MOD and FCO vetting process

[Welly59]

I have recently completed MOD NSV clearance process and was asked about my financial history. A colleague of mine has just completed NSV clearance, but via the FCO, and they were not asked for any financial history.

Is there a difference between the vetting agencies? My colleague is applying for the same level of clearance as i hold

[SueEllen]

They will credit check you both anyway.

In regards to them asking - your role is worth blackmailing you for...

[BackupBoy]

MoD is not FCO. Completely different attitude and approach.

[northernladuk]

MoD is not FCO. Completely different attitude and approach.

I'm not so sure that statement is true. Completely different?

[malvolio]

I'm not so sure that statement is true. Completely different?

As has been said a hundred times now, it's a risk assessment. Risks vary. Therefore the risk criteria vary. It's not a shiny badge, it depends on the role.

[northernladuk]

As has been said a hundred times now, it's a risk assessment. Risks vary. Therefore the risk criteria vary. It's not a shiny badge, it depends on the role.

Indeed but I think it's a bit extreme to say they are completely different in attitude and approach. They may vary but not completely different.

[Welly59]

Surely they both have to vet to the same standard or is one more strict than the other?

If there's a difference in criteria for the same level of vetting then that's pretty counter intuitive. Or is it a case of the mod not accepting vetting provided by the fco?

[SueEllen]

Surely they both have to vet to the same standard or is one more strict than the other?

If there's a difference in criteria for the same level of vetting then that's pretty counter intuitive. Or is it a case of the mod not accepting vetting provided by the fco?

As already stated both are vetting you but they are doing their assessment on different criteria.

So the MOD see that if you are truthful about your financial status then you are less likely to be blackmailed, there as the FCO don't see that as a risk.

[rocktronAMP]

As already stated both are vetting you but they are doing their assessment on different criteria.

So the MOD see that if you are truthful about your financial status then you are less likely to be blackmailed, there as the FCO don't see that as a risk.

Having had an initial telephone conversation with DV vetting representation a while ago. It is more heavy than SC for say the Home Office / GDS / xyz.GOV.UK and the OP obviously now knows this for sure. Actually, whoever is recruiting is investing up to £15,000 in order to get anybody through the DV vetting process.

Just out of interest. This is a side question: would a DV role working for, say the Comms Centre, come under the same restrictions on tax after 5th April 2017?

[malvolio]

Having had an initial telephone conversation with DV vetting representation a while ago. It is more heavy than SC for say the Home Office / GDS / xyz.GOV.UK and the OP obviously now knows this for sure. Actually, whoever is recruiting is investing up to £15,000 in order to get anybody through the DV vetting process.

Just out of interest. This is a side question: would a DV role working for, say the Comms Centre, come under the same restrictions on tax after 5th April 2017?

Remember that DV is a different beast entirely to SC. But it will have no bearing on your tax status; you're still working for a PS body and I suspect you would be hard pressed to demonstrate a lack of Control and Direction at that particular establishment...