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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

commercial worlds were increasingly intermingling with security implications forboth of them.If present employment trends and government needs continue it is likely that inthe future there will be an increasing demand for security freelancers in respectof national infrastructure work. This emphasises the risk of creating a skillshortage by allowing the demand for existing security clearances to override theneed for technical skills. If a department is faced with a choice between twocandidates with equal skill sets, the one with the existing clearance will bepreferred. This is not to create a level playing field for contractors but to subvertand distort it.There was a feeling that the government should think about what more it mightwant to do in order to discharge its obligations to specialist contractingenterprises. First and foremost, the government must ensure its guidelines arebeing adhered to. It should, of course, continue to promote awareness in themarket place and develop its education and transparency agendas: informingfreelancers about security requirements will further empower them and allowthem to deal robustly with any attempts by recruiting agencies to discriminatewrongly against prime contractors or sub-contractors. Government says itcannot do this for contractors nor could it support a regulatory regime but itdoes and must have an obvious interest in seeing poor agencies held to account.Whilst hearing what the Cabinet Office says, it is, in the final analysis, open tochallenge and we believe that challenge is called for. We challenge it here.Second, it should continue to encourage freelancers because doing so will bringmuch-needed specialist skills to the areas where they are needed and providethe best chance of delivering genuine value for money. With that said,contracting is complex and freelancers must be free to describe their expertise inwhat they regard as the most commercially attractive way. Equally, in acompetitive market place there will always be those who win and those who loseand those who have an edge over their competitors. Third, the governmentshould continue to emphasise that vetting is much more straightforward than ithas been, that it is faster and cheaper as well. At the same time, the needs of48
national security must be maintained by the government. There has to be a linein the sand and that will not be compromised.Voluntary submission to the Security Service would drive a coach and horsesthrough national security policy and would never be acceptable. On the otherhand, the principle of transparency makes for good governance and bringsrational thinking into the security market place. The government will reflect theguidelines it has issued in its dealings with potential contractors and agencies.Security clearances are part of this but only part. What is more, guidelines areprecisely that and are never going to be legally enforceable. Best practice meansthat what is done is done in the best way by those who are best equipped to doit. This is also about using the resources efficiently. Ongoing auditing ofarrangements is certainly desirable and where possible, and where coreconcerns are clearly set out to it, the Cabinet Office will use the limitedresources it possesses to participate in innovative suggestions put to it by PCG.From the perspective of the Cabinet Office, as policy owner for national securityvetting, there was no doubt but that it was valuable to explore these issues andreassuring to see how they have been dealt with. Questions about the gatewayand access to contractors have led to a strong analytical discussion whichcertainly emphasised the point that there is nothing in the vetting process that isdiscriminatory. Nor, in the view of the Cabinet Office, does the process createunfairness.However, against this, it seems reasonable to point out that even if the processis itself not discriminatory, it nevertheless appears to create the potential fordiscrimination elsewhere in the system.Equally, in terms of the vetting booklet and policy statement, comments aregenuinely sought and in terms of the guidelines it will be useful to revisitclearance times and associated concerns. It is helpful that the OGC is a closepartner here. Together they will work with the whole efficiency and reformagenda that the government is pursuing and the transparency aspects that gowith it: not just in terms of security but also exposing the costs and the burdens49
Page 10: a level playing field. If present e
Page 13: equired to achieve this desirable g
Page 16 and 17: have exactly the expertise that gov
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?