Isn't this illegal??

[TheFaQQer]

out of interest, does anyone know how long security clearance lasts for, and what the various levels are?
I remember being security cleared about 5 years ago when I worked permie as a consultant at a govnmt dept.

10 years, if you stay working in a cleared role.

BUT if you are working in an environment which does not require security clearance, then it lapses after a year.

[Cheshire Cat]

out of interest, does anyone know how long security clearance lasts for, and what the various levels are?
I remember being security cleared about 5 years ago when I worked permie as a consultant at a govnmt dept.

[tim123]

No, they can't. It is illegal .

No it's not illegal.

It might be against some internal Government guildline but you are never going to get a court of law to uphold this claimed "right".

tim

[TheFaQQer]

Here's the exact wording from the Cabinet Office guidelines:

Pre-existing clearances should only be required by departments, prime contractors or agencies when there is an urgent priority requirement that includes the following criteria:
a. Clearance is genuinely necessary and proportionate
And
b. The work must be completed within 30 days (SC and CTC) or 100 days (DV) of the contract start, or

c. The role requires immediate and routine unsupervised access:
- to sites or persons at risk of terrorist attack (CTC), or

- to assets protectively marked SECRET or above (SC).

- This is likely to apply to technical roles such as systems administration and telecommunications.

It is not likely to apply to roles such as commercial programming, analysis or management functions, where supervision pending clearance is straightforward. Pre-clearance should not be required if such supervision is available.

When it will take longer to carry out the work than to secure the clearance, existing practices for escorting and supervising un-cleared personnel should be followed until such time as clearance is confirmed. These will almost invariably be adequate other than in circumstances similar to those outlined in point (c) above. In light of the continuing improvements in turnaround times for clearances, this should represent a minimal burden and should, in any case, have been factored into project costs at the outset.

So if you need routine, unsupervised, access to a terrorist target that required CTC clearance, then they can do this.

I think.

[Emily]

If they expect the clearance process to take more than the duration of the project, then they can make it mandatory.

No, they can't. It is illegal to state that it is mandatory. Which is why when an advert says 'Must have current Security Clearance, or be willing to undergo it', you should read it as 'Must have security clearance, it takes months to get it so if you don't have it already don't bother applying, we have to put the willing to undergo bit in because of the law'

Legally you are not allowed to discriminate against those who do not currently hold the clearance because in theory there is nothing to stop someone without it going through the process. Obviously this is debatable when a contract is only 3 months long and the clearance can take that long to come through, but hey ho.

[TheFaQQer]

If they expect the clearance process to take more than the duration of the project, then they can make it mandatory.

[badger7579]

http://www.jobserve.com/I5B3A1958B20D4332.job

Can the agent say SC clearence is mandatory??? I thought they had to use that "willing to go through clearence" line