The latest headlines surrounding Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and questions over appointments to the House of Lords have once again pushed vetting into the public spotlight, writes Susie Thomson, Chair Elect of the Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA) and former founder of The Security Watchdog.
Political controversy will always generate noise, but beneath it lies a serious governance issue. If questions about due diligence and judgment can surface at the highest levels of government, then every leader – in every sector – should pause and reflect.
If it can happen at the top of government, it can happen anywhere. Leadership appointments are not administrative exercises; they are culture-defining decisions. Selecting the right people for senior roles and validating their experience, affiliations and suitability can be career-defining for those making the appointment. Conversely, getting it wrong can undo years of reputational capital in a single news cycle. I have long argued that vetting is not simply about confirming employment dates or academic qualifications. It is the bedfellow of culture. The people we allow into positions of influence shape decision-making, team morale and ultimately organisational integrity. Toxicity does not remain neatly contained; it seeps outward.
The UK story does not stand alone. Across the Atlantic, a recent United States case involving an individual reportedly responsible for conducting federal background investigations, who was himself arrested in a prostitution sting, demonstrates that even those entrusted with safeguarding systems are not immune to misconduct. While the facts of each case differ, the underlying lesson is the same: governance frameworks must be robust, proportionate and defensible.
As Melissa Sorenson, pictured, Executive Director of the Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA), observes, “Whether we’re talking about senior political appointments or federal clearance investigations, confidence in institutions depends on demonstrable rigour.” She cautions against complacency in mature systems. “Risk indicators evolve – digital footprints, financial vulnerabilities, online conduct and increasingly sophisticated fraud techniques. Leaders must ensure their processes evolve just as quickly.”
That point is critical. Screening programmes cannot remain static while risk becomes more complex. One of the greatest enemies of good vetting is incuriosity. The moment an organisation stops asking probing questions, stops independently validating claims and begins to rely on reputation alone, it starts down a risky slope. Turning a blind eye, whether out of loyalty, convenience or political expediency, is rarely benign. It is often the first step towards crisis.
But strong governance is not simply about intensity; it is about proportionality. As Melissa rightly notes, effective screening must be appropriate to the role, the responsibility and the level of access an individual will have to people, data or financial systems. The checks applied to a senior investigator overseeing security clearances should not mirror those for a junior operational role. That is not a UK-US distinction, it is simply smart programme design. What matters is that organisations develop screening frameworks that are thoughtful, structured and defensible. No system, including government systems, is immune to bad actors. The aim is not perfection; it is resilience.
Another important distinction between the UK and US contexts lies in cultural assumptions around data. In the United States, information is often presumed public unless restricted by law. In Europe, the default position tends to assume privacy unless disclosure is permitted. Yet despite these differences, expectations are converging. Increasingly, there is an understanding, particularly in senior appointments, that scrutiny is not exceptional; it is standard. And it should be.
Vetting is not about suspicion. As Melissa puts it, “Screening is not about suspicion; it is about stewardship. Clear policies, independent verification and regular review of procedures are essential if organisations on either side of the Atlantic want governance that is resilient, ethical and worthy of trust.” I could not agree more.
This is not about outsourcing accountability. Responsibility for appointments always rests with leadership. However, leaders must recognise when specialist expertise is required and ensure that processes are regularly reviewed against emerging risks. A screening programme that was robust five years ago may now be insufficient.
When governance falters at the top, the consequences are rarely confined to the individual concerned. Employees question standards. Stakeholders hesitate. Public trust weakens. The controversy in Westminster, alongside events in the United States, should not be dismissed as isolated failures. They are cautionary tales. They remind us that screening must be consistent, proportionate and continuously improved.
If we want organisations that are ethical, resilient and trusted, we must resist complacency and design programmes that can withstand scrutiny. We may operate on different sides of the Atlantic, but in this respect we are more alike than different. When vetting fails at the top, everyone feels the consequences.
