Security Clearance - Now do you understand the rules?

**badger7579** · 3 August 2010, 11:48

Its a start at least

**DaveB** · 3 August 2010, 11:50

Originally posted by malvolio View Post

This has quite made my day, after seven years of banging on about it...

New Prime Ministerial Statement on national security vetting policy | PCG

Won't make any difference, the agencies will still weed out those without clearance and justify it by saying they had better candidates.

**SueEllen** · 3 August 2010, 11:51

Still will not stop agencies and the like demanding that you have security clearance in place before you apply for a role whether contract or permanent as they will say their role is the in the "exception" category.

**gingerjedi** · 3 August 2010, 11:52

...no one should be expected to hold an existing security clearance to apply for a sensitive post, apart from in exceptional circumstances.

As you were then.

Sorry to be negative but you know as well as I do that agents and HR people take no notice as there's no penalty. I applied for another DV role recently with HP and got the usual 'no DV no application' response, this is the largest player in the business.

**malvolio** · 3 August 2010, 12:31

Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post

As you were then.

Sorry to be negative but you know as well as I do that agents and HR people take no notice as there's no penalty. I applied for another DV role recently with HP and got the usual 'no DV no application' response, this is the largest player in the business.

Actually the "exceptional circumstances" are defined in the basic guidelines and are quite pragmatic. Nobody has a problem with them, but they only apply to about 5% of roles, not all of them. Also HP are not the MOD and are using their own imaginary rules. Lack of DV doesn't mean you can't apply and get the interview - and if the client thinks you're good enough, clearance will sort of stop being a major issue. The problem is that we can't get in front of the hiring managers to psersuade them how good we are and the hiring managers aren't seeing the best candidates since they are only being presented with the ones already inside the fence.

It''s a step forward, the real challenge will be to work out how to enforce it. That said, the fact that this has happened at all means someone with a big stick believes there is a major problem to be resolved. Perhaps penalties for non-compliance will come about. Funnier things have happened...

**DaveB** · 3 August 2010, 12:40

Originally posted by malvolio View Post

Actually the "exceptional circumstances" are defined in the basic guidelines and are quite pragmatic. Nobody has a problem with them, but they only apply to about 5% of roles, not all of them. Also HP are not the MOD and are using their own imaginary rules. Lack of DV doesn't mean you can't apply and get the interview - and if the client thinks you're good enough, clearance will sort of stop being a major issue. The problem is that we can't get in front of the hiring managers to psersuade them how good we are and the hiring managers aren't seeing the best candidates since they are only being presented with the ones already inside the fence.

It''s a step forward, the real challenge will be to work out how to enforce it. That said, the fact that this has happened at all means someone with a big stick believes there is a major problem to be resolved. Perhaps penalties for non-compliance will come about. Funnier things have happened...

Thats the problem, they are only guidelines. There is no legal requirement to comply with them and no penalties for not doing so, so the big suppliers play by their own rules.

The only way it will change is if legislation is introduced to govern it and someone ends up with a hefty fine for breaking the law.

**malvolio** · 3 August 2010, 13:21

Originally posted by DaveB View Post

The only way it will change is if legislation is introduced to govern it and someone ends up with a hefty fine for breaking the law.

That thought has occurred to others...

**northernladuk** · 3 August 2010, 15:03

Good news indeed Mal.

With my half empty cup and lack of trust of agents I can't see this will make much difference though. The only indicator of when they break these rules is when the put a 10 year service guy in as a deployment manager (which I am aware has happened). The only justification for this is the fact the service guy is cleared. There is no other justifiable reason they would do this.

If it comes to two equivalent deployment managers need to start in two weeks how do you know they have discriminated against against the non SC guy?

I guess we need to place trust in the clients being firm with the agent and so on.

Either way certainly a move forward.

Nice to see you cheeful Mal

EDIT : Doh, no I read the full list of responses I see other made my point a number of times already. Won't bother deleting it but sorry to others who posted first.

**Growernotashower** · 4 August 2010, 09:03

[QUOTE=northernladuk;1177392]Good news indeed Mal.

I guess we need to place trust in the clients being firm with the agent and so on.

It's not the agent's that are the problem ffs! We only look for what the client asks for, if they ask for clearance, they get people with clearance, if they say they will look at people without or will clear people they get people without clearance!

Please, please please realise this!

Oh, and this latest statement gives them the same get out clause as before.

Security Clearance - Now do you understand the rules?