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.

But as the dbs application asks if the applicant has ever had a different name and the date it was changed, they would be obliged to declare it at that point even if they hadn't disclosed it to their employer? Fairly certain I remember the form stating omitting or giving false info was a criminal offence. And although that relies on the individual being honest, that's also true of others who, for example, have changed their name via deed poll or taken their spouses name. Obviously it's still a massive loophole, but not one that I can see is solely exploitable by people who have a GRC.

Actually I suppose that's isn't really a loophole is it? As loopholes are legal and by omitting a previous name the applicant would be committing fraud! So it's more a vulnerability in the system.

Would Ian Huntley have volunteered his previous identities on a form if given a choice?

With those kind of serious criminal offenses behind him, would he really have been that bothered about the offense of not disclosing information on a form?

The DBS was designed to prevent another Huntley. What comes up in almost every serious case review where a child or vulnerable person has been seriously harmed or killed? Unwillingness for authorities to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions of adults, or to think the unthinkable - the impolite, the suspicious, the putting the child's safety before adults' feelings.

This is against all basic policy.

Totally agree, my point was its not specifically a GRC issue as its exploitable by anyone. I think I understand where robin was coming from when they said trans people are exposed to the same checks as everyone - the onus is on the individual to be upfront in all cases, and not just as a gesture of goodwill, it is a legal requirement to disclose previous identities whatever the circumstances. The system is weak, slightly better now the checks are every 3 years, but still hardly a challenge or deterrent to those who are determined to target vulnerable adults/children.

It's easily solved.

Make the birth certificate a required, not an optional, document and, if it is not dated within 12 months of birth, then provide details of previous identity.

Good idea, can't see any (reasonable) reason why someone wouldn't be willing to submit a birth certificate. Maybe if they were in witness protection although I'm sure in those cases the secret service would have created an established fake birth certificate - must stop watching trashy crime dramas on Netflix.......

This is a very alarming hole in the system. It shouldn't be that easy for someone to fail to provide pertinent information.

Someone, somewhere right now, who has prior convictions, will be working out how to use this to their advantage. If they aren’t already acting on it.

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.

An employer may be happy to employ a trans person but would, naturally, expect a check on previous offences to be reliable.

I think that there is a problem with the DBS and the need for the applicant to be honest but that this is a problem with an application from anyone. I have read that there are some checks and balances built in within the system to detect this - although how good this system is idk.

I think that the real problem regarding transgender applicants with (and quite possibly even without) a GRC and who decide to use the sensitive applications system is not that any 'relevant' convictions that they might have won't be linked to them - I think that they will in the same way as they would for any other applicant. Instead it is that another key part of safer recruitment will be impacted which is the extra checks that should take place before the interview especially an internet search for concerning issues.

So if a transgender person has applied for a job at the school under their new name and legal sex. They will give their new details only on the form for the DBS check and then tell the DBS that they want to use the sensitive applications route. Meanwhile the recruitment team at the school shortlist the candidate and then carry out further checks on their name as shown on the passport etc. The school carry out the advised internet search and google the only name they have been given, and as far as they know the only name that the person has ever had, and nothing comes up of concern. This would mean that they could then go ahead and recruit without perhaps realising for example that they had been found to have a very poor understanding of safeguarding which had risked serious harm and caused reputations damage somewhere else they worked. Or perhaps (using real example of someone who is not actually transgender afaik) they would not see that the person had previously been criticised for behaving sexually inappropriately in the toilets of their workplace, a children's charity, and then posting a video of the behaviour online

• again demonstrating at the very least poor boundary and safeguarding awareness. Neither of these examples would show up in the DBS check but both would be important pieces of information that a school would need to at least discuss with the applicants during the interview before making a decision based on safeguarding hopefully.

This is where I think that the discrepancy lies. Any applicant who is not transgender would have to declare previous names and therefore their previous behaviour in the toilet on a children's charity would be revealed. In fact if they were not honest in declaring the previous names then they risk being found out and having to deal with the consequences.

Anyway that is the way I see it. The problem of the special sensitive application route for transgender people is not when they are dishonest about their name but rather when they are honest and complying with the system.

