Reply to: Requirement to be SC cleared to apply for job

[Lance]

I applied for a role at Sussex police hq I did not have clearance other than IB. I was given nppv3 clearance, within a year of leaving I took a role with MoJ who transferred the clearance.

I applied and have been offered a role with the cabinet office the nppv3 is not acceptable and I will be going through SC, I was just telling the op that not having SC does not prevent you from getting the role, if you are the right person for the job.

if the agency won't put them forward then it's pretty damn preventative

[Anonimouse]

I applied for a role at Sussex police hq I did not have clearance other than IB. I was given nppv3 clearance, within a year of leaving I took a role with MoJ who transferred the clearance.

I applied and have been offered a role with the cabinet office the nppv3 is not acceptable and I will be going through SC, I was just telling the op that not having SC does not prevent you from getting the role, if you are the right person for the job.

[stek]

From a reg number you can get someone's name and address.

Don't need SC for that just basic clearance to check you haven't got a history of being a crook, and then a contractual clause where they sue (and bankrupt you) if you fall foul of the DPA.

I could follow the car home and get the address. Or ask my copper mate to run a PNC for me!

I wasn't cleared for anything when I was on NHS Spine, yet they let me (potentially) see patient records.

Just doesn't seem consistent, I mean what's signing the official secrets act got to do with who's registered ED12 TGY. I could understand it at BNFL when I was there, I could see allsorts there....

[malvolio]

It would also help to know what roles; tea boy or programme manager. If you don't get near sensitive material they'll let you start with some level of clearance and upgrade it as necessary. If you're a niche skill, same rules apply, they just keep you away from the data. If you 're a network engineer or a sysadmin or something along those lines, no clearance equals no job, which is perfectly reasonable as well.

[northernladuk]

Yes

Three different gigs at different agencies all requiring SC which you don't have and they gave you a gig???

Getting an interview or getting the gig? Can you elaborate as it's not that useful as it stands.

[Anonimouse]

Who are you replying to?

Op

[Anonimouse]

Did they require SC?

Yes

[northernladuk]

This is not the case, I have just been offered a role at cabinet office I do not have full sc only nppv3. I have also worked previously at MoJ and DoH have never had any probs getting an interview and the role.

Did they require SC?

[SueEllen]

Done two SC gigs at the DVLA still no idea why SC was needed.

Data protection yeah, but whats sensitive? Someones reg no?

Couldn’t even see those...

From a reg number you can get someone's name and address.

Don't need SC for that just basic clearance to check you haven't got a history of being a crook, and then a contractual clause where they sue (and bankrupt you) if you fall foul of the DPA.

[SueEllen]

This is not the case, I have just been offered a role at cabinet office I do not have full sc only nppv3. I have also worked previously at MoJ and DoH have never had any probs getting an interview and the role.

Who are you replying to?

[Anonimouse]

This is not the case, I have just been offered a role at cabinet office I do not have full sc only nppv3. I have also worked previously at MoJ and DoH have never had any probs getting an interview and the role.

[stek]

I suspect that argument falls apart when DVLA realise after 8 months of advertising identical roles they maybe should drop the SC requirement...

Done two SC gigs at the DVLA still no idea why SC was needed.

Data protection yeah, but whats sensitive? Someones reg no?

Couldn’t even see those...

[perplexed]

Unless it's actually required in which case they can't.

Yeah, they have.

If it's required, then that's fine. What they really mean is they a) don't want to pay for it, b) don't want to pay for your time whilst waiting for it to be processed and c) don't want to risk candidates failing it. There's being risk averse and there's being incredibly anal to the point you don't fill roles. Roles advertised because you need people.

What any forward thinking place would do would be to at least look at the candidates available and make informed choices. If candidates have Disclosure Scotland, BPSS then any risk of them failing SC would generally be lower than that of random scrote off the street. If someone already has SC even better, reduces that risk even more if the company wants a fresh application rather than transferring.

[FrontEnder]

It only takes 4-6 weeks for SC clearance for be granted. Agencies typically wait for at least a month for get their first invoice paid so I do not think this argument is valid. There can be no excuse for discrimination in the work place and that is exactly what this is.

It's completely valid. They can't bill for the 4-6 weeks while waiting for your clearance. What their invoice timescales are with the client is irrelevant.

It's not discrimination in the workplace either. Your company is bidding for work. Your company doesn't have anyone who can start the role immediately, so you lose the bid for work.

[northernladuk]

I suspect that argument falls apart when DVLA realise after 8 months of advertising identical roles they maybe should drop the SC requirement...

Unless it's actually required in which case they can't.