Reply from Home Office re DBS and GRC

[Ali1cedowntherabbithole]

I contacted my MP after the questions raised on the thread linked below. I asked for clarification about identity checks for DBS could be verified if someone has a GRC and is living with a new identity.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3653715-Challenor-showing-off-their-new-birth-certificate.

MP didn't bother to reply but I have received the following "correspondence reply" from the Home Office.

Thank you for your email xxx to the Minister for Children and Families about the Disclosure Barring Service ( DBS and your concerns on the effectiveness of the checks that are made on people who are transgender , which has been passed to the Home Office for a reply.

One of the important roles of the DBS is to help employers make safer recruitment deci-sions to ensure that people who want to work with children and vulnerable adults do not have a previous record of causing them harm. An essential part of this public protection role is to check the identity of the applicant through the verification of the documents they use to prove their identity. DBS checks are therefore dependent upon being able to con-firm and verify all names used by an individual when checking whether they might pose a threat to others, for example whether they have been convicted of a serious offence.

For these very important reasons, applicants for a DBS check are asked to produce doc-uments from a primary set (a current valid passport issued by any country, UK photo card driving licence, UK biometric residence permit or a UK birth certificate issued within 12 months of birth) together with other trusted Government issued documents or finan-cial/social history documents. This includes ensuring that the applicant provides details of all addresses where they have lived in the last five years. The DBS guidance has been carefully constructed to ensure that the process is as secure as possible and is kept under review.

Our policies must adhere to the important protections afforded to transgender people, such as protecting an individual’s gender history, which are enshrined in the Gender Recogni-tion Act 2004.

Being able to validate an identity is a crucial part of ensuring that a criminal record disclo-sure is sent to the right person, rather than to someone who has adopted a false identity in order to hide a criminal past. The Government believes that the above process provides the right balance of maintaining high standards of identity checking, whilst at the same time, not being so restrictive that it prevents legitimate applicants from completing the DBS identity checking process.

I hope this is helpful in explaining the position.

So basically "an essential part of this public protection role is to check the identity of the applicant through the verification of the documents they use to prove their identity" unless they have a GRC and then it doesn't matter.

There is no safeguarding.

Huntley happened because his history didn't follow him.

This is like the Green Party policy of always assuming the best in people.

If everyone is honest, DBS checks are useful. Ignoring that if everyone was honest, we wouldn’t need DBS checks. They are pointing out their own superfluousness..

I've asked my MSP to make the same enquiry to Disclosure Scotland about their PVG checks (Protection of Vulnerable Groups).

So far, the MSP has sent 2 emails and had 2 replies - linking to the website which states that a trans person should write a letter to notify Disclosure Scotland of their previous sex and name, and confirming that the previous sex and name will be kept completely confidential.

I have asked my MSP to repeat the question about whether Disclosure Scotland would be able to know about a previous identity, if a trans person did not tell them about it.

I have asked my MSP to repeat the question about whether Disclosure Scotland would be able to know about a previous identity, if a trans person did not tell them about it.

Good. I mean it's not complicated, is it? It's a very simple, straightforward question. If they don't tell you, how do you know?

All these paragraphs of waffle do not fill one with confidence.

For these very important reasons, applicants for a DBS check are asked to produce doc-uments from a primary set (a current valid passport issued by any country, UK photo card driving licence, UK biometric residence permit or a UK birth certificate issued within 12 months of birth) together with other trusted Government issued documents or finan-cial/social history documents.

This isn't correct. Yes you can provide a document from that primary set to prove identity but if you do not have one of those then you just provide a document from a second list that includes "birth certificate - issued after time of birth"

What does 'issued after time of birth' mean, thingy? Aren't all birth certificates issued after birth? I don't get it.

It means issued more than 12 months after birth. All birth certificates are dated, my original is dated a couple of weeks after I was born whereas replacement certificates would have the date they were issued.

twitter.com/AimeeChallenor/status/1156909958463705093

Aimee's certificate is dated 31/07/2019

So if a trans person gave their new certificate it would alert the DBS to a change. Which they could ask about. But there's no way to force an answer.

And they don't have to use their birth certificate anyway.

Is that right?

LoveGrowsWhere, it's my recollection that not only did Ian Huntley fly under the radar because intelligence about his previous behaviours held by police was not shared, but the DBS service was set up precisely in response to this. So that relevant information held by various organisations that would indicate that a person could be a risk would be collated and shared under DBS regs.

The only person that sees the documents is the employer or the organisation arranging the DBS check as it is their duty to verify that the person is who they say they are. From there the name (or names if they have given previous names) are checked against the relevant databases. I assume the weak link is somebody not declaring a previous name and that could equally apply to somebody changing their name after marriage as well as somebody changing their name due to a GRC.

