Summer is often a slow time for new work, and this year the general economic situation has made things much work. I have been reading various job boards to see if there are any technical writing contract jobs that I might be suitable for. In a number of otherwise promising vacancy notices I have come across what I call the security clearance paradox, which goes like this: the advertiser states that candidates should have security clearance before they can apply. I don’t have security clearance so I can’t apply. The only way for me to get security clearance is to get a job where clearance is needed, and have my employer sponsor me for the Ministry of Defence (MOD) security vetting procedure. But I can never get a job where clearance is required, because I don’t have clearance already. As I said, a paradox.
What worries me is that the employers and the recruitment agencies they hire may not be acting entirely properly by requiring applicants to hold security clearance.
Here is a typical advert:
…it is essential that you currently hold, or have very recently held, MOD security clearance to SC, as a number of the projects interface with highly sensitive UK government projects
However, this statement does not appear to be in accord with what the MOD itself says on the Defence Vetting Agency website’s page for consultants and contractors:
The MOD contracting procedures make sure that there is no competitive advantage in having prior security clearances….A number of commercial organisations advertise for staff with security clearances. This practice is neither necessary nor desirable, and is strongly discouraged by the MOD.
So why are employers and recruiters regularly doing something that is “strongly discouraged by the MOD”? One reason must be the lack of time. The Defence Vetting Agency website points out that the basic vetting procedure can take three months, and during that time non-vetted employees may be excluded from certain restricted sites, or be prevented from seeing certain documents. The time scale is of course at the heart of the problem. If vetting takes three months and the contract itself is only for three months then no-one will get vetted in time to actually do any work. So only hiring candidates who already have clearance appears to save time. But the Defence Vetting Agency website also implies that clearance for one project does not automatically grant an employee clearance for another project.
The way to resolve the clearance paradox would be for someone to take an employer or a recruitment agency to an Employment Tribunal for unfair recruitment practices. But that is an even slower process than security vetting so is unlikely to happen any time soon.
So I’d better keep looking for a contract opportunity where security clearance isn’t required. Any ideas?
