Applicants need not enter names relating to their previous gender: DBS form

[AndYetItMoves]

Just reading this tweet

twitter.com/chollode/status/1036577729410420737?s=21

Can anyone help clarify what DBS means?

Either you have to list previous names or not...?

DBS is Disclosure Barring Service which replaced CRB checks some years ago.

Surely that can't be right. So a convicted offender now identifying as trans can apply for work with children and the DBS won't ask for former names?

I did one a few months ago and it said if you were transgender to not continue with online form and call a confidential number instead.

I wonder if different authorities have different processes.

But if it is true that’s a massive safeguarding issue.

I’m shocked anyone thought that was a good idea.

It's a huge safeguarding issue and I'd like to ring them to find out what their policies already are. The form states one thing and the tweets state the opposite. Obfuscation?

I read that as “applicants don’t have to enter names relating to their previous gender, but if you choose not to then you need to contact this email address about it”? But it is hard to follow - you could equally read as “don’t have to enter names relating to previous gender but contact us if you choose to.”

But.. what happens if someone doesn't contact the sensitive team? If they just don't provide their previous name/s? Is there a way for this to be checked? As that's a concern full stop regardless of gender identity bollocks. How robust are the procedures for checking if someone has been honest about their previous names on a DBS check?

If this is true it needs shouting from every rooftop and social media channel and then some. I have no words.

How has that been actioned before the GRA coming into law?

Ah, from this: www.ddc.uk.net/question/dbs-process-transgender-applicants/ it looks like, yes you do have to disclose all names, but if you’re transgender you can disclose names related to previous gender separately directly to DBS, so your employer won’t have that information.

It looks like whoever’s running the DBS Twitter account today is not familiar with this.

Presuambly there will be gaps where there wasn't a person under their current name that will come up?

One of the tweets in response says that if you have previous names due to "gender" change that you don't want on the certificate, you can call the sensitive info number and tell them, they will do the checks against the old names but the old names won't be on the cert.

That seems fair enough TBF when we're talkign about trans-sexuals with GRC BUT with self ID I'm not sure will work so well tbh

Also you could change your name by deed poll, have no GRC, and get your old names excluded from certificate which could be dodgy possibly.

Apparently there's space for two previous names but that comment on the front sounds like they don't need to enter anything.

[email protected]

This is the contact for clarification. I will be emailing them later.

If this is correct it is absolutely not OK. All applicants for whatever reason who had a former name must be asked to give that name so it can be checked. Surely that is the point of the disclosure process?

You have to disclose all previous names to the DBS service, but putting your previous name on the form means disclosing it to your employer. Since it's regarded by the DBS service as quite sensitive information, transgender people (and also people who were adopted after the age of 10) can use this process and not disclose their birth names to their employer. You would contact the sensitive information team and send them your documents directly, so only the DBS service know your previous details.

When you submit a dbs you do the personal details then your employer checks your ID and ticks boxes saying what level of check you need. If your name and appearance is Daniel bloggs but you used to be Amy bloggs it's reasonable that you don't want the new employer to see that name on the form. I know mn doesn't believe people pass but some do well enough their employers don't know.

So you ring the helpline and they basically add it to your profile "in secret" and then all the searches are done under all the right names .

Yes a trans person could lie and pretend they've always been Daniel bloggs but Chris bloggs could commit a crime as well and try and pretend to be Daniel bloggs so the risk there is the same. The checks are not infallible.

I would be very surprised if there was a workaround here.

what max says feels right to me
and is what some have said on teh twitter thread

although i don't actually know

It's my understanding that yes, you do have to disclose all previous names for a DBS check. You commit an offence if you do not.

However, it looks as though they are trying to deal sensitively with transmen and transwomen by having the confidential number to ring rather than allowing an employer or colleague to see their previous identity.

So long as the names are disclosed, I think it's OK.

Is there any way for the DBS service to check that's been done?

Is the wording ambiguous enough to provide a challenge were someone not to use the service?

I can see why an applicant should not be deprived of the choice of revealing natal sex to an employer.

Same as anyone else could fail to disclose a previous name
There will be a gap in bank records / address records / electoral register / whatever else it is they look at, they prob have access to tax records and stuff (?) and govt databases and gaps will be flagged

If your name and appearance is Daniel bloggs but you used to be Amy bloggs it's reasonable that you don't want the new employer to see that name on the form

And that’s entirely reasonable. Unless there’s very good reason then Daniels entire history should be checked and his employer not told he was originally Amy. I’m fine with that.

However...

What happens if Daniel had a conviction as Amy and doesn’t call that helpline?

To me a more logical way of setting it up would be : ‘all previous names are linked to your current one and will be shown on the disclosure - if you do not want this to happen please call the hotline and blah blah.’

Without automatic linkage and search it relies on the person being checked to disclose. surely it cannot have been set up like that and surely if Daniel submits a request it will automatically link to Amy as well?

If not, that’s a massive loophole. You can’t run a disclosure service that relies on the person being investigated. That would make a mockery of the whole thing. Does anyone know if there’s automatic whole life identity linkage or if previous identities are unlinked and have to be disclosed?

I was actually talking to dh about this the other day. In his country everyone has a personal ID number given at birth so this reliance on names simply wouldnt happen - it all goes on the number and there’s no easy way of hiding.

Aside from whether the actual process is problematic the message on the form makes it sound like you don't have to include the information at all and that is a major loophole:

I read that as “applicants don’t have to enter names relating to their previous gender, but if you choose not to then you need to contact this email address about it”? But it is hard to follow - you could equally read as “don’t have to enter names relating to previous gender but contact us if you choose to.”

Anyone could fail to disclose a previous name. I could change my name tomorrow by deed poll and then fail to put it on the form.

I'd be caught out immediately though because you can't change your National Insurance number, so there would be two names with an identical number

I'd be caught out immediately though because you can't change your National Insurance number, so there would be two names with an identical number

But doesn't changing gender change your NI number because it is linked to your sex?

If so then unlike any other instance an applicant claiming to be trans would not be caught out.

Anyone could fail to disclose a previous name. I could change my name tomorrow by deed poll and then fail to put it on the form.

That in itself is a loophole. Why is there no linkage? Is there no linkage? most countries have a population registry which has this data in.

Might be wrong about NI number not sure.