: No, no, about counter-terrorism, police reform, and all the matters that I ought to be interested in.
As AnneteK points out counter terrorism is probably a pretty secret thing don't you think?