Can a security-cleared contract be outside IR35

[VectraMan]

If the substitute is only there for a short period of time the clearance wouldn't even need to be transferred. As long as the security controller is satisfied the clearance is valid for the time they were on site.

When I was an SC permie it took 4 months into the job before the SC came through. It probably meant not being able to go to a government site, but then I never did anyway. In fact I never used the SC for anything or ever got to look in the "classified" filing cabinet.

Doesn't the SC belong to the employer/client and not you personally? So a substitute could never have SC, they'd have to be re-cleared.

[malvolio]

So, don't supply your services to the Public Sector!

Simples!

Given the generous Civil Service pensions, you soft twats should go permy!

Spod - In "supplying military services via a private sector organisation for the past 5 years" mode!

That makes even less sense than usual. Heigh ho...

[Acme Thunderer]

Doesn't the SC belong to the employer/client and not you personally? So a substitute could never have SC, they'd have to be re-cleared.

Yes it does, but that is my point. If the substitute had their clearance held by a 3rd party the 3rd party doesn't have to transfer it to your client co, if they are not going to be around long enough. The client Security controller only needs to be satisfied that the 3rd party holds the clearance.

For example we needed a specialist to set up some kit over a number of days. Where the kit was meant a full SC was needed to even be in the room. I go to client security controller and say Joe Bloggs is coming to do X. Their clearance is held by ABC. Client controller talks to ABC controller who said they have a valid SC for Joe Bloggs and he comes and does the work.

Same would apply for a substitute.

[Qdos Contractor]

Needing SC would not determine you inside of IR35 alone. The need to have SC could make providing a substitute more difficult, but it does not make it unworkable. As previously suggested, engaging a substitute that already holds suitable SC may be enough.

Should a substitute not have relevant SC and the process need to be started from scratch, this may restrict or diminish the right of substitution but it could still be argued that personal service is not required. The likelihood of this happening in practice is low but we need to remember the right of substitution does not need to have been exercised to exist. Therefore these hypothetical situations could form part of an IR35 defence case should the issue of SC be brought up.

Jon

[stek]

Surely if the role is SC then you shouldn't be letting anyone see the contract pertaining to it other than the parties directly named on it?

[SueEllen]

Surely if the role is SC then you shouldn't be letting anyone see the contract pertaining to it other than the parties directly named on it?

Don't be stupid.

The actual contract and schedule of work will have insufficient detail in it to be of use to anyone. For example the deliverables in the schedule are written in bog standard language.

In fact most secure and commercially sensitive projects use a code name or acronym to go by.

[northernladuk]

Don't be stupid.

Don't hold back SE. Just say it as you think it