Is there enough safeguarding/vetting checks being carried out in the rail industry?

[Haywain]

£24.85 for one I obtained late last year,

You've been done! For clarity, I paid £18.00 in September 2024 for a basic check but it has gone up since then and £21.50 is the current price.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Maybe the industry needs to start considering enhanced Enhanced DBS checks given that this role is working with people including children and vulnerable adults

Personality tests might be another recruitment/interview tool but won't necessarily uncover somebody's past

 

[Iskra]

I don’t think increased vetting would stop this. Look at the police and armed forces, they still have their ‘bad apples.’ Regrettably, there is going to always be the odd isolated incident wherever you have a large pool of people and considering how rare it is to hear of something like this happening, that suggests the current system is working.

Credit to BTP for this one for taking it seriously, and for their swift and decisive action.

 

[Haywain]

this role is working with people including children and vulnerable adults

Some roles on the railway may encounter such people but you could equally apply that to most shopworkers, for example. And this thread started because of one incident, which is not proof of a major problem.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I do feel its unfair just picking on railway staff over this issue. Any large employer could potentially have an employee who eventually turns out to be a wrong`n. Should someone who applies for a job stacking shelves in a supermarket be subject to a DBS check? They are working amongst the public too!

 

[43066]

Railway staff have the power to detain people under the Regulation of Railways Act. It may or may not be a theoretical power- I fully appreciate RPIs are mostly told not to use it- but it is a power that is there. And that's before we consider whether, say, refusing to let someone exit through a gateline is 'detaining' them.

But it is nothing like the powers afforded to the police, which was the point I was making.

I think on board staff should be subject to an Enhanced DBS. When you consider the nature of the role, the power the roleholder has, and the access the role affords to vulnerable people, it's amazing that it isn't subject to Enhanced DBS.

I disagree. As others have pointed out, on board staff are no different to people in many other jobs which also don’t attract anything more than a basic check. You could make this argument about almost any role dealing with the public. Standard and enhanced DBS checks should continue to be reserved for roles where they’re absolutely justified.

I do feel its unfair just picking on railway staff over this issue. Any large employer could potentially have an employee who eventually turns out to be a wrong`n. Should someone who applies for a job stacking shelves in a supermarket be subject to a DBS check? They are working amongst the public too!

Agreed. The whole thread is based on one isolated incident where it isn’t clear whether the perpetrator had any prior convictions, and a quote from another thread taken out of context (the reference to “safeguards” didn’t mean of the DBS nature).

 

[Ghostbus]

It isn’t just “one random account” it’s years of experience of working in the industry, and entering messrooms, and other traincrew have said similar.

That is literally the meaning of a random account in this context. Hence why I asked you if there was anything more you were bringing to this other than simply being an employee.

Do you really think there weren't thousands of police officers with years of experience who were utterly shocked to learn rapists and psycopaths shared their mess rooms? They literally sat beside them in police cars, for hour after hour, year after year. Absurd in hindsight.

In light of all that I'm surprised you're even prepared to be so utterly sure there couldn't be a similar problem in the railway based on nothing more than your personal experience. "Zero evidence" is a big statement. But for a while there, that was the standard police response to questions about their culture.

It isn’t ever going to part of a contract to “report signs that someone poses a risk” - because it’s totally subjective and would be unenforceable.

Subjectivity is a fact of life in employment law. And it is very much enforceable. What do you think the assorted enquiries into missed opportunities to safeguard are even talking about? Hardly any of this is black and white.

That's the whole point. Opportunities to prevent harm are being missed, often because people in certain occupations were culturally conditioned not to assume the worst of their colleagues or appreciate the role they play in safeguarding.

Worse than that, responsibilities are being interepeted as objective matters of fact to argue such things cannot be done. It's absurd. Nobody's going to just come out and tell you they like abusing their power, or generally being a disreputable character.

That as a TM they're always on the lookout for a shy, quiet looking schoolgirl on her own in a quiet carriage, so she can be taken aside to have her ticket checked. Unless they've got some reason to think you would be interested in sharing stories, for bants or worse. Happened in the police. Bizarre but true.

