Working in Government – Security vetting / Security clearance
Individuals working for or with the Government may have to undergo ‘security clearance’ depending on the role. Usually, you will be told what level of security clearance you will need.
There are four levels of Government security clearance:-
Baseline Personnel Security Standard (BPSS) and Enhanced Baseline Standard (EBS)
Counter Terrorist Check
Security Check
Developed Vetting
This information is designed to help you understand what these types of clearance levels mean if you have a criminal record.
Have you been granted one of these levels of vetting/clearance?
We’re always keen to hear from people who have convictions who have successfully managed to be employed in all different sectors and professions. As you will see below, security vetting for Government-related jobs is quite stringent, but equally all this explains is the process. There is very little guidance about whether convictions will prevent you from being employed.
As a result, to help us improve our information, we’re always looking for people to get in touch to let us know if they’ve managed to be successful, so that we can give a better indication of how this works in practice. Please get in touch (your personal details will be confidential).
Baseline Personnel Security Standard and Enhanced Baseline Standard
These are an entry level security check and not looked upon as formal security clearance. They form part of a package of pre-employment checks that represent good recruitment and employment practice. They aim to provide an appropriate level of assurance as to the trustworthiness, integrity and probable reliability of prospective employees.
The BPSS involves verification of identity; nationality and immigration status; employment history and criminal record declaration. A basic criminal record check (through Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS)) will also be carried out which will show any unspent convictions – find out more about these here – link to https://unlock.org.uk/advice/basic-disclosure/.
All Government departments are required to ensure that any individual employed to work in their offices or on their systems comply with BPSS prior to taking up their posts.
You may be asked to consent to a BPSS if you are:
Working in the public sector and Armed Forces
Working for a private company on government contracts with access to confidential government assets – an example is contractors to the DWP (they have produced guidance available here)
Working in roles which involve higher levels of vetting/security clearance, such as the Counter Terrorist Check (CTC), Security Check (SC) and Developed Vetting (DV). The BPSS is not a security clearance whereas the CTC, SC and DV are all formal security clearances obtained through the National Security Vetting process – the BPSS underpins the national security vetting process of these higher levels. If a BPSS is being carried out as part of the groundwork for national security vetting, a full check of criminal records will be made.
The Enhanced Baseline Standard allows supervised access to secret material. The same information is required as that of a BPSS, as well as a mandatory interview and references from people familiar with an applicant’s character in both the home and work environment.
Guidance on the pre-employment screening of civil servants, members of the armed forces, temporary staff and Government contractors can be found in guidance from the Cabinet Office.
Counter Terrorist Checks (CTC)
A CTC is used to prevent persons who may have connections with terrorist organisations, or who may be vulnerable to pressure from them, from undertaking certain security duties where sensitive information may be compromised.
A CTC will usually take six months to complete and is normally valid for 3 years.
To gain CTC clearance, applicants will usually need to have been a UK resident for a minimum of 3 years. It may also be necessary to attend an interview with the body completing the checks.
Security Clearance (SC)
This is the most common type of vetting process. It is transferrable between Government departments and covers a wide range of jobs. It is valid for 5 years for Government contractors and 10 years for permanent employees who require substantial access to secret and occasionally top secret assets and information.
To gain security clearance an applicant will normally need to have been a UK resident for a minimum of 5 years. The process includes:-
Baseline Personnel Security Standard
Completion of an SC questionnaire
Checking identity documents and employment/educational references
Checks against UK criminal records
Credit reference checks
An example of a CTC/SC Questionnaire can be found here.
Security Clearance will involve a check against police records, and this will reveal all cautions and convictions that are held on these systems. Note – the DBS filtering process does not apply.
Developed Vetting (DV)
This level of security clearance provides substantial unsupervised access to top secret assets or for people working in the intelligence or security agencies. This stringent security check is much more specialised and tends to be job related.
To gain DV clearance, you will normally need to have been a UK resident for a minimum of 10 years. There are several stages to the vetting process:-
SC Clearance (see above)
Completion of a DV supplementary questionnaire
Completion of a financial questionnaire
A review of the candidates personal finances
A medical and psychological assessment
Interviews with the candidates referees
A detailed interview with the candidate
Some commonly asked questions about DV can be found here.
When you’ve been offered a job, knowing that an employer is going to carry out a formal criminal record check can be quite scary.
If your criminal record is spent and the employer does a basic check then you’ve got very little to worry about. However, if you discover that your employer will be doing a standard or enhanced DBS check for a job that’s only eligible for a basic, then you’re likely to be concerned about what will show up.
