Reply to: SC Security Check - How did you get yours?

[willendure]

One thing I find genuinely baffling is that I'm often called up by Indian agencies asking if I have SC for a role with Mastek or similar. Given Indian companies seem to leak information like a sieve (unsurprisingly given the presumably very low wages out there), how do they get away with hiring for SC and higher roles?

Because they are cheap and don't dare criticize anything.

[SueEllen]

One thing I find genuinely baffling is that I'm often called up by Indian agencies asking if I have SC for a role with Mastek or similar. Given Indian companies seem to leak information like a sieve (unsurprisingly given the presumably very low wages out there), how do they get away with hiring for SC and higher roles?

You are embedded in the client's team.

Also even though you may have SC it is not always that it is transferred to the new organisation. I have worked on a project where I got a new SC like some of my colleagues both permie and contact, but others with existing SC didn't have it transferred. They could still work but it meant myself and others had to do the parts of their work where SC was required.

I have since been informed that sometimes it takes longer for people to have their SC transferred than to go through a new SC application.

[b0redom]

One thing I find genuinely baffling is that I'm often called up by Indian agencies asking if I have SC for a role with Mastek or similar. Given Indian companies seem to leak information like a sieve (unsurprisingly given the presumably very low wages out there), how do they get away with hiring for SC and higher roles?

[fatJock]

Mine has typically been MoD while working for a couple of List X partners of theirs who initially sponsors and holds the clearance for me but I agree, not all clearance vetting is the same. My vetting has always been done by NSV so presume reasonably robust.

No aspiration to holiday in China, Afghan or Syria just yet

[malvolio]

..snip..

Its an additional string to the bow to have - from memory, the rule of thumb is that once you leave a role that needed the SC you have 12 months to get another sponsor to transfer your clearance to them otherwise you lose it and have to apply again.

Not quite. Every role will require a risk assessment. The local Security team will decide whether or not an "existing" clearance vet is suitable for the new role. If it is, within the 12 month timeframe, then you won't be re-vetted (although you will still need to do the paperwork at some level). If it isn't (e.g. from MOD to Police, or even between different agencies within HMG)) then you will need re-vetting.

I wouldn't rely too heavily on commercial List-X clearance being acceptable. Many Departments don't regard them as suitably rigorous, so may require a re-vet anyway.

And as a final kicker, it's up to you to disclose anything that may affect your existing clearance, from criminal convictions through to two week holidays in Afghanistan.

The one thing clearance isn't is that it is a badge of some kind. Too many people, including many who should know better, tend to forget that.

[fatJock]

TL/DR - not essential but more use to me than Prince 2 qualifications ever have been.

Like others have said - you need a sponsor for SC whether that's a Government body or List X organisation and the need for clearance is directly associated with the role.

I've held in a few positions (and currently still do) but it's dodgy for the agents to stipulate that current SC is needed and perversely generally (but less so) to say you have it. Neither are allowed but is very prevalent in job / contract searching given the several months that it can sometimes take (and more if queries are raised or mistakes made). Organisations would have to limit the work you can do until any clearance is approved and there is always the risk that it won't be hence the agents doing as they do.

Its an additional string to the bow to have - from memory, the rule of thumb is that once you leave a role that needed the SC you have 12 months to get another sponsor to transfer your clearance to them otherwise you lose it and have to apply again.

[zonkkk]

I went into a role that needed SC clearance without ever having any type of clearance. The company (international corporation) was aware and it didn't matter to them - they just sent me the forms two weeks before I started and that was it. I think it took 3-4 weeks back in 2019. So I had a couple of weeks of being chaperoned to the bathroom and into the office floor after I started.

[northernladuk]

I have had SC several times. All via a contract. If you don't have it then they will allow you to work on non-sensitive stuff whilst they obtain it. Getting DV is much more difficult and would need you to be a permie in most cases.