It never happens on the railway, right. Based on what? Your eyes and years of experience? I asked you specific questions about what you've seen in your years of experience and what the railway does to be proactive in this area, and you've given only vague and blanket responses. It is disconcerting.

That's the purpose of this thread in my eyes, given the OPs framing. Bringing light to a potential issue. See if there's anything in it based on what we now know about risk and abuse. Where we're going wrong as a country. Our cultural blindspots.

Maybe there's nothing to see here. But don't be naive, and certainly don't insult people's intelligence. No offence, since I have no doubt that's not your intention. You probably do genuinely believe there is no problem. So did a lot of police officers, based on their years of experience. And Post Office managers. And clergy. Etc etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no snowflake or a fan of political correctness, oppressive working environments or witchunts. We need police and soldiers who are brave and tough and willing to make a mistakes. That's character. We need railway people capable of conveying authority, even power. If only to prevent other passengers feeling like they can commit sexual assaults on a train and get away with it.

But there is a world of difference between a genuine mistake and not even recognising you were making a mistake. Proactive not reactive.

I don’t think increased vetting would stop this. Look at the police and armed forces, they still have their ‘bad apples.’ Regrettably, there is going to always be the odd isolated incident wherever you have a large pool of people and considering how rare it is to hear of something like this happening, that suggests the current system is working.

That's literally what the police and Army said. Just a few bad apples. Odd isolated incident. Not a cultural issue.

The implication being it wasn't commonly understood that certain units would be sitting in their vans passing judgment on a Friday night as to the sexual attractiveness of randomly passing women, having a good old laugh. Not even caring they were in the company of women officers, who didn't remotely feel empowered to report such a blatant failure to meet basic professional standards. Their literal employment contracts.

Policies officers, especially women officers you would think, knowing more than most that quite a few of those women are actually under age girls who later that night would be in incredibly risky situations potentially requiring their protection based on snap judgments when you've got very little information to go on.

I don't know about you, but it's a stretch for me to believe that the passage of a few hours is enough to ensure a police officer, especially in a group setting, challenges his possibly ingrained assumption that a drunk and scantiy dressed under age girl is not entitled to be seen as a potential victim, or a person with rights at all. Why wouldn't that also be in play on the average railway night shift? Or to be clear, what's being proactively done to ensure it isn't?

The highers ups in the police and Army were either totally misinformed or blatantly lying about their cultural issues. Neither of which are desirable qualities in a police or armed force.

I do feel its unfair just picking on railway staff over this issue. Any large employer could potentially have an employee who eventually turns out to be a wrong`n. Should someone who applies for a job stacking shelves in a supermarket be subject to a DBS check? They are working amongst the public too!

I don't know about you, but the average shelf stacker carries no actual or even implied authority over me as a supermarket shopper. Nor is there really any opportunity for them to interact with me without there being several other potential witnesses or CCTV cameras watching.

Who knows, perhaps the humble shelf stacker is subjected to assault in the workplace for more frequently than the humble train manager, for precisely this reason. Being seen as a representative, but without any actual power over the customer.

I've certainly seen it occur far more frequently with my own eyes, assaults on shop staff, than I've ever seen a train manager be assaulted. And yet I am quite happy to admit that since I go to the shops far more than I go on train, I'm not remotely in a position to judge.

 

[43066]

In light of all that I'm surprised you're even prepared to be so utterly sure there couldn't be a similar problem in the railway based on nothing more than your personal experience. "Zero evidence" is a big statement. But for a while there, that was the standard police response to questions about their culture.

It sounds to me as though you’ve decided there’s a problem, and nothing anybody can say will dissuade you, unless they can prove a negative.

If you or someone else can provide some actual evidence of a problem I’d be interested to see it. Until then, based on years of experience in the industry, I will continue to believe there isn’t one.

I asked you specific questions about what you've seen in your years of experience and what the railway does to be proactive in this area, and you've given only vague and blanket responses. It is disconcerting.

I was referring there to the other discussion you mentioned, where some people outside the industry had decided there was a misogynistic/racist culture in railway messrooms. Those who actually spoke from experience and said that there is no such culture were ignored.

Subjectivity is a fact of life in employment law. And it is very much enforceable. What do you think the assorted enquiries into missed opportunities to safeguard are even talking about? Hardly any of this is black and white.

