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

[IwantToRetire]

From a recent NHS job advert:

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) offers a confidential checking service for transgender applicants in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This is known as the sensitive applications route, and is available for all levels of DBS check - basic, standard and enhanced.

The sensitive applications route gives transgender applicants the choice not to have any gender or name information disclosed on their DBS certificate that could reveal their previous identity. To contact the sensitive applications team, please telephone

https://www.nhsjobs.com/job/UK/North_Yorkshire/Scarborough/York_Scarborough_Teaching_Hospitals_NHS_Foundation_Trust/Physiotherapist/Physiotherapist-v6767892

Government Guidance
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

KPSS wrote about this being a safeguarding issue 2 years ago
https://kpssinfo.org/dbs-checks-and-identity-verification-pdf/

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 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).

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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? )

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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'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.

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.

The special helpline for DBS is a bit like the the sex marker on the passport. Passports aren't designed to confirm sex, therefore it doesn't matter that the sex is inaccurate.

DBS don't check for sex, so it doesn't matter that it hides the applicants sex.

Meanwhile there's no way of confirming someones sex, even if the sex is relevant to the work.

The helpline also legitimises the applicant trans status without doing any checking.

If an obvious man attends an interview with a clear dbs record and a female name, do the interviewers assume that he has been through a process similar to that to get GRC? He could have changed his name for the interview.

Off topic completely, but I don’t think he could remember a password that long without referring to some notes prepared by an advisor ;)

Hence we have to repeal the GRA

As I have not had any dealings with the police, I presume they have no records with my name.

But I dont think this says they don't complete the form accurately. It says they still complete the form as anyone else would, but to call the team. It's just the resulting certificate doesn't say thier "old' sex on it.

The purpose of a dbs is to tell you about specific things relating to convictions. If it still tells you those things it's not an issue.

I'm just still not clear if it tells you those things from this but I think it does.

Yes, but I think if you change your name on marriage and don't fill out the form highlighting this, they somehow can reject your application or it really slows it down. So somehow they know things aren't matching up.

But if not, this is a massive loop hole for anyone who changes thier name on marriage or by deed polll who decides not to give previous names. As my current I'd doesn't have my old names on it.

But wouldn't that same problem apply to anyone who changed their name? That feels like a name change problem not a sensitive disclosure process problem?