Reply to: How to report an agency to Cabinet Office re security clearance pre-requisite

[fidot]

1. The Vetting Group email went to one or two people in the security area of the Cabinet Office tasked with fielding complaints from people about agencies demanding clearance for applicants (as opposed to new starters), as part of the HMG/PCG exercise that I kicked off many years ago to try and get this sorted out. For many reasons, all perfectly valid, that got as far as clarifying the guidance and getting it in front of all the agencies at that time. By now, 90% of those who saw that will have moved on. At which point, reporting breaches probably became pointless and the Cabinet Office probably had better things for those guys to do.

Yes, except the email bounced - I have now found the correct address and used that.

3. The point of the "some roles need SC to start" bit is because some roles simply can't have supervised access - Sysadmins, DBAs and the like can get past most restrictions, for example - so if the role is shorter than the clearance SLA - currently 4 weeks (yeah, I know...) you have to be cleared. That's well under 5% of all advertised roles according to research done at the time.

I accept that, but this role wasn't that type.

4. Bitch about clearance all you like. It will make you feel better but won't achieve the square root of sod all in the real world. Talk to the people in the CO that manage it and you will understand why.

Agree. I said as much in one of my posts. However, it is certain that nothing will change if nobody says anything.
I'm not spending any huge amount of time on it or getting upset - I've reported it and that's all I can do so it's behind me now.

5. And as I said earlier, this is a consultancy making the demands, not the client. I leave you to work out why.

I realise it's the agency and that is why I've reported them.

[fidot]

An update

Just in case anyone wants to do the same, the correct email address is
[email protected]

[TheDogsNads]

In response to my application for a role requiring security clearance, I have just received an email from the agent saying "can you confirm if you currently have active SC Security clearance as this is a pre-requisite for the role."

I have pointed out to them that they cannot make it a pre-requisite as that is against Government guidelines as per Document Moved

I don't expect it to make any difference, but was wondering how this should be reported to the Cabinet Office

You can complain to the Vetting Agency or whatever they are called nowadays but there eff all you can do.

I complained a couple of times after my SC expired regarding this must have. The VA said roles must be open to all applicants but in urgent situations, Departments could use the 'existing pool' of contractors with current clearance.

Guess what? All Departments then said virtually all requirements were 'urgent' so didnt have the time to consider other applicants. They just move the goalposts. Move on.

[malvolio]

Well if the OP isn't listening....

1. The Vetting Group email went to one or two people in the security area of the Cabinet Office tasked with fielding complaints from people about agencies demanding clearance for applicants (as opposed to new starters), as part of the HMG/PCG exercise that I kicked off many years ago to try and get this sorted out. For many reasons, all perfectly valid, that got as far as clarifying the guidance and getting it in front of all the agencies at that time. By now, 90% of those who saw that will have moved on. At which point, reporting breaches probably became pointless and the Cabinet Office probably had better things for those guys to do.

2. The actual purpose of the SC requirement is to prevent access to classified data by people not cleared to see it. That doesn't mean you can't work on a secure site, merely that you have to be supervised so you don't see what you shouldn't. (That's also behind the clear desk policy at most Departments so you don't have to positively vet the cleaners, for example).

3. The point of the "some roles need SC to start" bit is because some roles simply can't have supervised access - Sysadmins, DBAs and the like can get past most restrictions, for example - so if the role is shorter than the clearance SLA - currently 4 weeks (yeah, I know...) you have to be cleared. That's well under 5% of all advertised roles according to research done at the time.

4. Bitch about clearance all you like. It will make you feel better but won't achieve the square root of sod all in the real world. Talk to the people inthe CO that manage it and you will understand why.

5. And as I said earlier, this is a consultancy making the demands, not the client. I leave you to work out why.

HTH

[northernladuk]

Thanks, NLUK

I'm going to report them. Their justification was "our client are a large government organisation and due to the nature of the data that contractors will access they have a requirement for security clearance.", so the bolded bit you quoted doesn't really apply - it's a more widely-held position.

TBH, I don't believe for a minute that reporting them will make any difference, but matters definitely won't improve by not reporting them.

I think you misunderstanding something. That sentence explains why the role needs SC, not why they will not put you forward without it. What they haven't said, but is still true, is that they need someone on site within x days for a 3 month contract (or something to that effect) which then meets both parts I bolded. It's urgent and it's short time therefore taking non SC people will not meet the need.

If you've got the time to waste them I'm sure you won't mind doing all the research to find what you need rather than wasting our time

[SueEllen]

So, I reported it to the email address and got the following response



Address not found
Your message wasn't delivered to [email protected] because the address couldn't be found or is unable to receive email.

Last time I had to contact a government agency I found I had to use the telephone to find an email address that worked.