You suggested that people be contractually required to report behaviours that concern them - I don’t see how putting that into en employment contract will make any difference to existing arrangements. It would be impossible to prove that someone had known of signs and ignored them.

I don't know about you, but the average shelf stacker carries no actual or even implied authority over me as a supermarket shopper.

They could ask you to leave and, use reasonable force to remove if you refused, as supermarkets are private property. If they catch you shoplifting they have the right to detain you (in practice this power is used by security guards, but all shop workers have it).

 

[Krokodil]

Wayne Cousins was nicknamed "the rapist" by others in his unit. Clearly the culture in that unit was absolutely rotten if that nickname didn’t ring alarm bells. Working in an environment where you see some very awful things can result in a very warped sense of humour as a coping strategy.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that there is such a culture on the railway. All we have here is one case and a load of speculation.

I'm not suggesting that harassment never happens, by the way. There isn't a workplace in the world where it doesn‘t. The Palace of Westminster seems to be one of the worst offenders, coupled with a drinking culture that would be absolutely verboten on the railway.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Working in an environment where you see some very awful things can result in a very warped sense of humour as a coping strategy.

I'm not suggesting that harassment never happens, by the way.

Yes it really does happen. I was unlawfully grabbed by a "jobsworth" agency security worker at my local station (and which encouraged a junior colleague to join in) for nothing more than walking on the platform to buy a ticket (the TVM was inside the revenue block) - it was truly a frightening experience

 

[Gostav]

I don't know about you, but it's a stretch for me to believe that the passage of a few hours is enough to ensure a police officer, especially in a group setting, challenges his possibly ingrained assumption that a drunk and scantiy dressed under age girl is not entitled to be seen as a potential victim, or a person with rights at all. Why wouldn't that also be in play on the average railway night shift? Or to be clear, what's being proactively done to ensure it isn't?

You have to believe that absolute security does not exist. No matter how strict the inspection is, sporadic incidents will still occur, most of which are completely isolated.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Maybe it's time for a change in culture/attitude(?)

The railway carries vulnerable children and adults so why shouldn't railway employees who interact directly with the public be subject to enhanced DBS checks? Other industries do so (e.g., teaching, healthcare...)

 

[superkopite]

That is literally the meaning of a random account in this context. Hence why I asked you if there was anything more you were bringing to this other than simply being an employee.

Do you really think there weren't thousands of police officers with years of experience who were utterly shocked to learn rapists and psycopaths shared their mess rooms? They literally sat beside them in police cars, for hour after hour, year after year. Absurd in hindsight.

In light of all that I'm surprised you're even prepared to be so utterly sure there couldn't be a similar problem in the railway based on nothing more than your personal experience. "Zero evidence" is a big statement. But for a while there, that was the standard police response to questions about their culture.

Subjectivity is a fact of life in employment law. And it is very much enforceable. What do you think the assorted enquiries into missed opportunities to safeguard are even talking about? Hardly any of this is black and white.

That's the whole point. Opportunities to prevent harm are being missed, often because people in certain occupations were culturally conditioned not to assume the worst of their colleagues or appreciate the role they play in safeguarding.

Worse than that, responsibilities are being interepeted as objective matters of fact to argue such things cannot be done. It's absurd. Nobody's going to just come out and tell you they like abusing their power, or generally being a disreputable character.

That as a TM they're always on the lookout for a shy, quiet looking schoolgirl on her own in a quiet carriage, so she can be taken aside to have her ticket checked. Unless they've got some reason to think you would be interested in sharing stories, for bants or worse. Happened in the police. Bizarre but true.

It never happens on the railway, right. Based on what? Your eyes and years of experience? I asked you specific questions about what you've seen in your years of experience and what the railway does to be proactive in this area, and you've given only vague and blanket responses. It is disconcerting.

That's the purpose of this thread in my eyes, given the OPs framing. Bringing light to a potential issue. See if there's anything in it based on what we now know about risk and abuse. Where we're going wrong as a country. Our cultural blindspots.