This information provides examples of templates that you can use if you are being asked to undergo a level of DBS check that you don’t think the role isn’t eligible for.
If you believe that your employer is intending to carry out an ineligible check then it could be worth having a conversation with them; it might be an innocent mistake on their part.
If you’ve tried raising it with them and it’s made no difference, or you don’t feel able to bring it to their attention, then it’s worth raising a query through the DBS.
Examples of emails challenging an ineligible check
These examples have been written for guidance purposes only and should not be copied.
Your email to the DBS should relate to the specific role you are applying for.
In the subject line of your email you should head it ‘APPLICATION ELIGIBILITY QUERY – URGENT’
Within the main body of the email you should include:
Your full name, address and date of birth
The name of the position you’ve applied for
The name of the employer or the registered body who will be carrying out the check
The DBS reference number (this is the 11 digits found in the top right of the DBS application form)
Person one – Sarah
Sarah has applied for a job as an administrator working for a company who has contracts with some NHS trusts, Employer A. As part of the recruitment process, Sarah’s employers have applied for a standard DBS check which would disclose her spent conviction for fraud for which she received a 12 month custodial sentence. Sarah believes that her role is only eligible for a basic DBS check.
I wish to raise an eligibility query with the DBS in relation to a recently submitted application for a standard DBS check, the details of which are as follows:
[Full name, address, date of birth, position applied for, name of organisation or registered body and DBS reference number]
I have recently been offered the role of administrator for Employer A who work on IT contracts for a range of companies. Employer A has recently applied for a standard DBS check on the basis that they carry out some contracts for the NHS. From my job description (see attached) and knowledge of the role, I believe that this role would only be eligible for a basic DBS check. I set out below my reasons for querying eligibility:
From the research I have carried out, my position is not included in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 which would make it eligible for a standard DBS check.
Although I work on NHS contracts, I am based in an office on a business park not in a hospital or healthcare setting. During the course of my work, I would have no contact with patients or their medical records.
I have used the online DBS eligibility tool checker which states that my role would only be eligible for a basic DBS check.
Based on the above information I believe that my role of administrator with Employer A would only be eligible for a basic DBS check.
I would like the DBS to undertake an investigation as to the eligibility of this check and, until such time as an outcome has been determined, I would like the application for a standard DBS check to be put on hold.
Yours faithfully
Sarah Smith
Person two – Hassan
Hassan has applied for a job as a bus driver working for a large bus company, Employer B. As part of the recruitment process, his employers have applied for an enhanced DBS check on the basis that children may get on Hassan’s bus. Hassan is concerned that an enhanced check would disclose his spent conviction for GBH. As he would only be working on general town runs (with no specific school runs), Hassan believes that his role would only be eligible for a basic DBS check.
I wish to raise an eligibility query with the DBS in relation to a recently submitted application for an enhanced DBS check; the details of which are as follows:
[Full name, address, date of birth, position applied for, name of organisation or registered body and DBS reference number]
I have recently been offered the position of bus driver for Employer B and a request for an enhanced DBS check has been submitted by ABC Registered Body. Based on the job description I have been given (see attached) I believe that my role would only be eligible for a basic DBS check for the following reasons:
Employer B has stated that I will be working as a bus driver in the ‘Adult and Children Workforce’. However my position is not included in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 nor the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records), the legislation which makes it eligible for an enhanced check.
Although Employer B have a contract with the local council to provide buses for various school runs, this will not form part of my role, as can be seen from the enclosed job description.
I do not carry out any regulated activity with children or adults and I do not manage or supervise anybody that does carry out regulated activity.
Based on the above information I believe that my role of bus driver with Employer B would only be eligible for a basic DBS check.
I would like the DBS to undertake an investigation as to the eligibility of this check and, until such time as an outcome has been determined, I would like the application for the enhanced DBS check to be put on hold.
If you require any further information please feel free to get in touch with me.
Yours faithfully
Hassan Yacoub
Person three – Peter
Peter has applied for a job as an accountant working for a large housing association, Employer C. As part of the recruitment process, his employers have applied for an enhanced DBS check. Although Peter doesn’t have any cautions or convictions, an allegation of sexual assault was made against him whilst he was at university and even though the police decided to take no further action, this allegation could potentially be disclosed in the police intelligence part (sometimes referred to as approved information) of an enhanced check. Peter believes that his role is only eligible for a basic DBS check.
