• 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.

Security Clearance (SC) Q&A Read first before asking questions

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by SimonMac View Post
    Check the first post and you will see you need to speak to the current holder of the clearance not the DBS
    Sorry, that's not actually correct. As someone who (working in a government department security unit) has lots of contractors manage to locate us and phone asking for transfers (we've sponsored a few thousand through SC) I can categorically state that the previous sponsor of the clearance cannot 'push' the clearance. When we get phoned up, we just send the caller back to their new employer.

    The process can only happen by the new employer sending a transfer form to DBS-NSV (assuming List X) and they will then make the arrangements to change the sponsor. There may be decisions on whether or not to accept the SC or DV when they get the full details of the file including the assessed risk level and any caveats.

    Incidentally, the 12 months is not a hard-and-fast rule, and can be flexed slightly based on individual circumstances. It is formed around the risks of not knowing what a cleared invididual was doing over that time - given that sometimes transfers can take a while to complete, generally if you were known to the new sponsor before the 12 months were up there is no reason for there to be a problem if the transfer isn't completed until a while later - the file isn't automatically closed by DBS-NSV on the day the twelth month expires.

    There are slight variations depending on whether the individual is employed by a public body or a List X (either before or after transfer) as (to put it loosely) the public bodies just get a report by DBS, and are responsible for making their own risk decisions on whether to grant the clearance or vetting (so, potentially, anything goes), whereas for List X the risk is ultimately owned by MoD and hence DBS-NSV apply their guidelines to what activities or history (and level of risk) are acceptable before a clearance can be granted. Therefore a clearance might have been granted with things that a public body were happy about in the individual circumstances, but that DBS-NSV find don't comply with their baselines for List X clearances.

    Everything for FCOS is broadly the same, some differences for the Agencies due to their particular operating environments - there is no nobody else allowed to do the casework for SC or DV, but as stated it is the risk owner who makes the ultimate decision on what is acceptable in each case.

    Understanding the system is a struggle, given that it is more broad rules than tight definitions, and consequently it is dangerous to look at any one individual's experiences (in terms of time overseas, financial or conviction history) and try to draw conclusions about what would be accepted from others - the decision is made on a whole picture, including the role and location to be worked in. I also couldn't claim that the whole thing always make conherent sense - it is partly a product of a long history, and could possibly do with a 'from scratch' rethink in terms of some elements of the policy, but that appears to be too painful an area for Cabinet Office and MoD to want to get in to, as it could have implications on the many already working with it.

    Finally, I should of course say that the above is based on the policy and theory, but individual mileage may vary! There are certainly some odd practices out there.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Scruff View Post
      Mine took 4 days.... not UK born, but UK Citizen.
      The process is largely computerised for SC now (and hence really quite cheap from DBS-NSV), so they can turn it around within a day of being submitted on the new website - it does searches, if you aren't in the databases and haven't caused any red flags with the information you provided then 'bing', granted (more or less). The delay can then be getting the risk owner to sign off the final paperwork.

      More and more though, SC is turned around within a week.

      DV is still a slow and expensive process due to the manual investigation required - it is a positive vetting (to use old terms) of actually looking for issues, whereas SC is negative vetting - checking if there is anything already known that causes concern - and SC also doesn't have the financial element to nearly the same degree as DV.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Quokka View Post
        Sorry, that's not actually correct. As someone who (working in a government department security unit) has lots of contractors manage to locate us and phone asking for transfers (we've sponsored a few thousand through SC) I can categorically state that the previous sponsor of the clearance cannot 'push' the clearance. When we get phoned up, we just send the caller back to their new employer.

        <snip>
        Thanks for joining and sharing the info with us, much appreciated!

        Comment


          For those who only think PCG are only about IR35, where do you suppose this came from...?
          Blog? What blog...?

          Comment


            Originally posted by malvolio View Post
            For those who only think PCG are only about IR35, where do you suppose this came from...?
            Interesting to note that they are clearly indicating both the new vastly lower cost of SC, and (less precisely) the speediness of the new system. Given that SC is now often processed quicker than the BPSS checks any requirement for a pre-existing SC ought to disappear in a sane world.

            Comment


              Originally posted by malvolio View Post
              For those who only think PCG are only about IR35, where do you suppose this came from...?
              From the bulletin:
              It is estimated by members of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation that departments that rely on existing clearances overpay by 25%.
              I would prefer the PCG to stick to IR35 - I quite like my overpayments. In my experience I'd say the mark up for DV clearance may be more than 25%, and even greater for higher clearance.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Normie View Post
                From the bulletin:


                I would prefer the PCG to stick to IR35 - I quite like my overpayments. In my experience I'd say the mark up for DV clearance may be more than 25%, and even greater for higher clearance.
                Sorry but I think you need to catch up with the real world. The whole point is to get away from overpaying the same closed pool of contractors (and especially the major consultancies) and to get some new blood into the system. However I doubt it will touch DV significantly; that's still expensive to acquire and will always command a premium where it is genuinely needed ( a lot of the time it isn't and SC is sufficeint).

                And FTAOD it affects me too - I've worked on MOD and HMG sites and am currently SC cleared (for the sixth time in ten years... )
                Blog? What blog...?

                Comment


                  Here we go again

                  "Please Note: You are required to hold current and valid SC Clearance to apply for this position, as per our clients requirements.

                  Alexander Mann Solutions, a Recruitment Process Outsourcing Company, may in the delivery of some of its services be deemed to operate as an Employment Agency or an Employment Business."

                  Find "project manager" or "test lead" or "test analyst" or "defect manager" or "test manager" Jobs in north with JobServe.com
                  I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
                    Here we go again

                    "Please Note: You are required to hold current and valid SC Clearance to apply for this position, as per our clients requirements.

                    Alexander Mann Solutions, a Recruitment Process Outsourcing Company, may in the delivery of some of its services be deemed to operate as an Employment Agency or an Employment Business."

                    Find "project manager" or "test lead" or "test analyst" or "defect manager" or "test manager" Jobs in north with JobServe.com
                    Only a case of poor wording. 'Immediate start required for ideally looking for candidates with existing SC' kinda means the same but more likey circumvent the law... We all know what they are after however they word it and all ends the same either way.
                    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                      Only a case of poor wording. 'Immediate start required for ideally looking for candidates with existing SC' kinda means the same but more likey circumvent the law... We all know what they are after however they word it and all ends the same either way.
                      Yes, the saving grace is its clearly a Government Dept and subject to the current IR35 interpretation so wouldnt consider applying.

                      As we know, the whole not having SC thing is a joke even for those who want in.
                      I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X