Too much of a risk. That person might not get it and they are back to square one with months wasted. Most public sector gigs can't look that far forward either. They usually want someone right now, cleared and ready to go.

[northernladuk]

One of my key arguments to the CO was that HMG are not seeing the best candidates but are merely recycling people with clearance, which is some way to explaining why so many projects ( let's be polite) under-deliver...

If you've not worked in a contractor heavy SC environment then you won't understand how true this can be. Last time I was in that environment it was astounding how many people were doing a totally different role than the one they originally applied for or were skilled.

[malvolio]

I have had SC several times. All via a contract. If you don't have it then they will allow you to work on non-sensitive stuff whilst they obtain it. Getting DV is much more difficult and would need you to be a permie in most cases.

One of my key arguments to the CO was that HMG are not seeing the best candidates but are merely recycling people with clearance, which is some way to explaining why so many projects ( let's be polite) under-deliver...

Don't matter how good you are if you're not allowed to be put forward by people more interested in simplifying their pile of CVs.

Incidentally I also gained SC six times in a 26 year contracting career.

[avonleigh]

I have had SC several times. All via a contract. If you don't have it then they will allow you to work on non-sensitive stuff whilst they obtain it. Getting DV is much more difficult and would need you to be a permie in most cases.

[malvolio]

I spent around five years working with the Cabinet Office and IPSE (PCG as was), the result of that work being the clear, officially endorsed guidelines that are in place now.

Sadly, recruiters and agencies cannot be effectively punished for ignoring what are guidelines. Nobody is going to put clearance process into law (it has to be immediately changeable for one thing), sanctions against recruiters are possible but largely ineffective and sanctions against hiring managers are not feasible (are you going to stop MOD recruiting?).

So we're stuck with it. Even more annoyingly, you don't need clearance to apply for a role, and for 95% of roles you can start without clearance provided a degree of supervision and limitations on access to sensitive data (i.e. mostly system engineers and DBAs, but not program code for instance...) is maintained.

[northernladuk]

Best way to get it, unfortuantely, is to be working on a gig that's near SC work and try and blag yourself in to that area, once you are in point out you need SC and they will put you through. I've only been in a position to do this once, possibly twice if I'd tried harder in 10 years.

So yeah, if it says SC clearance is required then you can have a pop at it if you want but fully expect a no thanks. Unless I'm desperate for work I don't bother applying if SC is required and I don't have it.

EDIT : There is then the pain in the arse that you get clearance, move to another gig that doesn't need it and a year later you are back to square one. From what I've seen SC clearance gigs are always inside and usually not very well paid as well so wouldn't be your first option when looking for new gigs. New world with next to zero gigs out there might be different but in the old days they were not good gigs.

[northernladuk]

Thanks for the link:

"Since the checks usually take several weeks, those IT contractors already in possession of unexpired clearance will have an advantage, particularly for urgent requirements, although the DVA are clear on their position that contractors without clearance shouldn’t otherwise be expected to hold existing security clearance in order to apply for roles."

Weeks? That's out of date. Takes months at the moment. Well I say at the moment, it's been that long as long as I can remember. There are odd stories of weeks but it's in no way the norm.

So all these contracts that state you must already have SC are just wrong? You can apply without SC and try to obtain it as part of onboarding for the role?

Or is it that they want contractors coming from roles where they already have SC, because then they very likely to pass it for the new role?

Without SC, is it worth applying for these roles or will my CV just go straight in the bin?

Technically they can't discriminate but all the client/agent does is say it's an urgent requirement and need someone in asap so the only option is someone with existing clearance. It does happen that a client will wait but it also means you can't start so will be sitting there with your thumb up your bum for a few months.

They don't need to pass for the new role. If SC is current and has been used in the last year then it's usually a matter of just transferring it. It isn't always the case but most of the time it is.

[willendure]

https://www.contractoruk.com/securit..._guidance.html

Interesting. Seems like its worth trying and pointing out to recruiters what the rules are.