I wish to raise an eligibility query with the DBS in relation to a recently submitted application for an enhanced DBS check, the details of which are as follows:
[Full name, address, date of birth, position applied for, name of organisation or registered body and DBS reference number]
I have recently been offered the position of accountant for a large housing association, Employer C, and a request for an enhanced DBS check has been submitted. Based on the job description I have been given (please see attached) I believe that my role would only be eligible for a standard check for the following reasons:
Employer C have stated that I will be working as an accountant in the ‘Adult Workforce’. Although my position is included in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 which would make it eligible for a standard check, it is not included in the Police Act 1997 which makes it eligible for an enhanced check.
Employer C provide housing and maintenance services to residents living in the Leeds area. They also offer support services to their residents, some of whom may be considered vulnerable. However, my role is an office based one, dealing with the corporate affairs of the organisation and, during the course of my work I will have no contact with any of Employer C’s clients.
Since qualifying as an accountant 10 years ago, I have been employed by three companies. Two of these have requested basic checks and one a standard. It’s not normal practice for an accountant to have an enhanced DBS check, for the reasons set out above.
Based on the above information I believe that my role of accountant for Employer C would only be eligible for a basic DBS check.
I would like the DBS to undertake an investigation as to the eligibility of this check and, until such time as an outcome has been determined, I would like the application for the enhanced DBS to be put on hold.
Yours faithfully
Peter Jones
Discuss this with others
Read and share your experiences on our online forum.
Below you will find links to useful websites relating to this page. More specific details (including addresses and telephone numbers) of some of the organisations listed below can be found here.
The aim of this page is to give you an overview of the legal remedies which may be available to you should you be dismissed by your employer.
The information contained is basic; if it doesn’t answer your questions, or you have any doubts about whether or not you should commence legal proceedings, we would recommend that you seek legal advice.
The costs of taking your employer to an employment tribunal can be expensive and your likely level of winnings will usually only cover what you have lost. Therefore, it’s important that you think carefully about taking any form of legal action and seek proper legal advice.
Unfair dismissal
Length of service and other requirements
The law requires that an employee work for an employer for a minimum period before they can claim unfair dismissal. If your employment started before 6 April 2012 then this period is one year. If your employment started on or after this date, then you must complete two years of uninterrupted service before you can made a claim.
If you do not meet the length of service requirement, then unless your situation comes within a statutory exception (for example, the right to maternity pay, or where you are a whistle blower), then you will have no right to claim unfair dismissal and should you do so, your employer will simply apply to have your case struck out. This does not necessarily mean that you should not seek legal advice, especially if you decide to appeal your dismissal using your employer’s internal procedures but, always make it clear to the adviser that you believe you may not meet the service requirement as this will significantly affect the advice you are given.
Unfair dismissal laws are only applicable to people working under a contract of employment, as opposed to a contract for services. As a rule, you will generally be an employee if:
you are obliged to perform the work personally (you cannot send a substitute)
if your employer is required to provide work (and pay you for it); and
you are under the control of your employer (for example, you can’t turn up for work whenever you like and must do the work asked of you).
If you have any doubt about your employment status, then seek legal advice.
Importantly (and this may sound obvious), there must have been a dismissal. Generally, whether or not there has been a dismissal will be obvious. It is important that you know however, that a resignation can count as a dismissal. This is covered in more detail below.
Finally, different claims have different time periods within which you have to file a claim for it to be considered valid. The unfair dismissal time limit is three months from the date of dismissal and the same time frame applies to unpaid wage and discrimination cases. These are hard time limits and cases submitted late will only be accepted in exceptional circumstances (such as serious illness), so it is important to abide by the rules and get your claim in on time. This is one of the reasons why seeking legal advice at the first opportunity is so important; it can ensure a claim is brought properly. You may still be able to proceed in the County Court, but this brings a much greater risk of costs and is generally a more lengthy process, so it is far from an ideal option.
Was the dismissal fair?
The reason for dismissal is crucial in any unfair dismissal case and something that the tribunal will have to consider when deciding the issue of unfairness. The reason must be one that is fair. There are five ‘potentially fair’ reasons for dismissal:
Misconduct
Poor performance
Redundancy
That continuing the person’s employment would have led to the contravention of a statute
Some other substantial reason (SOSR)
The first four are clear in meaning. The fifth one, SOSR, may seem vague; this is because it is a catchall provision that entitles the employment tribunal to consider the reason for dismissal and decide for itself whether that reason is capable of being lawful. Examples of reasons accepted under this heading include:
The imposition of a prison sentence
Necessary re-organisation of a business
That the person was employed as maternity/sickness cover
A breakdown in the employment relationship
The list of reasons that have so far been considered as SOSR by tribunals is not exhaustive – an employer may come up with one that has never been used before.
