B1525 – Inclusivity of Titles by DBS Providers 2020 (Second Reading)

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
B1525 – Inclusivity of Titles by DBS Providers 2020, TSR Government




Image
Inclusivity of Titles by DBS Providers Bill 2020


An Act to extend inclusivity of DBS checks and providers by ensuring a wider variety of titles to be included in application forms.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Inclusivity of Titles by DBS Providers.
(1a) DBS providers should include the current most used social titles: Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, and Mx in their application forms.
(1b) DBS providers should include the honorific titles Dr, Professor, Rev, Lord, and Lady, and the provisions in (2) should apply to honorific titles also.
(2) The providers should also allow user input for new social titles or, where this is not feasible, a provider should allow a user to request for a new title to be included in application forms, within reason.

2: Enforcement and Punishment
(1) Violation of this Act will be punishable by a fine not exceeding £1,000.

3: Exemption
(1) None.

4: Extent
This Act extends to the United Kingdom.

5: Commencement
The provisions of this Act come into in January 2020.

6: Short Title
This Act may be cited as the DBS Titles Act 2020.

Notes
  • Currently DBS providers do not have to include all titles in application forms; this means that someone using a title not recognised by a provider cannot proceed with a DBS check with them, thus restricting their opportunities.
  • Social titles do not require a deed poll to be changed, and do not require proof of identity to be used, so providers should not be providing limitations on these.
  • This has been updated to include the common titles included in the first reading.


Last edited by Andrew97; 11 months ago
0
Bailey14
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
I don’t see any reason to oppose this bill and support it.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
How would you prevent people taking the mickey and adding honorific titles they're not entitled to use? Or ones that are completely ridiculous, e.g. say, His Imperial Royal Majesty or something like that?
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
How would you prevent people taking the mickey and adding honorific titles they're not entitled to use? Or ones that are completely ridiculous, e.g. say, His Imperial Royal Majesty or something like that?
Realistically, you don't - but given that 'Other' is incredibly common place, and is already used for driving licences, I don't see this being a particular issue.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by shadowdweller)
Realistically, you don't - but given that 'Other' is incredibly common place, and is already used for driving licences, I don't see this being a particular issue.
I suppose it would also be subject to control/approval by admin staff.
1
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
Section 3 is pointless, it's a waste of words. Sections 4-6 should be merged. My points remain unanswered from the first reading
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Section 3 is pointless, it's a waste of words. Sections 4-6 should be merged. My points remain unanswered from the first reading
I replied to all of your posts - please do raise them again if you have any concerns though.

The sections are down to bill formatting, not this bill in particular, and therefore can't be merged.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by shadowdweller)
I replied to all of your posts - please do raise them again if you have any concerns though.

The sections are down to bill formatting, not this bill in particular, and therefore can't be merged.
Remove titles and have state-only or keep the three most common ones. This hybrid system is the worst of both worlds

Change bill formatting to be more realistic. No one else insists on pointless sections in their bills
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Remove titles and have state-only or keep the three most common ones. This hybrid system is the worst of both worlds

Change bill formatting to be more realistic. No one else insists on pointless sections in their bills
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way; it's not something I intend to address in this bill though, because a dropdown box with a few extra titles benefits those whose are included, but has no impact on those who were already there, so I don't really see a major downside to it.

I'm not intending to change it, and I'm not sure why you're solely raising it as an issue in this bill - if you take a look at other recent bills, most use the same.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
it remains an ain't broke
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#11
This item has entered cessation.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#12
Division, Clear the Lobby!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (105)
13.43%
I'm not sure (35)
4.48%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (241)
30.82%
I have already dropped out (19)
2.43%
I'm not a current university student (382)
48.85%

Watched Threads

View All