[fidot]

So, I reported it to the email address and got the following response



Address not found
Your message wasn't delivered to [email protected] because the address couldn't be found or is unable to receive email.

[fidot]

Reporting them is only going to prevent you getting the role.

They've already said they won't put me forward due to no SC, so I have nothing to lose.

[fidot]

Actually I did it.. It's here...

United Kingdom Security Vetting:Referee, Supervisor, Hiring Managers and Contractors - GOV.UK



Although the bolded bit kinda blows your situation out of the water. We all pick on the filled urgently bit but with 'short term' being in there as well then it appears the agencies have free reign to ask for existing clearance.

I wouldn't bother if I were you.

Thanks, NLUK

I'm going to report them. Their justification was "our client are a large government organisation and due to the nature of the data that contractors will access they have a requirement for security clearance.", so the bolded bit you quoted doesn't really apply - it's a more widely-held position.

TBH, I don't believe for a minute that reporting them will make any difference, but matters definitely won't improve by not reporting them.

[malvolio]

This has always annoyed me - Gov say don't add it as a pre-req, Gov dept asks for role with clearance as a pre-req, Agency is blamed. No client ever says 'I'm happy to take a candidate and wait for clearance' - it's always if they can't fill the role that may be considered. Annoying but something the Gov should be fully in control of as it's often coming from them (or a consoirtia/project funded by them).

Dig a little deeper. Any HMG Agency or Department will not specify that clearance is required for applicants

the problem is consultancies working for HMG who CBA to manage cleared staff (despite them having to include funding in their tenders) or agencies who have a quick way to cut down the lists.

But I agree with the others. If you don't have active SC within the last year, don't even bother.

[ComplianceLady]

This has always annoyed me - Gov say don't add it as a pre-req, Gov dept asks for role with clearance as a pre-req, Agency is blamed. No client ever says 'I'm happy to take a candidate and wait for clearance' - it's always if they can't fill the role that may be considered. Annoying but something the Gov should be fully in control of as it's often coming from them (or a consoirtia/project funded by them).

[northernladuk]

just say yes.
This is just the agent checking as they don't want you to be binned after 3 weeks when if you can't get clearance.

If they ask for proof tell them it's held by the current sponsor and they are only willing to transfer to a new sponsor and not provide copies for individuals.
If you have any evidence of having it in the past give that to the agent.

How is any of the going to work if he doesn't hold clearance?? What a waste of everyones time. If he doesn't it's also lying.

Reporting them is only going to prevent you getting the role.

It will? How?

[Lance]

In response to my application for a role requiring security clearance, I have just received an email from the agent saying "can you confirm if you currently have active SC Security clearance as this is a pre-requisite for the role."

I have pointed out to them that they cannot make it a pre-requisite as that is against Government guidelines as per Document Moved

I don't expect it to make any difference, but was wondering how this should be reported to the Cabinet Office

just say yes.
This is just the agent checking as they don't want you to be binned after 3 weeks when if you can't get clearance.

If they ask for proof tell them it's held by the current sponsor and they are only willing to transfer to a new sponsor and not provide copies for individuals.
If you have any evidence of having it in the past give that to the agent.

Reporting them is only going to prevent you getting the role.

[northernladuk]

Actually I did it.. It's here...

United Kingdom Security Vetting:Referee, Supervisor, Hiring Managers and Contractors - GOV.UK

Contractors
Guidance on security clearance for companies who bid for MOD contracts
You do not need to hold security clearances to bid for UK Government work advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community and other sources. Government contracting procedures make sure that there is no competitive advantage in having prior security clearances. Requests for clearances must be raised during the contractual process.

The Statement of HMG Personnel Security and National Security Vetting Policy (Annex A)‘HMG Personnel Security Controls’ mandates that individuals should not be expected to hold an existing security clearance in order to apply for posts that require vetting, except where such posts are short term and need to be filled urgently. Otherwise, advertising for staff that already hold a security clearance is contrary to government policy, unnecessary and potentially discriminatory, as laid out in the Cabinet Office code of practice document, ‘Recruiting for vacancies requiring National Security Vetting Clearance’.

Any individual who sees such a criterion specified in advertisements when seeking employment can inform the Cabinet Office by forwarding full details of the post and the employer to the following email address: [email protected]. Concerns can also be raised through the Public Procurement Review Service

Although the bolded bit kinda blows your situation out of the water. We all pick on the filled urgently bit but with 'short term' being in there as well then it appears the agencies have free reign to ask for existing clearance.

I wouldn't bother if I were you.

[northernladuk]

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post1099791

[email protected]

Take a screenshot / print to PDF and send it to them with a URL.

Gov dropped the GSI out of the emails so try that first but should help you find the proper one.