How to report an agency to Cabinet Office re security clearance pre-requisite

[SueEllen]

So, I reported it to the email address and got the following response



Address not found
Your message wasn't delivered to vettinggroup@cabinetoffice.gov.uk because the address couldn't be found or is unable to receive email.

Last time I had to contact a government agency I found I had to use the telephone to find an email address that worked.

[northernladuk]

Thanks, 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.

I think you misunderstanding something. That sentence explains why the role needs SC, not why they will not put you forward without it. What they haven't said, but is still true, is that they need someone on site within x days for a 3 month contract (or something to that effect) which then meets both parts I bolded. It's urgent and it's short time therefore taking non SC people will not meet the need.

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

[malvolio]

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.

HTH

[TheDogsNads]

In 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

You can complain to the Vetting Agency or whatever they are called nowadays but there eff all you can do.

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.

[fidot]

An update

Just in case anyone wants to do the same, the correct email address is
vettinggroup@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

[fidot]

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.

Yes, except the email bounced - I have now found the correct address and used that.

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.

I accept that, but this role wasn't that type.

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 in the CO that manage it and you will understand why.

Agree. I said as much in one of my posts. However, it is certain that nothing will change if nobody says anything.
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.

5. And as I said earlier, this is a consultancy making the demands, not the client. I leave you to work out why.

I realise it's the agency and that is why I've reported them.