It is open to a claimant to put forward an alternative reason for dismissal if he believes that the employer is being less than honest about his motivation. For example, if you believe that an employer is taking advantage of an incident of misconduct to justify a dismissal that is really based on an unlawful reason, or dismissing you because of your conviction but claiming officially that you are not up to the job. If you believe this is the case, then you should put it to the tribunal, but evidence will be required in order to convince them, so go prepared. It is worth noting for these purposes that your employer bears the burden of proving that the reason given was the true motivation for the dismissal.
Did the employer act reasonably?
Even if the reason is capable of being fair, this does not automatically make it so. The tribunal must also consider whether an employer has acted fairly in dismissing for that reason. The tribunal will consider whether an employer has acted reasonably in all the circumstances of the case. For example, the size of an employer is relevant to how practical alternatives to dismissal would have been and the nature of the work done may make certain acts of misconduct worse in context than when viewed in isolation.
It is important to realise that ‘unfair’ does not carry its normal, everyday meaning in this context. It has a specific legal meaning and you should bear this in mind when considering whether to make a complaint to the employment tribunal.
Indicators that a decision was unfair include:
Failing to give an employee the chance to explain alleged misconduct
Failing to provide adequate notice of a disciplinary hearing
Failure to inform that a disciplinary process could result in dismissal
Failure to permit an employee to be accompanied to a disciplinary by a fellow staff member or union representative, or to inform him of the right to do so
Failing to give an employee the opportunity to improve his performance (in capacity cases)
The decision being based on an unreasonable misapprehension of the facts
Unreasonable delay in taking a decision or instigating disciplinary proceedings
An over-reliance on irrelevant or improper factors
A failure to follow basic procedures in coming to the decision, including a refusal to permit an internal appeal or properly investigate the situation that led to the dismissal
A lack of an internal appeal process to a more senior manager
An appeal being determined by someone with prior involvement in the matter
This is not an exhaustive list and the presence of one of these factors does not automatically generate a finding of unfair dismissal. Decisions in such cases usually turn on the facts peculiar to the individual case, and it is often difficult to know which way a tribunal will go until the evidence is placed before them. Because the specific factual evidence can be so influential, the importance of witness performance cannot be understated. If you do not make a convincing witness, or cannot sufficiently undermine the evidence given by your opponents, then you are going to struggle. Paper evidence is also important, so gather it as early as you can; at the tribunal you should endeavour to have an explanation for every piece of evidence the other side have that may appear unfavourable to you.
At the employment tribunal
Bringing a claim
If you are confident that you have a worthy claim and have sought legal advice confirming this, then the first thing you need to do is fill in a claim form. Unlike most court forms, this claim form can be completed online. You won’t be able to submit the form if you have missed out any mandatory sections; this is a particular advantage as an incomplete form will be rejected and the clock counting down to bar your claim will not stop running until a form is correctly submitted.
Once you’ve submitted your claim the other side will have 28 days to respond to your claim. In the unlikely event that they fail to do so within the 28 day period, then you win automatically and can obtain what is referred to as a ‘default judgement’. Don’t expect this to happen; you need to keep preparing your case as best you can.
Employment tribunals are supposed to be cheaper, faster and easier to understand than a normal court. They have been set up with the unrepresented claimant in mind; you do not need a lawyer to bring a claim and you can examine witnesses and make arguments in the employment tribunal yourself.
Use of convictions in evidence
The main way in which you will give evidence is on paper, via a witness statement that you will have prepared in advance. The tribunal panel will have read this before the hearing and you will not need to read it out or be asked questions about it by your representative.
However, you will have to be cross-examined, which means answering questions from the other side about your witness statement. Similarly, you will have the chance to question your employers’ witnesses, so that you can highlight any inconsistencies or errors in their statement.
There are some specific problems which could arise in the case of someone with a criminal record. Section 4 (1) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act provides that spent convictions should never be used as evidence in judicial proceedings and questions should not be asked that would elicit such information. This rule applies equally to employment tribunals. Therefore, in general terms, it would be wrong for questions to be asked or evidence given about a spent conviction. This can of course, cause problems for someone with a conviction bringing legal proceedings. There are two circumstances where this is likely to come up:
Where the claim is based on the employee’s spent conviction (such as a dismissal following its being discovered)
Where a witness on either side has a spent conviction.
