Professor Anthony Glees Dr Julian Richards University of ... - PCG

More documents

Recommendations

Info

have exactly the expertise that government requires but does not hold, at thetime of applying, the clearance the job demands 1 . Indeed, this is a trulyfundamental issue because without a level playing field, the government cannotbe certain it is getting the experts it needs at the best price for the taxpayer.This is why the government spells out very clearly that pre-existing clearancesare not a requisite for most jobs for which vetting is required.The phrase a „Catch-22‟ situation has come into common parlance thanks to theAmerican novelist Joseph Heller who coined it in 1961. He used it to describehow a person (in this case an American Air Force pilot) was told he could notvolunteer to fly a highly dangerous mission unless he was deemed sane by hissuperiors but by volunteering for the mission he would be demonstrating tothem that he was in fact insane.In our context, the catch is that those applyingfor a post which should give them theopportunity to acquire security clearance cansometimes only gain the position if theyalready have security clearance. And thosewho do not have security clearance cannotapply for posts for which they would be able toobtain a clearance. We have seen clearevidence of this „Catch-22‟ situation affecting..the vetting processmust not be usedwrongly to excludefreelancers who mayhave exactly theexperience thatgovernment requiresbut does not holdprivate contractors seeking straightforward security clearance. Some of the bestfreelance experts in the UK are currently being denied government contractsbecause they are told they must have a pre-existing security clearance for theirapplications for government work to be considered. But, at the same time, theyare also told they can only gain a clearance once their application has beensuccessfully accepted. In these cases, no application can be successful withoutan existing security clearance; but no security clearance can be gained without asuccessful application: this is surely a „Catch-22‟ situation if ever there was one.1 Cabinet Office, ‘HMG Personnel Security Controls’. July 2010.16
It is the case that the „Catch-22‟ applies to the provision of the two lower levelsof security clearance, namely the Counter-Terrorism Check (CTC) and theSecurity Clearance (SC) but not of Developed Vetting (DV) because thoseseeking to obtain developed vetting will often have security clearances already.For this reason, and because far more people need a security clearance thanneed developed vetting, it is the former who are most definitely at the sharp endof the problem and their number is by far the greater.It is always a matter of very considerable public concern to the nation whenthere is hard evidence to show the vetting system has either failed or not evenbeen properly or intelligently employed and that this has allowed, in a number ofrecent high-profile cases, the wrong people to work for the government or in..the outcome is thatnational interest isdamaged and thetaxpayer is denied avalue-for-money,market-drivensolution to a specificneedroles alongside the high offices of state,including Parliament. The media, quite rightly,will always jump to report security vettinglapses.Although the media (and the wider public) maynever hear of it, it should be no less a matterof serious concern when those experts whopresent no security risk whatsoever and havepath-breaking expertise have been deniedaccess to contracts because the government‟sown guidelines have not been followed. Whether this is because the end user(the government) has been careless in its tendering or whether the recruitmentagencies on whom the government relies have for whatever reason failed tofollow the guidelines, the outcome is the same: the national interest is damagedand the taxpayer is denied a value for money, market-driven solution to aspecific need.In our report we examine why this is happening.17
Page 10: a level playing field. If present e
Page 13: equired to achieve this desirable g
Page 18 and 19: We are satisfied, as we say, that i
Page 21 and 22: contract (government end-user, recr
Page 23 and 24: The main points are:• More than t
Page 25 and 26: containing an inherent conflict of
Page 27 and 28: In general, we recommend that• In
Page 29 and 30: • PCG acts as intermediary betwee
Page 31 and 32: government departments, and via the
Page 33: One of the most important points to
Page 36 and 37: articulation of government policy i
Page 38 and 39: conducting the first level of check
Page 40 and 41: Of course, perception and reality a
Page 42 and 43: On at least one of the major job-bo
Page 44 and 45: eadiness to raise the bar on profes
Page 46 and 47: Michael Shryane at the Cabinet Offi
Page 48 and 49: commercial worlds were increasingly
Page 52 and 53: with the Data Protection Act. The D
Page 54 and 55: The DVA would forward lists of comp
Page 56 and 57: Second, there is a question of reso
Page 58 and 59: addressing all of these coherently.
Page 60 and 61: crime in many parts of the world fi
Page 62 and 63: concerned with the potential indivi
Page 64 and 65: of risk. As for „transparency‟

Professor Anthony Glees Dr Julian Richards University of ... - PCG

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?