Reply to: How many PCG/IPSe members on here? Read their website?

[malvolio]

The risk of investigation is minimal, from what I gather, however insuring yourself to have competent representation in the slim chance that you are picked up is a no brainer IMO, seeing how inexpensive it is, and puts you in a much better position in dealing with HMRC..

And it covers any tax-related investigation, not just IR35... Have a look over here

[Zero Liability]

I'm uncomfortable paying 70p a day to an organisation where I don't agree with half its 'manifesto'.
What is the actual level of risk from IR35 these days?

The risk of investigation is minimal, from what I gather, however insuring yourself to have competent representation in the slim chance that you are picked up is a no brainer IMO, seeing how inexpensive it is, and puts you in a much better position in dealing with HMRC..

[malvolio]

So the supporting argument used in many industry sectors of "sector experience" won't be trotted out either?

Sorry, but I don't believe that this code of practice will deliver any substantive benefits to people that lack clearance. I'm willing to keep an open mind and be proven wrong, but I'll be genuinely shocked if things actually change.

Sector experience is the last thing they need. Most secure sites are on XP running IE6 and think SIAMs are a smart idea. They are around ten years behind the curve and sinking.

Oh and check with the DVA yourself, their lead times are currently well past what you've stated, there's a couple of formerly cleared people I know of currently in the process and 6 weeks later, still no result.

I have, and so have they. In almost all cases it's because the paperwork is sitting in someone's in tray awaiting attention. Their processes routinely beat their service levels, then they get passed back to civil servants or Human Remains.

[TykeMerc]

So the supporting argument used in many industry sectors of "sector experience" won't be trotted out either?

Sorry, but I don't believe that this code of practice will deliver any substantive benefits to people that lack clearance. I'm willing to keep an open mind and be proven wrong, but I'll be genuinely shocked if things actually change.

Oh and check with the DVA yourself, their lead times are currently well past what you've stated, there's a couple of formerly cleared people I know of currently in the process and 6 weeks later, still no result.

[meridian]

How many PCG/IPSe members on here? Read their website?

[QUOTE=malvolio;2004427]

Then again, we are dealing with agents instructed by hiring managers living in the past, mainly because they only exist inside the cleared bubble and don't realise they have a problem. This CoP is going to all HMG hirers, so it may wake them up

Sorry, but wake them up to what? The hirers provide SC cleared contractors, HMG takes them on. Even if the guidelines are going out to all hirers, both sides are already getting what they want and have zero incentive to change unless and until one of them is prosecuted, and there's slim to none chance of that happening as there is scant evidence available to bring any action.

Edit: quote incorrectly attributed, was meant for malvolio!

[malvolio]

[QUOTE=TykeMerc;2004435]

Except of course the current system employed by many agents in the secured space will continue, many adverts state things along the lines of "Have existing clearance or be willing to undergo clearance" which in reality means at best you will be put forwards as a fall back candidate.
As we all know it's impossible to establish for an absolute fact if you've actually made it onto the submitted to client list unless you personally know someone at the client end or get asked for an interview.

Admittedly this isn't a problem in my case, but tbh this code of practice is just a whitewash, it will make no difference in practice, especially since the DVA currently have a nasty backlog due to a spike in demand so any "urgent" role can be justified on the lead time for SC.

Sorry I see this "achievement" as an insubstantial flash in the pan that can be easily worked around to maintain the status quo in a matter of a few seconds of thought by an agent with a clue.

Wrong. It goes a lot deeper than merely a set of rules.

If you need SC in a hurry it can be done in 5 days, and more usually less than 15. That excuse simply no longer works. The auto-inserted text means nothing: the point is that you don't need clearance to apply, only to work. There is usually enough of a gap between the two for clearance to come though and there are established processes to allow uncleared people to work within safe limits.

Also stats will be kept on who takes on uncleared people and awkward questions asked if the answer is "not many". HMG are well aware they are being presented with adequate candidates who have clearance, not the best candidates available on the market with up-to-date skills; that is partly why so many PS programmes fail.

So yes, the current situation is bollocks, everyone accepts that, even REC and APSCo. This is the first rather crucial step in sorting it out properly.

[TykeMerc]

I think


The rule defining "appropriate" is already well understood: basically it's for work where unsupervised access to classified systems or data is necessary, such as a sysadmin or a network expert, where the duration is less than the time necessary to run the clearance vet (which for SC is less than 30 days 95% of the time these days). I would have much preferred this to be made explicit, but the Cabinet Office moves in mysterious ways some times.

The point is that you can now challenge a refusal to be put forward and quote chapter and verse. A small step forwards, but a necessary one. The fact remains that well over 95% of all contractor roles that may require clearance can be started with only BPSS (a matter of days) and adequate supervision and oversight.