Probably just pointing out the obvious here, but the following passage is distressingly disingenuous.

Our policies must adhere to the important protections afforded to transgender people, such as protecting an individual’s gender history, which are enshrined in the Gender Recogni-tion Act 2004.

If you read the GRA, the explanatory notes and all statutory guidance, it is clear, that those carrying out these checks on behalf of end users are of course not only allowed to see a person's transgender history, examine and check it, they also must under certain circumstances alert the end user that an individual has changed identity (end users thus informed of someone possessing a GRC are forbidden from revealing this information. The penalties are severe.)

I repeat, the Home Office itself in carrying out these checks is not only supposed to know and evaluate, they also must (under a very limited set of circumstances) reveal this to certain end users.

The passage above however is worded to give the impression that even those carrying out these checks aren't allowed to know, let alone pass on a subject's GRC-status. This is inaccurate and misleading. If this is what the Home Office itself believes, one may wonder whether they are capable of doing the job they are supposed to do even when an individual discloses their previous identity.

So RobinMoiraWhite, any chance you could respond, given your post?

Oh, you’re a hoot, Datun.

So employers are allowed to trawl back through someone’s embarrassing social media posts from when they were a young and impressionable teenager, and possibly choose not to employ them based on what they find, and yet a transgender person is allowed to erase the truth of their birth sex from the same employer?

Perhaps all those expressing (misguided) outrage might want to put down their megaphones and examine their reasons for jumping to the conclusions they have?

I do love the irony of people saying this about us when they rarely read anything we actually say and they're just looking for things they can argue against.

Is that right?

Yes, Datun. In all its safeguarding horror, that is right.

I'm really struggling with the issue that the person being checked for criminal history, is the one everyone is relying on to offer the information that they have changed their name (trans, or otherwise).

It makes a DBS check utterly pointless.

Although many people will have later dates on their birth certificates, if the original was lost, or damaged ?

Yes SirVix - Adopted children, for example, have birth certificates dated from their adoption.

I agree with Lang and Datun. DBS is now pointless.

I’m busy for the next little while, but I’m planning to write a response later on today. I don’t have high expectations for effective action, but I can at least challenge the inconsistencies in the letter and cite my professional experience of safeguarding and how it is supposed to work.

So the later date won’t flag up as a possible change in name or official gender, as it is common.
I also agree that the wording about the “important protections” given to trans people is deeply worrying, given how a man can use this legal fiction to disappear.
In life it is generally blatantly obvious what sex someone is. In document form not. So the “important protections” bit is ridiculous anyway, as anyone working with random person in question, would be quite aware that they are trans.

anyway, as anyone working with random person in question, would be quite aware that they are trans.

In which case you could quite easily choose not to employ them in the first place.
So it’s a win win for you innit!

I was thinking scenario through actually. I used to manage a team of health professionals and am familiar with DBS at recruitment. I was pondering what I would do if a TW presented with documentation in their acquired name without saying anything. And before anyone jumps up at the back, yes, us women do know.

I can imagine any attempt to probe further would be met with a furious response, a possible legal challenge and very likely some sort of social media witch hunt. I’m also not confident that the NHS and charities I have worked for would support the recruiting manager concerned.

Personally, I wouldn’t go a long with a lie. But I can see how it could happen.

I have been searching Mumsnet without success for an earlier thread where someone who works/worked for the Police explained how convictions are linked when someone changes name.

The only difference where there is a GRC involved and someone also changes name is that the GRC holder has the right to have their previous name (or names? don't know the answer to this one - is it just the name on the GRC application?) omitted from the DBS info.

The DBS check should show all previous convictions but the name associated with the previous convictions will be the current name.

The issue with DBS and name changes, if there is one, applies to anyone who uses different names at any time in their life. TBH I think that the GRC issue is a red-herring in this respect.

There is some related discussion in this thread but I cannot find the posts by the person who worked for the police.

I did check this all out at the time and even found a copy of the user manual for the Police National Computer! (There are currently two relevant Police computer systems that are checked but there is a proposal that they would be merged.)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3627936-Letter-from-FOVAS-DAMNING-for-Stonewall#88266611

Oh. My. God.

It's quite simple at root. Which is more important?

Protecting children and other vulnerable people from sex offenders and other dangerous and unsuitable individuals?

Protecting trans people's uninterrupted validation?

I'm not going to say privacy, that's a red herring. Everyone's privacy is carefully managed during a DBS check, and it is an intrusive, highly sensitive process. For a good, important reason.

Can we put that question to the general public please, because they'll have no doubts whatsoever. Not about their answer, and not about what they think about political parties furthering this.