SC required but start date 1 month off.

**TykeMerc** · 17 March 2010, 18:55

Not that I'm excusing this practice by agencies in any way...

SC can (and often does in my experience) take a lot longer than 1 month to come through.

I know it's a pathetic "excuse", but it's what you would probably get. The whole thing is pretty absurd sometimes, but you know how the agencies are, they know they will get people applying who already have clearance so this is a way to reduce the number of applicants.

**gingerjedi** · 17 March 2010, 18:58

The advert is stating that SC is required, it doesn't say you will not be considered if you don't currently have it. At least thats the way I read it?

**The Wikir Man** · 17 March 2010, 21:33

Originally posted by TykeMerc View Post

SC can (and often does in my experience) take a lot longer than 1 month to come through.

I agree, but according to DVA, 85% of SC clearances are completed within 30 calendar days. There is a performance analysis against service level agreement on their website.

**Worzel** · 17 March 2010, 22:12

The ad should really say "You must have SC clearance to apply for this role, dont even bother trying if you haven't!!"

Occasionally theres some exceptions to this but we all know it's generally a closed shop. Theres very little chance agencies will ever submit a non-cleared candidate if they have others available who are cleared, irrespective of skill level. Shame because the SC jobs seem to make up quite a large proportion on jobserve thesedays.

**SuperZ** · 17 March 2010, 22:42

Originally posted by The Wikir Man View Post

I agree, but according to DVA, 85% of SC clearances are completed within 30 calendar days. There is a performance analysis against service level agreement on their website.

That's an interesting figure as everyone I have worked with has taken more like 6-12 weeks or longer in the case of immigrants.

Must admit this advert is borderline dodgy though

. Again, I put the blame partly on the client. If the client made it clear, they wouldn't be putting that SC requirement in the advert.

I suspect this is a company client recruiting rather than a public sector client org. They are entitled to do whatever they want surely? The guidelines malvio talks about has no effect on listx co's I would assume, just civil service procurement. As I've said elsewhere, SC clear folks are plentiful at the moment so why should companies especially bother looking at clearing non-sc cleared folks. What next, shall we try and stop banks recruiting those with previous banking experience only? That's another sector nobody can get a look in on even during the good times let alone a recession.

In or near Reading, I can think of two large companies who both hire SC cleared folks, probably one of those.

I've said it before, but I think there's a lot of "give us a job" mentality going on here fuelled by the recession, and the civil service is easy to pick on (due to their incompetence and sometimes over paying contracts and having to follow rules and because we are taxpayers right so feel entitled to a civil service job/contract

). I do also however understand where some are coming from. Personally I think if a position does not start for 8 weeks I would expect it to be open to non-cleared people to apply. 4 weeks, then the client to decide but probably again SC cleared or previously cleared people should be given preference unless no suitable candidates found. Less than 4 weeks should be for SC cleared folks only unless no suitable candidates found. Unfortunately, in the contracting game we are needed within 4 weeks usually.......and espceially the civil service who would never be able to plan well ahead anyway

. Forget all the rubbish about being able to work on-site while the clearance is going through, in most cases that isn't practical and quite understandably so.

**SuperZ** · 17 March 2010, 22:53

Originally posted by Worzel View Post

Shame because the SC jobs seem to make up quite a large proportion on jobserve thesedays.

At the moment, I think it might change post election. In fact I'm quite sure

**northernladuk** · 17 March 2010, 22:54

You are forgetting a very important point here. Applying DOES NOT automatically mean you will get it. You put a guy thru and 30 days later he fails. Where does that leave youl!

**malvolio** · 18 March 2010, 08:07

Originally posted by SuperZ View Post

Forget all the rubbish about being able to work on-site while the clearance is going through, in most cases that isn't practical and quite understandably so.

Bollocks. By that logic nobody would ever get a new starter in the Civil Service.

The rules for uncleared personnel on site are there and supported by a full management process. Also, if you bother to read the Cabinet Office guidelines, they state clearly that pre-clearance will be required in a very small proportion of cases, basically those where informed supervision cannot be given.

More to the point, I'm quite willing to lose a job to a better qualified candidate, it happens to everyone. What I object to - and what the whole point of this debate is about - is not being able to present my credentials in the first place because of the actions of some dickhead who can't be bothered to follow the rules.

**ratewhore** · 18 March 2010, 08:34

That ad does not meet the guidelines set by the DVA, and for DII(F), the DVA IS the relevant clearance authority.

Sentinel IT is, I believe, a small company so probably doesn't understand the requirements it should be working under in terms of security clearance...

SC required but start date 1 month off.