Reply to: MOD and FCO vetting process

[northernladuk]

Ok that makes now sense. I was under the impression that sc clearance was a recognised level of vetting that is the same across all areas

Why does it only make sense now. It's been explained numourous times in this thread.

[WTFH]

This may help:
http://www.contractoruk.com/security_clearance/

[Welly59]

A future role, be it 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, 1 decade down the line may require SC.
Depending on who the end client is, the role you are going for, and the rules they have at that time, they might accept the SC you already have, or they might request you get new SC based on their current rules.

Getting SC once for one place does not mean you have SC to work anywhere doing anything for the rest of your life.

Ok that makes now sense. I was under the impression that sc clearance was a recognised level of vetting that is the same across all areas

[WTFH]

MOD and FCO vetting process

If a future role requires sc clearance, would the hiring company care that it came via the fco or mod?

A future role, be it 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, 1 decade down the line may require SC.
Depending on who the end client is, the role you are going for, and the rules they have at that time, they might accept the SC you already have, or they might request you get new SC based on their current rules.

Getting SC once for one place does not mean you have SC to work anywhere doing anything for the rest of your life.

[northernladuk]

If a future role requires sc clearance, would the hiring company care that it came via the fco or mod?

Well yes because one would be eligible and the other wouldn't. It's quite possible neither are.

[Welly59]

If a future role requires sc clearance, would the hiring company care that it came via the fco or mod?

[WTFH]

Even though they have different vetting standards and criteria?

FCO and MOD are not the same. They do not have the same standards. There is no compunction on them to have the same standards, apart from in your opinion.

[Welly59]

Even though they have different vetting standards and criteria?

[WTFH]

Still makes no sense to me. I could get vetted by fco then take my current role which usually vets via mod.

FCO <> MOD.
Does that bit make sense to you?

[Welly59]

Still makes no sense to me. I could get vetted by fco then take my current role which usually vets via mod.

[BackupBoy]

I'm not so sure that statement is true. Completely different?

Point taken. Just have my personal experience to go by.

[rocktronAMP]

Remember that DV is a different beast entirely to SC. But it will have no bearing on your tax status; you're still working for a PS body and I suspect you would be hard pressed to demonstrate a lack of Control and Direction at that particular establishment...

Thanks @malvolio you confirmed my own thoughts on this debacle and given the requirements for SDC any government contract is a complete no go area from now onwards. Sadly, the mandarins, who got fed up with GDS and the GOV.UK revolution have won the days and will force out all of the small players like independent contractors. They will be back to working with big name corporate consultancies and their employees. (the whole point of the creation Government Digital Service in 2010 was break away from the way IT was done with over budgeted projects and deliver projects efficiently with better turnaround, regularly feedback from users, a la agile SDLC, but hey ho ... that's over now for at least contracting folk. C'est la vie!)

[malvolio]

Having had an initial telephone conversation with DV vetting representation a while ago. It is more heavy than SC for say the Home Office / GDS / xyz.GOV.UK and the OP obviously now knows this for sure. Actually, whoever is recruiting is investing up to £15,000 in order to get anybody through the DV vetting process.

Just out of interest. This is a side question: would a DV role working for, say the Comms Centre, come under the same restrictions on tax after 5th April 2017?

Remember that DV is a different beast entirely to SC. But it will have no bearing on your tax status; you're still working for a PS body and I suspect you would be hard pressed to demonstrate a lack of Control and Direction at that particular establishment...

[rocktronAMP]

As already stated both are vetting you but they are doing their assessment on different criteria.

So the MOD see that if you are truthful about your financial status then you are less likely to be blackmailed, there as the FCO don't see that as a risk.

Having had an initial telephone conversation with DV vetting representation a while ago. It is more heavy than SC for say the Home Office / GDS / xyz.GOV.UK and the OP obviously now knows this for sure. Actually, whoever is recruiting is investing up to £15,000 in order to get anybody through the DV vetting process.

Just out of interest. This is a side question: would a DV role working for, say the Comms Centre, come under the same restrictions on tax after 5th April 2017?

[SueEllen]

Surely they both have to vet to the same standard or is one more strict than the other?

If there's a difference in criteria for the same level of vetting then that's pretty counter intuitive. Or is it a case of the mod not accepting vetting provided by the fco?

As already stated both are vetting you but they are doing their assessment on different criteria.

So the MOD see that if you are truthful about your financial status then you are less likely to be blackmailed, there as the FCO don't see that as a risk.