In the first case, the employee can waive his right to conceal his conviction. Indeed, he would have little choice but to do so if he wanted to bring a case. It would be impossible to prove unfair dismissal in a case based on a spent conviction if the employment tribunal could not hear evidence that the conviction existed. The narrative of the case would not make sense and it would be almost impossible for the employment tribunal to come to a decision in the claimants favour. So, disclosure of the spent conviction could not, realistically, be avoided in such circumstances. This means that the potential claimant must make a decision; are they more interested in keeping their conviction out of the public domain, or in bringing a claim? It is unlikely you will be able to do both. Employers will know this, so settling a claim out of court could also be more difficult to accomplish as a result.
As for the second scenario, this is a difficult issue. From a claimants point of view, a witness’ convictions would not necessarily be relevant, even if the claimant knew about them. It is possible that in a dismissal claim, where another person with a similar spent conviction was uncovered and no disciplinary action was taken, then the contrasting treatment would be relevant. Although such evidence could prove crucial in proving your case, you are as bound by the bar on discussing the conviction as the other side and should not ask questions about it of any witness who is protected by the ROA. To compensate, you could ask questions of your employer of a more general nature, without naming anyone. Similarly, if you call a witness with a spent conviction, the other side should not ask questions about it, even if it seems relevant. Of course, when questioning someone with a spent conviction, it is unlikely you will be aware of his/her status in the first place, but these points are worth bearing in mind should the issue arise.
With regard to unspent convictions, there is nothing to stop either side referring to a person’s unspent convictions, if they meet the general requirements applied to all evidence, which is relevant to a particular issue in the case. It would be inappropriate for either side to raise the issue of a conviction unless it has a direct bearing on one of the issues in dispute; employers should not raise a conviction where it is irrelevant. For example, if you are bringing a claim for unpaid wages, your conviction would likely have nothing to do with your claim and an employer should not raise it in an attempt to smear you in front of the employment tribunal. Even if they did so, it is unlikely that the tribunal members would fall for such a tactic.
Your winnings
The rules on compensation are complex however generally, you will only be paid what you have lost, because of the decision that has been declared unlawful. In an unfair dismissal case, this is likely to include:
The wages that you should have earned from the date of dismissal up until the hearing date (less any wages earned in new employment)
A certain amount of lost wages for a period of time after the hearing date
The cost of looking for new employment
Even if you are entitled to the above losses, how much of this you get depends on two key factors: how much of your dismissal was your fault and what you’ve done to make sure your losses are as small as possible.
The cost of bringing a claim
You may have to pay a fee to make a claim. The amount depends on the type of case and your personal circumstances. In almost all cases, each side is responsible for paying their own costs and not responsible for those of their opponents, even if they lose. Given that it is difficult to get the other side to fund your legal team should you win, you may want to think twice about hiring a legal representative. Some will offer an initial free consultation with no obligation and some will offer a no win no fee arrangement. However, employment litigants are not eligible for legal aid, regardless of their income, it is not an area of law that is deemed worthy of funding.
For this reason you would need to pay for a lawyer. They don’t come cheap and the odd news report of someone suing their employer for huge sums of money is misleading, these are the exception, not the norm. The money for your lawyer will have to come out of your winnings, which may make the whole process hardly worth the effort, given that the average award for unfair dismissal is less than £5,000. That’s not to say that a lawyer should be avoided, it is merely a warning that you should think hard about the costs of their assistance, especially where your case turns on a simple set of facts.
There are organisations such as the Free Representation Unit and certain law centres that provide free legal assistance, but you can’t access FRU directly; a CAB or law centre must refer you.
Trade Unions, if you belong to one, can be a useful resource in such circumstances. However, membership is not a guarantee of them sending a representative to court with you. The best option is to get your union representative involved as early as possible.
Finally, if you have some, it might be worth consulting your home insurance documents. Some home insurance plans cover legal advice and this does not necessarily need to relate to matters involving your home.
Litigants in person regularly win cases against their employers; you are not going to lose just because you are lacking a lawyer, even if the other side has one. Just go prepared, be calm and take your time.
Useful links
Below you will find links to useful websites relating to this page. More specific details including addresses and telephone numbers of some of the organisations listed below can be found here.
We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites. Find out more
More Options
Can you pay it forward?
If you found this page helpful, could you donate just £1 to help someone else access our information and support?