Maybe there's nothing to see here. But don't be naive, and certainly don't insult people's intelligence. No offence, since I have no doubt that's not your intention. You probably do genuinely believe there is no problem. So did a lot of police officers, based on their years of experience. And Post Office managers. And clergy. Etc etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no snowflake or a fan of political correctness, oppressive working environments or witchunts. We need police and soldiers who are brave and tough and willing to make a mistakes. That's character. We need railway people capable of conveying authority, even power. If only to prevent other passengers feeling like they can commit sexual assaults on a train and get away with it.

But there is a world of difference between a genuine mistake and not even recognising you were making a mistake. Proactive not reactive.

That's literally what the police and Army said. Just a few bad apples. Odd isolated incident. Not a cultural issue.

The implication being it wasn't commonly understood that certain units would be sitting in their vans passing judgment on a Friday night as to the sexual attractiveness of randomly passing women, having a good old laugh. Not even caring they were in the company of women officers, who didn't remotely feel empowered to report such a blatant failure to meet basic professional standards. Their literal employment contracts.

Policies officers, especially women officers you would think, knowing more than most that quite a few of those women are actually under age girls who later that night would be in incredibly risky situations potentially requiring their protection based on snap judgments when you've got very little information to go on.

I don't know about you, but it's a stretch for me to believe that the passage of a few hours is enough to ensure a police officer, especially in a group setting, challenges his possibly ingrained assumption that a drunk and scantiy dressed under age girl is not entitled to be seen as a potential victim, or a person with rights at all. Why wouldn't that also be in play on the average railway night shift? Or to be clear, what's being proactively done to ensure it isn't?

The highers ups in the police and Army were either totally misinformed or blatantly lying about their cultural issues. Neither of which are desirable qualities in a police or armed force.

I don't know about you, but the average shelf stacker carries no actual or even implied authority over me as a supermarket shopper. Nor is there really any opportunity for them to interact with me without there being several other potential witnesses or CCTV cameras watching.

Who knows, perhaps the humble shelf stacker is subjected to assault in the workplace for more frequently than the humble train manager, for precisely this reason. Being seen as a representative, but without any actual power over the customer.

I've certainly seen it occur far more frequently with my own eyes, assaults on shop staff, than I've ever seen a train manager be assaulted. And yet I am quite happy to admit that since I go to the shops far more than I go on train, I'm not remotely in a position to judge.

This is one of the most bizarre threads/posts I have read posted on these boards.

Your forced false equivocation between the Rail industry and the Met police, based on zero evidence, is extremely disconcerting.

 

[185]

Offences (by staff) like this are so rare, the likelihood of a repeat is the same or possibly less than in any other large organisation. In the sentencing notes, there is no mention of any previous offences so an enhanced DBS or even police officer recruitment vetting check (which includes eg your financials, even your family's criminal history) would probably have not made any difference in this case. The only item I can see relating to him was (I think) a mispa - his disappearance ten years earlier under a slightly different surname.

The thing that concerns me though, was BTPs rather minimal press release which, by omission, plays down what sounds like a far more serious incident worthy of the seven years jail, later detailed in the notes. No (redacted) CCTV has been released, despite this appearing to be a Hitachi unit with cameras literally everywhere. I'm guessing there was an earlier not guilty plea given the police's statement he was "....found guilty".

After the BT Police vs Martin Zee debacle, I won't entirely jump to a conclusion on this until after the appeal hearing. CCTV is 99% of the evidence in this day and age.

 

[Lewisham2221]

This is one of the most bizarre threads/posts I have read posted on these boards.

Your forced false equivocation between the Rail industry and the Met police, based on zero evidence, is extremely disconcerting.

Not only the false equivocation, but also the apparent assumption that - based on the actions of one rogue actor, and no concrete evidence to the contrary (which would be absolutely impossible to provide) - the railway is absolutely riddled with sexual predators. Truly bizzarre.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Maybe the industry needs to start considering enhanced Enhanced DBS checks given that this role is working with people including children and vulnerable adults

They can't just 'start considering' on a whim - there are strict rules on the circumstances in which particular checks can be requested and it can be a criminal offence to go beyond that. See here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/dbs-check-requests-guidance-for-employers

An enhanced check is not likely to be justifiable where someone comes into brief contact with children or vulnerable adults as part of their job, in a public place - if it was, that would cover pretty much everything which involved dealing with the public and would be disproportionate.

