Reply to: Agency & DV

[synoniv]

I did not know EA asks for SC clearance.

Also recent years, in order to 'protect' certain posts going to foreign candidates, recruitment policies had been slightly amended adding mandatory SC clearance.
For example; I know certain executive/research jobs within Dept of Health & NHS. Previously foreign doctors were used to fill these posts, and now it is almost impossible for someone holding a non-UK passport to get SC clearance unless he or she is in the country for more than 5 years. Fair enough.

But refusing to put a mid-range PM forward for a role in the Environement Agency because he hasn't got SC?

Let's keep a sense of proportion here, please. The "dodgy" jobs and the ones where people can't be adequately supervised are probably less than 5% of the total, and nobody wants to blow holes in our overall security.

[malvolio]

Um, not wanting to throw a spanner in the works mate, but having been elected to the PCG something or other council, I think we all know who you are.

So, rubber gloves in a dark room anyone?
Can anyone say "Rectal Cavity Search"

You reckon? I could be lying... Damned sneaky coves, these tourists...

Anyway if I am then I'm one of 29, which is better odds I suppose, but still not definitive. And it's not the authorities that's the problem, it's the bad guys: they might have a harder time working it out.

[Weltchy]

But only if you know who I am, surely...

Um, not wanting to throw a spanner in the works mate, but having been elected to the PCG something or other council, I think we all know who you are.

So, rubber gloves in a dark room anyone?
Can anyone say "Rectal Cavity Search"

[The Farmer]

Oh please, you obviously haven't worked in those enviroments then.

I've worked in one of those places and I have never seen so much big timing in my life.

Most of them were cleaners/support services and for some reson felt the need to give me a nudge and a wink if they went as far as to tell me their name.

That's what you get from 20K a year permies I guess

[Incognito]

But only if you know who I am, surely...

Oh please, you obviously haven't worked in those enviroments then.

[malvolio]

I don't think you should be posting that on a public forum. The fact that you've worked at 2 of the places you've stated you've worked at is actually Restricted.

But only if you know who I am, surely...

[malvolio]

Practically no way that recruiters/agencies can be held 100% accountable for this. It’s a cabinet policy that certain civilian jobs are not transparent to open job market considering its criticality and importance; such jobs will remain as it is under special clauses put to cover them. Or in other words, they do not want non-vetted TDHs getting to an interview stage to discuss nitty-gritty of a mission critical role which is anyway is totally alien to him/her, and then getting not-selected due to incompetence to handle, in my view.

In the current climate, such civilian contract roles are filled by networking and agencies are just complying to the customary guidelines for recruitment and such contracts will continue to get filled out on the basis of networking and previous references within the unit requesting DV for the role.
I don’t think the ongoing case will change this, may be the change it will bring is more adding more transparency to the process.

Nobody's saying they aren't, nor that the CO rules do not allow for it. If a job is sufficently sensitive it can't be discussed in public, it probably won't go to open tender either. But refusing to put a mid-range PM forward for a role in the Environement Agency because he hasn't got SC?

Let's keep a sense of proportion here, please. The "dodgy" jobs and the ones where people can't be adequately supervised are probably less than 5% of the total, and nobody wants to blow holes in our overall security.

[Incognito]

Balls. That's not life, that exceptional circumstances, which are covered.

What's more, I've worked inside the *****, **** and **** on SC only and been privvy to discussions on support services for MOD places that don't exist. These things can always be squared away if necessary - don't suppose new MPs get DV clearance before they join the HoC, do you?

But the key rule is that you must not be refused for consideration for a role because of your clearance status. And in the OP's case, it was even more stupid because SC does allow occasional access to DV-level material anyway.

I don't think you should be posting that on a public forum. The fact that you've worked at 2 of the places you've stated you've worked at is actually Restricted.

[synoniv]

Practically no way that recruiters/agencies can be held 100% accountable for this. It’s a cabinet policy that certain civilian jobs are not transparent to open job market considering its criticality and importance; such jobs will remain as it is under special clauses put to cover them. Or in other words, they do not want non-vetted TDHs getting to an interview stage to discuss nitty-gritty of a mission critical role which is anyway is totally alien to him/her, and then getting not-selected due to incompetence to handle, in my view.

In the current climate, such civilian contract roles are filled by networking and agencies are just complying to the customary guidelines for recruitment and such contracts will continue to get filled out on the basis of networking and previous references within the unit requesting DV for the role.

I don’t think the ongoing case will change this, may be the change it will bring is more adding more transparency to the process.

[ratewhore]

And build up a history of that happneing - just like we've done over the last year since the rule changes an their ineffectiveness - and agencies will be getting sued for restraint of trade.

It's not going to change quickly, obviously, but it must change. The agencies are only doing what they're told, so we'll go after the prime contractors. Believe me, HMG are getting seriously teed off at not being able to fill crucial roles when there are people out there who can do them.

Anyway, I don't do "That's life". If its wrong we should try and change it.

While I think it is admirable what the PCG are doing, I don't believe it will change anything and I certainly can't see agencies getting sued for restraint of trade.

All IMHO of course...

[malvolio]

Blimey, that was a bit sharp Mal. When I said 'that's life', I meant that is the way it is.

Consider the alternative, the PCG are successful in getting the rules adhered to. Whoever is reviewing CV's will bin it straight away, as is their prerogative, net gain = zero.

And build up a history of that happneing - just like we've done over the last year since the rule changes an their ineffectiveness - and agencies will be getting sued for restraint of trade.

It's not going to change quickly, obviously, but it must change. The agencies are only doing what they're told, so we'll go after the prime contractors. Believe me, HMG are getting seriously teed off at not being able to fill crucial roles when there are people out there who can do them.

Anyway, I don't do "That's life". If its wrong we should try and change it.

[ratewhore]

Balls. That's not life, that exceptional circumstances, which are covered.

What's more, I've worked inside the Cabinet Office, GCHQ and Thames House on SC only and been privvy to discussions on support services for MOD places that don't exist. These things can always be squared away if necessary - don't suppose new MPs get DV clearance before they join the HoC, do you?

But the key rule is that you must not be refused for consideration for a role because of your clearance status. And in the OP's case, it was even more stupid because SC does allow occasional access to DV-level material anyway.

Blimey, that was a bit sharp Mal. When I said 'that's life', I meant that is the way it is.

Consider the alternative, the PCG are successful in getting the rules adhered to. Whoever is reviewing CV's will bin it straight away, as is their prerogative, net gain = zero.

[malvolio]

There are certain sensitive agencies (including parts of the cabinet office) where you will not be considered if you do not currently have a live DV clearance.

That's life and also, imho, understandable.

Balls. That's not life, that exceptional circumstances, which are covered.

What's more, I've worked inside the Cabinet Office, GCHQ and Thames House on SC only and been privvy to discussions on support services for MOD places that don't exist. These things can always be squared away if necessary - don't suppose new MPs get DV clearance before they join the HoC, do you?

But the key rule is that you must not be refused for consideration for a role because of your clearance status. And in the OP's case, it was even more stupid because SC does allow occasional access to DV-level material anyway.

[ratewhore]

There are certain sensitive agencies (including parts of the cabinet office) where you will not be considered if you do not currently have a live DV clearance.

That's life and also, imho, understandable.

[Peter Loew]

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...tTheAgency.htm

Main website is at www.dva.mod.uk BTW

Thanks. I will do.

P