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

[SimonMac]

It's not illegal, simply against Cabinet Office rules. However it has proved very difficult to establish a sanction that works to prevent agencies and hiring managers abusing the rules. As you say, the consequence is poor performance in many PS roles where the need for clearance (often unnecessary, if the truth be told) overrides the need for competence.

Your only real option is to apply and one day someone will value you enough to sponsor your clearance (or take a permanent role that carries clearance). As usual, the basic inadequacy of the agency business and its determination to spend as little effort as possible to fill a role will probably stop you succeeding.

As Mal says it’s not illegal, the cabinet office state that there should not be a requirement unless “exceptional circumstances exists that require that advert to ask for clearance to be in place already, unfortunately there no not specify what is classed as exceptional circumstances

[malvolio]

They can. It's any role that requires unsupervised acces to classified data or functions that handle classified information. Or about 3% of advertised roles

The key wood is "unsupervised"...

[Quokka]

As Mal says it’s not illegal, the cabinet office state that there should not be a requirement unless “exceptional circumstances exists that require that advert to ask for clearance to be in place already, unfortunately there no not specify what is classed as exceptional circumstances

The reasoning usually used for requiring clearances to already be held is that the processing time for clearances is too long, and contractors are usually sourced with short lead times.

If the processing time for SC's (which are by far the bulk of the clearances required) was reduced to be only a couple of weeks, this issue would probably go away - but that would require more capacity at the two main vetting organisations.

[malvolio]

The reasoning usually used for requiring clearances to already be held is that the processing time for clearances is too long, and contractors are usually sourced with short lead times.

If the processing time for SC's (which are by far the bulk of the clearances required) was reduced to be only a couple of weeks, this issue would probably go away - but that would require more capacity at the two main vetting organisations.

I disagree. Most of the delay is people outside the vetting organisations either failing to respond to queries or holding up the paperwork locally for various reasons. The workload doesn't help (mainly since a lot of SC requirements are no such thing in reality but it's the default option) but the agencies are actually hitting their internal service levels (4 weeks max for SC) pretty reliably.

My last three SCs (one MOD, one Home Office and one Police... I have a varied career!) were all completed in two weeks but in one case it took two months for the local SSO to do their bit and issue the final approval

[SimonMac]

Just noticed that from 17th January those in England and Wales can no longer apply for Disclosure Scotland, instead you are pointed towards the DBS, but the DBS can only be applied for by your employer and for certain roles only.

https://www.mygov.scot/organisations...sure-scotland/

Wonder how big a clusterfunk this will cause with agents who can't quite get their head around the fact it's changed.

[DaveB]

Just noticed that from 17th January those in England and Wales can no longer apply for Disclosure Scotland, instead you are pointed towards the DBS, but the DBS can only be applied for by your employer and for certain roles only.

https://www.mygov.scot/organisations...sure-scotland/

Wonder how big a clusterfunk this will cause with agents who can't quite get their head around the fact it's changed.

DBS is still pointing you back to DS for checks on your own record.

https://www.gov.uk/request-copy-criminal-record

[SimonMac]

DBS is still pointing you back to DS for checks on your own record.

https://www.gov.uk/request-copy-criminal-record

Ah the infinite loop of bad Service Design from HMG

[Maximush]

I already have SC clearance but....

Last night I got in to a argument and ended throwing a drink (liquid only) over someone. I was arrested and was cautioned (simple) for common battery!!

As I have this SC already, how is this impacted? Does it suddenly stop my SC?

[ITmark]

Last night I got in to a argument and ended throwing a drink (liquid only) over someone. I was arrested and was cautioned (simple) for common battery!!

As I have this SC already, how is this impacted? Does it suddenly stop my SC?

You should (if being 100% honest) let holder of SC know come Monday, explain things. They shouldn't care at all about it, SC more about honesty and being open about issues to prevent blackmailing etc. DV would be more problematic and 100% disclose everything.

[Gomez]

I've trawled through this thread as best I can but can't really find a suitable answer to the query I have.............

I'm just out of contract and am applying for new contracts. I have a valid SC held with my old client but this expires in July this year. Some of the gigs I am going for are with defence clients who need SC. What would be the process for renewing the clearance when it expires? I am expecting to start next gig before the SC expires.

My assumption at this stage is that any new client will be happy that I have a valid SC but the imminent expiry may put me at a disadvantage to others who have more longevity in their clearance. I assume also that any new client would need to renew the clearance before it expires but don't really know how much work this might entail for either them or me.

Trying to get some info on it via a large agency I am dealing with but nothing clear from them as of yet. Anyone have any experience of this situation?

Regards