 

[Gostav]

Not only the false equivocation, but also the apparent assumption that - based on the actions of one rogue actor, and no concrete evidence to the contrary (which would be absolutely impossible to provide) - the railway is absolutely riddled with sexual predators. Truly bizzarre.

I don't think this person has any bad intentions, but is instead trapped in a polarized "yes or no" mindset - the occurrence of an assault case, it means that all railway employees are at risk of becoming sexual assaulters - it's either all or nothing, either absolutely safe or absolutely dangerous, there is no third possibility.

This polarized culture is palpable on Reddit, where the community often descends into endless arguments.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Some roles on the railway may encounter such people but you could equally apply that to most shopworkers, for example. And this thread started because of one incident, which is not proof of a major problem.

An enhanced check is not likely to be justifiable where someone comes into brief contact with children or vulnerable adults as part of their job, in a public place - if it was, that would cover pretty much everything which involved dealing with the public and would be disproportionate

I don't think we can, or should, compare the role of a guard or RPI with that of a Tesco cashier.

Trains are (semi) public places, yes, but the on-train roles come with a lot of responsibility and they come with a lot of power. Guards have a duty of care for the passengers on their train and that will include children and vulnerable adults. Both guards and RPIs have the power to enforce- and, crucially, the discretion not to enforce- the law on the railway.

It's a bit different to scanning a packet of crisps and a Ginsters pasty through the tills.

None of this is to say that the railways are a hotbed of inappropriate behaviour. But on-train staff have both a) a lot of autonomy and b) a lot of power and it should be easy to see how this can potentially be abused. Enhanced vetting to stop potential abusers from getting through the door only seems sensible to me.

I do think an Enhanced DBS should be required for guards/on-board supervisors/RPIs. I (correctly in my humble opinion) had to have one for my job at Citizens Advice, and this is despite the fact I had less direct contact with children and vulnerable adults than guards or RPIs ever would.

 

[43066]

Both guards and RPIs have the power to enforce- and, crucially, the discretion not to enforce- the law on the railway.

Not really, they are not police officers. If someone doesn’t pay a fare, and refuses to engage, there’s naff all they can do about it, other than call the police.

I could potentially see more of a case for it for railway enforcement officers, but then again, are shop security guards (roughly equivalent in terms of they’re expected by their employers to use force in certain circumstances) subject to anything more than a basic check?

I (correctly in my humble opinion) had to have one for my job at Citizens Advice,

Presumably you were privy to sensitive financial/legal information about individuals? A very different situation, and not remotely comparable to traincrew roles.

 

[Tetchytyke]

it means that all railway employees are at risk of becoming sexual assaulters - it's either all or nothing, either absolutely safe or absolutely dangerous, there is no third possibility.

It's about mitigating risk.

The likes of guards and RPIs have autonomy and they have power. I think we can easily acknowledge how these factors are appealing to people who don't, perhaps, have entirely benign intentions.

I am surprised that these roles aren't subject to Enhanced DBS. I think the law should be changed so that they are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Mar 2025 ==

The thing that concerns me though, was BTPs rather minimal press release which, by omission, plays down what sounds like a far more serious incident worthy of the seven years jail, later detailed in the notes.

The fact he was convicted of Assault by Penetration caught my eye. That is a particularly nasty offence and certainly goes far beyond "adjusting her dress", as the BTP press release phrased it.

ETA: Wales Online has more details.

Welsh train manager sexually assaulted teenager on carriage

'You took advantage of an alone and vulnerable young woman to satisfy your sexual hunger,' the judge told McMurray in the dock

www.walesonline.co.uk

Ian Wright, prosecuting, told the court the victim had drunk about five alcoholic drinks that day but was not inebriated. Towards the end of the train journey the teenager moved to the carriage doors to exit the train. There McMurray touched her right breast without invitation and kissed her “passionately and aggressively." He also penetrated her with his fingers.

When the carriage doors opened she immediately approached officers at the train station in Swansea who stayed with her for the rest of the day. She also had to undergo what were described as invasive procedures for evidence gathering.