The problems of the DBS system are however massive and came been summarised as it is a poor system which will only detect and deter the very small number of predators/abusers who have ever been caught. But it also a system that is overrelied on by most who seem to take it as an indicator that a person is safe - rather than an indicator that perhaps this is a person who has not been caught yet - which the vast majority of abusers aren't.

klaxon for journalists but also for MPs- and this should be drawn to the attention of the Home Sec who is in charge of this area.

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/role/

^ This Parliamentary committee (chaired by Yvette Cooper MP) is there to independently examine and scrutinise the government’s home office policy, amongst other aspects of home office business.

Anyone worried about the fact that DBS checks appear to be easily circumvented can always email this committee to ask them to look into this area and copying in your own MP and Priti Patel MP the Home Secretary who oversees this area.

It’s completely unacceptable to put anyone’s personal validation over effective public safeguarding. It would seem to be a matter of urgency that MPs understand these concerns and can establish any further facts needed and then if needed put pressure on the government to get this policy changed.

This Commons debate, back in June when Sajid Javid was Home Secretary, shows that there are already concerns about the DBS checking system in relation to inadequacy of safeguarding, so these kinds of issues could all be looked at together:

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-07-15/debates/D77F86A8-B7B5-45C7-A7F1-37010E905A65/DisclosureAndBarringService

Chickenonamug Thank you for that detailed explanation about the impact of undisclosed name changes and the implications outside of the actual DBS check as well as DBS!

I had only been thinking in terms of DBS but you are right - there is also a problem that it obstructs "informal checking".

I run a closed email list for members of a local "hobby group" (vague wording so as not to self-doxx!). I get occasional applications to join the email list from people who I have never heard of so I do an internet search.

One time this turned up information about a man with multiple convictions, several leading to imprisonment, under various aliases in different parts of the UK - including locally. The court record of the most recent conviction listed all known aliases at that time and he happened to use one of those aliases when he applied to join the email list.

He was also on a "court restriction" (something like that) that prohibited him from teaching in the area of interest of the "hobby group" - he had genuine professional qualifications in that subject at beyond university degree level.

His name was unusual and the nature of the "hobby group" was directly related to the interests of victims he had previously targeted, so I was very confident that I had identified the right person.

Had he given a new alias when he applied to join the email list, I would have been none the wiser. Admitting him to the email list and/or the real-life hobby group would VERY likely have endangered group members.

I should point out that none of the convictions, although serious, were for sexual offences or violence - they were for fraud and theft - although in one case he had "groomed" a female victim by starting a "romantic" and later a sexual relationship with her.

For the protection of members of the "hobby group" and of other similar groups, I emailed them with information about this man, with links to records of his convictions, various aliases and photographs in the public domain. This was not just because he might try to join other groups but also because he was still listed on many web sites as a tutor with an official, professional address.

It makes me wonder . . . if he had been someone with a GRC but I had nevertheless managed to discover all this information about him, would I have been acting legally in "outing" him for the purpose of "preventing crime"? I would not know, of course, that he had a GRC, only that I was aware of aliases that were both male and female names.

I am so distressed that it seems trans persons are just okay....why wouldn't they be.

My daughter had to recently assure a particular uni that she was kosher.
Is that step ignored for trans?

Yes, because trans people are never guilty of anything due to their trans status.

Thanks for the link Chatty I had a mini family crisis yesterday so still haven’t replied to the HO. I’ll write to the committee as well now-

Just trying to work this out, using the example above from MoleSmokes of a man who commits multiple frauds and changes his name repeatedly. Currently a court could list all his known aliases during a case and a newspaper could report them. But if the same man used the GRC system to alternate between male and female, all those names and previous convictions could not be shared even if the court was able to link them. So with self-id this would allow anyone to walk away from all previous convictions. And now let’s imagine the criminal is not a fraudster but is a sex offender or murderer.
Am I missing anything here?

Al1ce great, I am putting it on my list for this weekend too. The more the better with these things.

Hi, there was an item on the news the other day about a similar thing, which I posted about. Someone linked this thread so thought I'd link mine here as there is a petition too and a couple of posts from people to do with the news item
"There is a petition if you would like to sign it:

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300705

Here is a link about the campaign:

www.thesafeguardingalliance.org.uk/campaign

Please do feel free to share the petition"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3978882-Just-saw-this-on-Sky-news-sex-offenders-disappearing-from-police-radar-by-changing-their-names-by-deed-poll?watched=1&msgid=98702264#98702264