Big change to Security Clearance rules

**tino** · 10 May 2007, 09:59

good news....

in the case of SC, BC, CTC basically all but DV I think it will drastically reduce the lead time on obtaining clearance

**malvolio** · 10 May 2007, 10:37

Reading a bit deeper, the memo says the basic rule is that you can only refuse on the grounds of no live clearance if the work is due to finish before clearance can be processed, and goes on to say that the SLA is 30 days for SC and 100 for DV. In effect, anyone can now apply for any clearance-required role on a level playing field, unless it's for a very short-term role or the usual technical ones where you cannot provide supervision - and the Cabinet Office say themselves that those are very rare beasts.

Now all we need is for the agencies to find out and for someone to get rejected again... and if you do, complain to the PCG who are trying to track such things - email is [email protected]

**oloks** · 10 May 2007, 11:59

Great..just attached and sent it to a silly agent I was talking to y/day

**billygun** · 10 May 2007, 12:03

Having recently finished an assignment at the Home Office I saw the difficulties in getting security clearance first hand.

There have been changes to the system that mean you have to undertake an immigration check first and if you pass that you get to fill in the security clearance forms. This can take up to 6 months.

The reality is that Agencies put forward candidates and the ones that usually get invited to interview are the ones that have some level of clearance already. I was involved in reviewing the CV's and rates of many contractors and only those that had clearance got interviewed.

The catch 22 is that you can't go through the clearance process until you've been made an offer of a contract and you won't get the offer because you don't have clearance - mental

Whilst the guidelines say that employers can't discriminate against non cleared businesses/individuals, it is not in their interest to have to wait for up to 6 months to get someone on board.

**malvolio** · 10 May 2007, 12:09

The catch 22 is that you can't go through the clearance process until you've been made an offer of a contract and you won't get the offer because you don't have clearance - mental

No longer 'legal' to do that. You cannot be refused an interview on the grounds of no clearance, you cannot be refused a job either unless it will finish before the clearance comes through.

It's up to us to police and report this. The agents won't since they won't have read the rules, and the prime contractors will try to ignore it becuase it causes them a bit of extra work. And the 5% of contractors with live clearance don't want it because suddenly they'll have to compete on an open market again.

Plus the immigration check first rule is nonsense, since it is part of the security vetting process to estabish your residency, even for BC.

**Growernotashower** · 10 May 2007, 12:10

The other problem that I, as and agent, have come across (yes, first time poster and an agent) is that if, on the rare occasion, that the client is willing to wait for the clearance to come through for the right individual, contractors think that the DVA, or an equivelent, will not find out out the car you stole as a teenager or the drink driving ban you had, not declare it on the vetting forms and get turned away 1 month into the process and the client is back to square one. This is a major factor of why the client wants pre cleared people. This is client lead rather than agency. sorry for the spelling, I'm an agent, I'm stupid.

**malvolio** · 10 May 2007, 12:18

Welcome to the madhouse!

The forms state you should declare all convictions. The test is that they will check and spot any you haven't declared and won't then grant clearance because you've lied on an official form. The crime itself is neither here nor there.

If you're any good at your job once you're in, there's also no need throw you out after month, since supervision can always be provided for uncleared people and you can reapply anyway. Excuses, always excuses. It's an overhead the prime contractors don't want to deal with.

But one step at a time. Agents have not put me forward for roles with programmes I helped set up becuase my SC lapsed in April 05. That can't happen any more. I'm happier worrying that I failed an interview then I am not even being able to apply.

**billygun** · 10 May 2007, 12:23

It might not be legal but it's what happens.

The average contractor used in goverment departments is there to do the work of useless permies. They want off the shelf contractors with security clearance. Whilst they can't legally say that you're not getting an interview because of this, they will use the usual bullsh!t reasons such as "another candidate better met the selection criteria", etc.

One way to get clearance is to accept a permanent role for 6 months and when your clearance comes through resign and look for a contract role in another government department. I've seen this done and it does work if you can take the 6 month hit on salary.

The solution is to allow contractors to apply for security clearance directly, just like applying for a passport. You pay a fee up front and you get cleared for a year or whatever. It would benefit contractors, clients and the Treasury.

**billygun** · 10 May 2007, 12:30

Originally posted by malvolio

Welcome to the madhouse!

The forms state you should declare all convictions. The test is that they will check and spot any you haven't declared and won't then grant clearance because you've lied on an official form. The crime itself is neither here nor there.

If you're any good at your job once you're in, there's also no need throw you out after month, since supervision can always be provided for uncleared people and you can reapply anyway. Excuses, always excuses. It's an overhead the prime contractors don't want to deal with.

But one step at a time. Agents have not put me forward for roles with programmes I helped set up becuase my SC lapsed in April 05. That can't happen any more. I'm happier worrying that I failed an interview then I am not even being able to apply.

At the Home Office HQ in Marsham Street, you are not allowed to start work, supervised or unsupervised unless you've got current clearance. I even saw a permie get escorted from the building on her first day in a new role because they realised her clearance had lapsed.

Big change to Security Clearance rules