The court heard the victim felt devastated and now suffers with anxiety around men - so much so she said she failed a driving test because she felt she couldn’t be in a confined space such as a car with a middle-aged man. McMurray, 38, who as well as being a train manager had also worked within development of young people in football in the Swansea area, constantly lied to police about what happened, blaming the teenager for coming on to him, but was eventually found guilty by jury of assault by penetration and sexual assault after a trial.

In this case an Enhanced DBS wouldn't, presumably, have picked up anything anyway- he must have had one to be a children's sport coach.

 

[RHolmes]

I don't think we can, or should, compare the role of a guard or RPI with that of a Tesco cashier.

Trains are (semi) public places, yes, but the on-train roles come with a lot of responsibility and they come with a lot of power. Guards have a duty of care for the passengers on their train and that will include children and vulnerable adults. Both guards and RPIs have the power to enforce- and, crucially, the discretion not to enforce- the law on the railway.

It's a bit different to scanning a packet of crisps and a Ginsters pasty through the tills.

It really isn’t

I have experience of working in retail and the railway as both a sales assistant and store manager and I had almost identical responsibilities in regards to safety and safeguarding as my current role of a railway guard.

I’d even go to say that I had greater responsibility in the retail environment as I was also required to hold a first aid qualification where as that’s not required in my railway role.

Retail staff also have a duty of care for the safety and wellbeing of their customers, and can equally face legal challenges for not doing so.

In regards to the legal powers I have in my guards role, it’s about as much use as a chocolate tea pot and no different to say dealing with Shoplifters than it is compared to fare evaders. Non-existent.

I do think an Enhanced DBS should be required for guards/on-board supervisors/RPIs. I (correctly in my humble opinion) had to have one for my job at Citizens Advice, and this is despite the fact I had less direct contact with children and vulnerable adults than guards or RPIs ever would.

I disagree on this point.
The amount of people I (and others in the role) deal directly with on a daily basis that are children and vulnerable adults from a time point of view is minimal, and the largest proportion of that time is less than 20 seconds during a ticket check, answering a question or helping with passenger assistance such as placing down a ramp.

Realistically I probably spend more time in the day staring at timings on my docket, fixing toilets or making a single service calling point announcement than I do around children/Vunerable adults in the guard/TM role to put it into perspective.

I’m not against the idea but I’d also say it’s that famous forum expression “tail wagging the dog”

 

[Indigo Soup]

I wonder what you thought you meant by "vetting"? I was relatively young when I first came across the term: it described the process by which applicants to certain Civil Service roles were subjected to detailed background checks (which could be quite intrusive) and typically included formal interviews with people other than the applicant.

It may be of interest to note that DBS, PVG and Level 1B National Security Vetting (what used to be called Counter-Terrorist Check) look at basically the same things, differing mostly in where the 'red lines' are drawn.

Certain railway duties would certainly appear to fall within the scope of Level 1B (and possibly higher in a few cases) vetting, though that would only incidentally catch anyone of safeguarding concern. People who've had security vetting still require DBS/PVG checks to work with vulnerable groups... it does come up occasionally.

I am surprised that these roles aren't subject to Enhanced DBS. I think the law should be changed so that they are.

I can see the argument that they should be; in that case, the same presumably ought to apply to bus drivers, taxi drivers and the likes, which would add a considerable burden to the disclosure bodies.

As it is, only bus drivers and taxi drivers who are specifically working with vulnerable groups who are eligible for disclosure.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I don't think we can, or should, compare the role of a guard or RPI with that of a Tesco cashier

I used Tesco as an example of a large employer. Their shop floor staff are no doubt expected to deal with lost children looking for their parents etc.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can see the argument that they should be; in that case, the same presumably ought to apply to bus drivers, taxi drivers and the likes, which would add a considerable burden to the disclosure bodies.

As it is, only bus drivers and taxi drivers who are specifically working with vulnerable groups who are eligible for disclosure.

Given that taxi drivers are essentially in a private car in charge of people who may well be vulnerable (even if it's purely self-inflicted through intoxication), I'd say they probably should be too.

The amount of people I (and others in the role) deal directly with on a daily basis that are children and vulnerable adults from a time point of view is minimal, and the largest proportion of that time is less than 20 seconds during a ticket check, answering a question or helping with passenger assistance such as placing down a ramp.

