Does theDBS Sensitve Application Route for trans applicants undermines the value of a DBS check and pose a safeguarding issue

I assume when you do the check it would throw up anomalies like you said you were born in 1988 but the first record of thus name is 2008 so it gets rejected?
The group 1 ID all has your birth date on it.

I'm a bit unclear from that link.

I think it says instead of applying through the normal way you go through this team, but they still check your previous names. Then the certificate at the end says your new gender on it not your birth sex.
I dont quite see who checks your ud in this route. It doesn't actually outline the process.

But if you have a record that would bar you from employment or volunteering then WHY would you give your previous name? Especially if your intent in applying in the first place is nefarious? And if you intend to abuse children then why would you be put off by a sanction for withholding your name? Doesn’t the fact it relies on you giving your name undermine its whole point as it fails for exactly those individuals you want to catch?

I'd hope not, in so much that they should suffer the legal consequences of intentional obfuscation if they do. If I change my name as part of some religious ceremony or because of spousal trauma, I don't receive special dispensation. Why should trans ideology receive special dispensation?

Sure. I agree that verifying someone's sex may be necessary for certain roles. That's why reissuance of birth certificates is also so insidious.

That said, whilst it sounds like pedantry, I don't think sex verification is a core goal of a DBS check? My understanding is that it's for checking individuals against the Adults' & Children's Barred Lists. e.g. flagging if someone has a relevant criminal conviction or associated criminal intelligence.

Of course I'm aghast at the wider situation. Maybe, nay, probably people applying for roles where sex matters should have to declare trans status. But I can also see a circumstance where criminality is what matters/sex is irrelevant (say, working for an MOD role) and therefore this pathway isn't problematic.

People who say they are trans say their previous name is a 'dead name', as though that person no longer exists. Could they in theory use this ideology to not disclose said dead name?

As i said above. The only pupose of the special team set up to help trans applications is to hide their sex.

No.

Anyone identifying as trans can use the sensitivity team where they would do the same background check, but ensure that any other names would not be given to the employer.

The purpose of this service is to hide the sex of the applicant. Theres no other reason for it.

So, have I understood this correctly:

If you apply for a DBS check your are supposed to list all your previous names.

Except if you've transitioned, then you don't have to (and therefore only your post transition identity is checked, any crimes committed by your previous persona won't show up? )

If a DBS check is unable to confirm name, date of birth and sex then it's unlikely to be able to identify relevant criminal convictions and investigations that could pose a danger to children.
How easily are we persuaded to abandon fundamental safeguarding principles for spurious reasons.

Whilst knowing/validating the declared sex of an individual may be necessary for certain jobs, it's not the function of a DBS check really to my understanding. No more than it would verify their references are accurate. It's out of scope I believe.

Wouldn't an important part of many DBS checks be the sex of an employee?

A school would need to know that a teacher doesnt have a criminal record, but also needs to know the sex. If the DBS hides the true sex of someone, how does that help safeguarding?

@Ereshkigalangcleg
Sadly some people (particularly those who immigrated to the UK as adults) have more than one NI number

I've often wondered why DBS and criminal records can't use something like your national insurance number to link name changes, rather than rekying on honesty

That's what KPSS recommends in its report.

I've done one for a previous job. A DBS check would not omit mention of a crime or a prison sentence for anyone. My check was not any less accurate than anyone else's. It's true I had to submit details of my previous name, but so would anyone else who's ever had a name change, including women who've changed their name on marriage (a far more numerous segment of the population than trans people).

All employers should understand the limitations of a dbs check. It should just be one part of your safe recruitment process. Google search your applicants, get thorough references and full employment history. Follow up everything. If someone has changed their name during adulthood that would be a very tricky thing to hide if thorough background checks are done. Unfortunately many organisations just rely on the false sense of security a clear dbs brings.

I've often wondered why DBS and criminal records can't use something like your national insurance number to link name changes, rather than rekying on honesty

Yes it's a risk

Schools now must do wider checks of social media and news reports. An individual may not have broken the law but they may be highly inappropriate for a job working with children or vulnerable people.

There was also a case whereby a young woman had murdered a child in Spain. She was herself late teens so didn't serve very long. She moved to the U.K. and started working in a nursery. U.K. DBS was clear. Name came up in searches online - Spanish news reports.

You don't have to give a birth certificate as one of your pieces of ID. Perfectly possible to only provide ID in current name. I do DBS checks for Girlguiding and most people don't use birth certificate IME

I think it can be assumed that you can't just change your name and hide previous convictions. That would be as ridiculously obvious as Kier Starmer's number 10 log in password being "Kierstarmer69!".

How does John get a birth certificate naming him as James?

Shouldn't there be a database linking name changes. That way there would be no way of hiding past crimes from DBS checks.

It seems this is more of a name change loophole. The form asks an applicant to declare all names. But if Mr James Nicely doesn't declare that he was previously convicted as Mr John Nasty, does the current system have any way to pick that up? Or are all name changes a potential opportunity to get a new clean DBS?

Yes