Then again, we are dealing with agents instructed by hiring managers living in the past, mainly because they only exist inside the cleared bubble and don't realise they have a problem. This CoP is going to all HMG hirers, so it may wake them up

Except of course the current system employed by many agents in the secured space will continue, many adverts state things along the lines of "Have existing clearance or be willing to undergo clearance" which in reality means at best you will be put forwards as a fall back candidate.
As we all know it's impossible to establish for an absolute fact if you've actually made it onto the submitted to client list unless you personally know someone at the client end or get asked for an interview.

Admittedly this isn't a problem in my case, but tbh this code of practice is just a whitewash, it will make no difference in practice, especially since the DVA currently have a nasty backlog due to a spike in demand so any "urgent" role can be justified on the lead time for SC.

Sorry I see this "achievement" as an insubstantial flash in the pan that can be easily worked around to maintain the status quo in a matter of a few seconds of thought by an agent with a clue.

Edited - Dogs dinner of the quote syntax

[eek]

I think


The rule defining "appropriate" is already well understood: basically it's for work where unsupervised access to classified systems or data is necessary, such as a sysadmin or a network expert, where the duration is less than the time necessary to run the clearance vet (which for SC is less than 30 days 95% of the time these days). I would have much preferred this to be made explicit, but the Cabinet Office moves in mysterious ways some times.

The point is that you can now challenge a refusal to be put forward and quote chapter and verse. A small step forwards, but a necessary one. The fact remains that well over 95% of all contractor roles that may require clearance can be started with only BPSS (a matter of days) and adequate supervision and oversight.

Then again, we are dealing with agents instructed by hiring managers living in the past, mainly because they only exist inside the cleared bubble and don't realise they have a problem. This CoP is going to all HMG hirers, so it may wake them up

I would agree with you as what you describe sounds more like an appropriate exception rather than an appropriate selection.

The thing is we both know agents are not exactly the brightest and the phrasing could be more explicit. Something like

When advertising vacancies, clarify when security clearance is required and to what
level. Make clear that people with no security clearance will be considered,
unless appropriate.

would probably be far clearer to everyone...

[malvolio]

[QUOTE=eek;2004418]I think

When advertising vacancies, clarify when security clearance is required and to what
level. Make clear that people with no security clearance will also be considered,
where appropriate./QUOTE]

would be a bigger concern....

The rule defining "appropriate" is already well understood: basically it's for work where unsupervised access to classified systems or data is necessary, such as a sysadmin or a network expert, where the duration is less than the time necessary to run the clearance vet (which for SC is less than 30 days 95% of the time these days). I would have much preferred this to be made explicit, but the Cabinet Office moves in mysterious ways some times.

The point is that you can now challenge a refusal to be put forward and quote chapter and verse. A small step forwards, but a necessary one. The fact remains that well over 95% of all contractor roles that may require clearance can be started with only BPSS (a matter of days) and adequate supervision and oversight.

Then again, we are dealing with agents instructed by hiring managers living in the past, mainly because they only exist inside the cleared bubble and don't realise they have a problem. This CoP is going to all HMG hirers, so it may wake them up

[eek]

Oh dear. why do I think that any code of practice that has a 'justifiable exception' clause with no prescription is a waste of time?

I think

[QUOTE]When advertising vacancies, clarify when security clearance is required and to what
level. Make clear that people with no security clearance will also be considered,
where appropriate./QUOTE]

would be a bigger concern....

[tractor]

...

As do I. On this occasion I actually agree with you.

TY now go look again at my last post

Please.

[malvolio]

Yes, my smile was irony because I remember the thread very well.

As do I. On this occasion I actually agree with you.

[tractor]

...

Yes, I'm sure that the other >90% of their membership who don't post on the forum will be thrilled with that.

(And as they are trying to recruit non-techy freelancers into their ranks that non-posting membership percentage will only grow...)

Yes, my smile was irony because I remember the thread very well.

[cojak]

I was essentially told by an IPSE board member that because I didn't post on their forums, I didn't have a right to comment about their activity.

Which was nice.

Yes, I'm sure that the other >90% of their membership who don't post on the forum will be thrilled with that.

(And as they are trying to recruit non-techy freelancers into their ranks that non-posting membership percentage will only grow...)

[malvolio]

The reason I posted on here was the deathly quiet on the IPSe site, apart from some sort of management love-in.
There's not really much point trying to have a discussion with other rank and file members if 90% of the traffic is from the committee.

That'll be the major reworking of how IPSE is managed and how it connects with its membership, which was sent to all 22,000 members for their views (and there have been a few hundred responses to date...).

I'm a contractor of 20 years, but not lately working with any other contractors, not sure if I even know any other PCG members apart from a couple who have been involved with their internal politics (some years ago).
So I wanted to know if I was wildly out of line with the alleged 20-odd thousand PCG members. A quick search found this place.
TBH, their magazine has largely failed to get opened for the last few years, I've just paid and ignored them.
I'm perhaps a little out of the mainstream, being an electronics hardware design bloke rather than strictly IT.

I'm a little nervous of losing the IR35 protection, but sufficiently disillusioned to consider risking it.

Cheers,

It's rather more than IR35 protection these days, as others have said. Perhaps take another look at their main website?