I take your point, but even a simple interaction such as checking a ticket has more involvement than scanning a bottle of pop through a till.

And when the interactions get less simple- someone doesn't have a ticket, someone is passed out, someone is in distress, etc- then your involvement will also rise. I do appreciate that most passengers will have a valid ticket and won't be passed out in their chair.

The RMT have long justified the presence of guards on trains owing to the enhanced safety protections, including to vulnerable passengers, that guards offer. If this is the case then I'd say an Enhanced DBS is sensible in the circumstances.

It goes without saying that what happened with this train manager is hugely out of the ordinary. But it does illustrate that the role comes with both autonomy and control and it does illustrate how that can be misused.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Anybody in positions of responsibility and devolved power dealing directly with the public (including vulnerable people), whether briefly or not, should in my book undergo enhanced DBS checks. I can spend 2 seconds or 2 hours with a child or vulnerable adult - the time spent makes no difference. It only takes seconds to sexually abuse a vulnerable person

The law should be changed IMHO

 

[muz379]

Not sure that enhanced DBS checking would have prevented this specific incident unfortunately given the former TM also worked with young people outside of work .

But apart from the cost / requirement to keep them updated don't on principle disagree with public facing rail staff having to undergo an enhanced DBS check . I suppose you would have to set a reasonable interval to re-check as well otherwise the DBS is only as good as the day it was issued .

As it is, only bus drivers and taxi drivers who are specifically working with vulnerable groups who are eligible for disclosure.

It is my understanding , and at least the practice of my local council licensing department that all taxi drivers are required to provide an enhanced DBS check certificate and register for the updates service when they apply for their license/renewal .

 

[The exile]

But apart from the cost / requirement to keep them updated don't on principle disagree with public facing rail staff having to undergo an enhanced DBS check . I suppose you would have to set a reasonable interval to re-check as well otherwise the DBS is only as good as the day it was issued .

A bit better than that - the “window” for doing something to “blot your DBS copybook” without your employer being involved or it leading to a conviction must be relatively small.

 

[island]

A basic DBS check costs £21.50 currently.

"£24.85 for one I obtained late last year, but that might have been a bit more than a 'basic' check. It's all down to what the potential employer is looking for.

£21.50 is the fee the DBS charges. When requesting via third party agencies a handling fee is often added.

Maybe the industry needs to start considering enhanced Enhanced DBS checks given that this role is working with people including children and vulnerable adults

This isn't "the industry's" decision to make. Access to standard and enhanced DBS checks is controlled by law and is quite rightly kept quite narrow to allow for rehabilitation and prevent employers going on fishing expeditions.

I suppose you would have to set a reasonable interval to re-check as well otherwise the DBS is only as good as the day it was issued .

The DBS offers a subscription system for £13 for standard and enhanced DBS checks that means the records are periodically rescreened and an online system shows whether the certificate can still be relied upon.

 

[John Luxton]

I think on board staff should be subject to an Enhanced DBS. When you consider the nature of the role, the power the roleholder has, and the access the role affords to vulnerable people, it's amazing that it isn't subject to Enhanced DBS.

I have an Enhanced DBS for my current job even though I rarely leave my office. I had an Enhanced DBS when I was a legal adviser at Citizens Advice. In both cases I completely agree that I should be subject to Enhanced DBS, yet I had and have far less access to vulnerable people than anyone working on a train does.

Do not some heritage railways require enhanced DBS checks? I am sure I read that somewhere, it wouldn't be a bad idea if network railway staff were also reqired to have them.

Unfortunately they are no guarentee of a clean slate - just an indiction of someone who has not yet been caught and recorded. Even in my former job, teaching, there have been numberous "bad eggs" from headteachers down to classroom assistants.

To be honest perhaps most jobs should require enhanced DBS?

If this was well known the mere fact might control the behaviour of those who might deviate from acceptable behaviour as not only might they end up in gaol but they could well be deprived of a job for the rest of their working life.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Do not some heritage railways require enhanced DBS checks? I am sure I read that somewhere, it wouldn't be a bad idea if network railway staff were also reqired to have them.

I’ve only been aware of that for Santa train staff.