V1525 – Inclusivity of Titles by DBS Providers 2020

Watch
Poll: Should this bill be made into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye. (25)
58.14%
On the contrary, Nay (17)
39.53%
Abstain. (1)
2.33%
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 months 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.


0
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 months ago
#2
The changes that were requested haven't been included, so Nay.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 months ago
#3
Mx? :laugh:
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 months ago
#4
What's that phrase about thing that aren't broken again?
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 months ago
#5
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
The changes that were requested haven't been included, so Nay.
I've included all requested changed as far as I'm aware, apart from removing titles completely, which I'm proposing would fall under a different bill - I don't recall anything being raised again in a second reading?
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 months ago
#6
:nope:
Last edited by Mr T 999; 11 months ago
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 months ago
#7
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
What's that phrase about thing that aren't broken again?
Not broken for Jammy ≠ not broken
0
Mainline421
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 months ago
#8
Think I just accidentally voted No here which was meant for 'P98' If so please change to aye Andrew97
1
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 months ago
#9
Nay.
0
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 months ago
#10
What about ”Father” or ”Sir”?
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 months ago
#11
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
What about ”Father” or ”Sir”?
Sir is less used than all of those listed in the OP, so it would fall under 'Other'. I haven't seen any figures on Father, so I'm not sure of its prominence.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 11 months ago
#12
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Not broken for Jammy ≠ not broken
PRSOM
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 months ago
#13
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
Not broken for Jammy ≠ not broken
Broken for the left =/= broken, in fact normally it means creating a problem out of thin air to solve instead of tackling the real issues. This is a prime example of that, yet another bill designed to pander to the severely mentally ill, but then we are talking about a government that actively endorses self mutilation (while rather bizarrely also being against self harm). Then again, this is the foreign aid supporting government that has de facto abolished foreign aid for the developing world

This is also a prime example of an objectively bad bill given section three does absolutely nothing
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 11 months ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 months ago
#14
(Original post by shadowdweller)
Sir is less used than all of those listed in the OP, so it would fall under 'Other'. I haven't seen any figures on Father, so I'm not sure of its prominence.
Meanwhile you include the incredibly rare Mx in the "most used" category and falsely categorise Lord and Lady as honorific (or you could go and change Wikipedia categories
0
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 11 months ago
#15
(Original post by shadowdweller)
Sir is less used than all of those listed in the OP, so it would fall under 'Other'. I haven't seen any figures on Father, so I'm not sure of its prominence.
If you can be a Reverend, why not accept Father as a title? I assume the authors of this Bill are not showing anti-Catholic prejudice here.
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 months ago
#16
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Meanwhile you include the incredibly rare Mx in the "most used" category and falsely categorise Lord and Lady as honorific (or you could go and change Wikipedia categories
May I suggest pointing to relevant information on Lord/Lady if you wish them to be classified differently?
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
If you can be a Reverend, why not accept Father as a title? I assume the authors of this Bill are not showing anti-Catholic prejudice here.
Because Rev was one of the most commonly used in the sources I've been able to find on it. As I clearly stated in my previous reply, I do not know the prominence of 'Father'; if it's as commonly used I see no reason it couldn't be added.
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 11 months ago
#17
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
This is also a prime example of an objectively bad bill given section three does absolutely nothing
Calling a bill 'objectively bad' for adhering to all the sections in the template is a little rich. You also had two readings to address that, so it's a little redundant to do so now.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#18
One Nay has been changed to an Aye for Mainline421
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#19
Order, order!

The ayes to the right: 26
The Noes to the left: 16
Abstains: 1

The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. Unlock!
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 (56)
15.64%
I'm not sure (11)
3.07%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (122)
34.08%
I have already dropped out (6)
1.68%
I'm not a current university student (163)
45.53%

Watched Threads

View All