Peer exemption, DBS requirements and the removal of the supervision exemption under the Crime and Policing Act 2026

Update

The Department for Education (DfE) confirmed on 23 September 2026, after this article was written, that the peer exemption applies to sixth-form pupils volunteering with younger pupils within the same school. This includes volunteering with other year groups or at different sites operating as part of the same school.

The peer exemption does not, however, apply to pupils volunteering in a different school, including a school within the same multi-academy trust.

Overview

This briefing note addresses the implications of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (the Act) for schools in respect of DBS checking requirements for pupil volunteers, prefects and sixth-form students who assist with younger children.

With effect from 1 September 2026, the Act removed the ‘supervision exemption’ from the definition of regulated activity in Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (SVGA 2006). The supervision exemption had previously permitted volunteers who were supervised by a person in regulated activity to be treated as not being in regulated activity themselves, removing the requirement for an enhanced DBS check with children’s barred list information.

The removal of this exemption has given rise to concern among schools, particularly in relation to sixth-form pupils and prefects who regularly volunteer in younger years in the same school, including Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). The question is whether such pupils now require enhanced DBS and barred list checks.

The EYFS Framework operates within the definitions established by the SVGA 2006. Where the Framework refers to ‘volunteers’, it refers to volunteers as defined and regulated by the SVGA 2006 framework. If a person is not in ‘regulated activity’ by virtue of the peer exemption, that person is not a ‘volunteer in regulated activity’ for the purposes of the DBS checking regime.

The EYFS Framework language therefore does not override or displace the peer exemption. The phrase ‘including all volunteers’ captures all persons who are volunteers in regulated activity; it does not extend the definition of regulated activity to include persons who fall outside it by reason of paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 (as set out below).

The DfE confirmed in an email dated 2 September 2026 that the ‘peer exemption’ in Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 5 of the SVGA 2006 continues to apply. This is a separate statutory provision from the supervision exemption and was not removed by the Act.

For those who would like to understand what the peer exemption actually says, it reads as follows:

“A person who is part of a group in relation to which another (P) engages in regulated activity relating to children does not engage in regulated activity only because he assists P or does anything on behalf of or under the direction of P which, but for this paragraph, would amount to engaging in regulated activity relating to children.”

For this purpose, ‘group’ is supported by DBS guidance, which confirms that a group must meet specific conditions, such as a shared purpose (for example, a sports team, educational cohort or school), that assistance happens within the peer network, and that the overall activity is overseen by an authorised leader (such as a teacher or Head). The supervision exemption was a policy-driven carve-out designed to reduce the bureaucratic burden on organisations deploying supervised volunteers. It operated as an exemption from otherwise applicable DBS requirements.

The peer exemption, by contrast, is structural. It operates at the definitional level: it determines that certain activity is not regulated activity at all when performed under the direction of a person who is in regulated activity.

The peer exemption is not a waiver from DBS requirements; it is a threshold exclusion from the definition of regulated activity itself. If the peer exemption applies, the individual is not in regulated activity. The frequency condition (more than three days in any period of 30 days) is therefore moot because the activity does not reach the definitional threshold in the first instance.

The peer exemption applies only where the pupil is genuinely under the direction of a member of staff who is in regulated activity. This is a factual question that depends on the specific arrangements in place. If a pupil is left unsupervised or without direction, the exemption would not apply during that period. The DfE response does not acknowledge this factual dependency, which is the critical practical issue for schools.

The DfE response provides no guidance on how schools should evidence that the conditions for the peer exemption are met. There is no reference to maintaining records, timetabled oversight, documentation of supervisory arrangements or any other form of compliance evidence.

This is the paradigm case addressed by the DfE response. Where a sixth-form pupil or prefect regularly assists in an EYFS or prep school setting — for example, by helping with reading groups, art activities or classroom organisation — the peer exemption analysis turns on whether the pupil is genuinely acting under the direction of a member of staff who is in regulated activity.

If the factual conditions are met, the pupil is not engaging in regulated activity and an enhanced DBS check with children’s barred list information is not required as a matter of law.

However, the school must be able to demonstrate that the conditions are met at all times. The peer exemption is not a blanket exclusion. It applies activity by activity and moment by moment. If a pupil is left in sole charge of a group of children, the exemption would not apply during that period and the pupil would, for that period, be in regulated activity (assuming the other conditions of Schedule 4 are met).
Schools will need to put in place arrangements that ensure continuous direction by a member of staff in regulated activity for the duration of the pupil’s volunteering activities.

This means that pupils who are assisting or are under the direction of teachers or other staff in the same school will not themselves be in regulated activity in relation to other students in the school. In those circumstances, the peer exemption applies.

Key limitations and risks

The peer exemption is factually dependent. Schools should be aware of the following:

• Continuous direction required: the exemption applies only for so long as the pupil is genuinely under the direction of a staff member in regulated activity. If a pupil is left without direction, the exemption does not apply during that period
• EYFS ‘including all volunteers’ language: the EYFS Framework 2026 adds this phrase to its safeguarding requirement that every person aged 16 or over who works directly with children must obtain an enhanced DBS with a barred list check (paragraph 3.15). On proper analysis, this captures volunteers in regulated activity only because it is not possible to request a barred list check for someone who is not in regulated activity. However, the EYFS Framework imposes its own suitability and supervision requirements for all persons who have contact with EYFS-age children, regardless of regulated activity status. While there is a carve-out for occasional volunteers (in the footnote to paragraph 3.15), there is no reference to the peer exemption. Despite this, our view is that if the peer exemption applies, the volunteer will not be in regulated activity and therefore the requirement to obtain a DBS check with a barred list is not applicable
• Work experience pupils: older pupils doing work experience in their own school are analytically distinct from in-school volunteers. The degree of independence afforded to a pupil on work experience may mean the peer exemption does not apply. Schools should apply a case-by-case risk assessment (see recommendations below).

Practical recommendations and next steps

1. Rely on the peer exemption with documented evidence: maintain written records of supervisory arrangements for each pupil volunteer programme, identifying the directing staff member, the timetable and procedures ensuring continuous direction. If the peer exemption is correct, the frequency test for regulated activity is a moot point
2. Maintain a pupil volunteer register as part of the school’s safeguarding records, updated regularly
3. Conduct written risk assessments recording the basis on which the peer exemption is considered to apply
4. Audit existing volunteer arrangements to identify any volunteers previously relying on the supervision exemption. If the peer exemption does not apply and they are now in regulated activity, obtain enhanced DBS with barred list checks promptly
5. Where conditions are uncertain, obtain a DBS check for pupils aged 16 and over.

Conclusion

The peer exemption provides a legally sound basis for schools to continue deploying sixth-form pupils and prefects as volunteers in their own school setting without enhanced DBS checks, provided the conditions for the exemption are met in practice.

These conditions are fairly strict and a fact-specific risk assessment should be kept. We will monitor future developments and have suggested that it would be helpful to have some practical examples from the DfE.