• 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.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

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 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.
    No, AMS are breaking the rules here. You certainly don't need clearance to apply. You don't need clearance beyond basic BPSS to be on site under supervision.

    You may need clearance to work long term or to work unsupervised (and to have access to things like external email accoutns and the internet) This has nothing to do with the first two.
    Blog? What blog...?

    Comment


      Originally posted by malvolio View Post
      No, AMS are breaking the rules here. You certainly don't need clearance to apply. You don't need clearance beyond basic BPSS to be on site under supervision.

      You may need clearance to work long term or to work unsupervised (and to have access to things like external email accoutns and the internet) This has nothing to do with the first two.
      Come on Mal. Your pcg can get assurances from cabinet office but we all know sponsoring depts ignore this asvice. They just say 'exceptional circumstances.'

      I find it annoying agencies and sponsors get away with this nonesense.
      I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

      Comment


        Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
        Come on Mal. Your pcg can get assurances from cabinet office but we all know sponsoring depts ignore this asvice. They just say 'exceptional circumstances.'

        I find it annoying agencies and sponsors get away with this nonesense.
        So do I. The latest guidance makes it very clear that so does the Cabinet Office. Let it sink in for a while and there will be follow up action. Some agencies may find their PSL status has suddenly evaporated, for example. HMG wants people with high grade skills, not high grade clearance.

        SC is less than two weeks these days for 95% of cases, there is zero excuse for refusing likely candidates.
        Blog? What blog...?

        Comment


          Originally posted by malvolio View Post
          So do I. The latest guidance makes it very clear that so does the Cabinet Office. Let it sink in for a while and there will be follow up action. Some agencies may find their PSL status has suddenly evaporated, for example. HMG wants people with high grade skills, not high grade clearance.

          SC is less than two weeks these days for 95% of cases, there is zero excuse for refusing likely candidates.
          Well just to waste his time, I applied knowing he'd come back with 'Do you have current SC?'

          He did so I sent him the Cabinet Office 'advice' available in PDF.
          I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

          Comment


            Well he replied! And this is it;

            "attachment (document) forwarded appears to be a document for use by government agencies when advertising or sourcing for their own roles and not a mandate for suppliers providing services into government offices."

            So there you have it, apparently agencies are exempt from the Cabinet Office memo the pcg supposedly highlighted and it only applies to Government Depts recruiting their own candidates.

            Hahahahaha! Mal, you've got nowhere with this one!
            I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

            Comment


              Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
              So there you have it, apparently agencies are exempt from the Cabinet Office memo the pcg supposedly highlighted and it only applies to Government Depts recruiting their own candidates.

              Hahahahaha! Mal, you've got nowhere with this one!
              As usual, agencies ignore the regulations and do whatever the hell they want. And the government thinks we should regulate the agencies less!!!
              Free advice and opinions - refunds are available if you are not 100% satisfied.

              Comment


                Originally posted by BolshieBastard View Post
                Well he replied! And this is it;

                "attachment (document) forwarded appears to be a document for use by government agencies when advertising or sourcing for their own roles and not a mandate for suppliers providing services into government offices."

                So there you have it, apparently agencies are exempt from the Cabinet Office memo the pcg supposedly highlighted and it only applies to Government Depts recruiting their own candidates.

                Hahahahaha! Mal, you've got nowhere with this one!
                So send a copy of that email to vettinggroup@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk where it might do some good.
                Blog? What blog...?

                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.

                  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.
                  Thanks very much for the details into the SC process. Good to know that there is no 12 months' hard-and-fast rule.

                  But in my case my new employer already sent transfer form to DBS-NSV. Before sending the transfer form they mentioned its better to apply for a fresh SC clearance (they didn't insist for that) than transfer as DBS is taking too much time to transfer. Since new employer applied within 12 months will that be enough to negate 12 months inactivity rule or DBS need to complete transfer within 12 months.? Thanks.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Darren_Test View Post
                    Thanks very much for the details into the SC process. Good to know that there is no 12 months' hard-and-fast rule.

                    But in my case my new employer already sent transfer form to DBS-NSV. Before sending the transfer form they mentioned its better to apply for a fresh SC clearance (they didn't insist for that) than transfer as DBS is taking too much time to transfer. Since new employer applied within 12 months will that be enough to negate 12 months inactivity rule or DBS need to complete transfer within 12 months.? Thanks.
                    What 12 months...?

                    Perhaps you shoud read the whole thread, but basically whether or not a clearance is transferable in any given time scale is down to the receiving SSO.
                    Blog? What blog...?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by malvolio View Post
                      So send a copy of that email to vettinggroup@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk where it might do some good.
                      I've done that Mal but, we both know what the response will be, 'It's only advice.'
                      I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X