Originally posted by fidot
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
How to report an agency to Cabinet Office re security clearance pre-requisite
Collapse
X
-
"You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR -
Originally posted by fidot View PostThanks, NLUK
I'm going to report them. Their justification was "our client are a large government organisation and due to the nature of the data that contractors will access they have a requirement for security clearance.", so the bolded bit you quoted doesn't really apply - it's a more widely-held position.
TBH, I don't believe for a minute that reporting them will make any difference, but matters definitely won't improve by not reporting them.
If you've got the time to waste them I'm sure you won't mind doing all the research to find what you need rather than wasting our time'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!Comment
-
Well if the OP isn't listening....
1. The Vetting Group email went to one or two people in the security area of the Cabinet Office tasked with fielding complaints from people about agencies demanding clearance for applicants (as opposed to new starters), as part of the HMG/PCG exercise that I kicked off many years ago to try and get this sorted out. For many reasons, all perfectly valid, that got as far as clarifying the guidance and getting it in front of all the agencies at that time. By now, 90% of those who saw that will have moved on. At which point, reporting breaches probably became pointless and the Cabinet Office probably had better things for those guys to do.
2. The actual purpose of the SC requirement is to prevent access to classified data by people not cleared to see it. That doesn't mean you can't work on a secure site, merely that you have to be supervised so you don't see what you shouldn't. (That's also behind the clear desk policy at most Departments so you don't have to positively vet the cleaners, for example).
3. The point of the "some roles need SC to start" bit is because some roles simply can't have supervised access - Sysadmins, DBAs and the like can get past most restrictions, for example - so if the role is shorter than the clearance SLA - currently 4 weeks (yeah, I know...) you have to be cleared. That's well under 5% of all advertised roles according to research done at the time.
4. Bitch about clearance all you like. It will make you feel better but won't achieve the square root of sod all in the real world. Talk to the people inthe CO that manage it and you will understand why.
5. And as I said earlier, this is a consultancy making the demands, not the client. I leave you to work out why.
HTHBlog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by fidot View PostIn response to my application for a role requiring security clearance, I have just received an email from the agent saying "can you confirm if you currently have active SC Security clearance as this is a pre-requisite for the role."
I have pointed out to them that they cannot make it a pre-requisite as that is against Government guidelines as per Document Moved
I don't expect it to make any difference, but was wondering how this should be reported to the Cabinet Office
I complained a couple of times after my SC expired regarding this must have. The VA said roles must be open to all applicants but in urgent situations, Departments could use the 'existing pool' of contractors with current clearance.
Guess what? All Departments then said virtually all requirements were 'urgent' so didnt have the time to consider other applicants. They just move the goalposts. Move on.Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View Post1. The Vetting Group email went to one or two people in the security area of the Cabinet Office tasked with fielding complaints from people about agencies demanding clearance for applicants (as opposed to new starters), as part of the HMG/PCG exercise that I kicked off many years ago to try and get this sorted out. For many reasons, all perfectly valid, that got as far as clarifying the guidance and getting it in front of all the agencies at that time. By now, 90% of those who saw that will have moved on. At which point, reporting breaches probably became pointless and the Cabinet Office probably had better things for those guys to do.
Originally posted by malvolio View Post3. The point of the "some roles need SC to start" bit is because some roles simply can't have supervised access - Sysadmins, DBAs and the like can get past most restrictions, for example - so if the role is shorter than the clearance SLA - currently 4 weeks (yeah, I know...) you have to be cleared. That's well under 5% of all advertised roles according to research done at the time.
Originally posted by malvolio View Post4. Bitch about clearance all you like. It will make you feel better but won't achieve the square root of sod all in the real world. Talk to the people in the CO that manage it and you will understand why.
I'm not spending any huge amount of time on it or getting upset - I've reported it and that's all I can do so it's behind me now.
Originally posted by malvolio View Post5. And as I said earlier, this is a consultancy making the demands, not the client. I leave you to work out why.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment