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

Update

We have been working closely with the Independent Schools Council (ISC) to put practical questions to the Department for Education (DfE) on the application of the peer exemption, particularly following the removal of the supervision exemption. The DfE confirmed on 23 September 2026, and again on 9 October 2026 (after this article was initially 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. We have updated the note to reflect the DfE’s clarification which, in our view, provides some flexibility around the composition and meaning of ‘group’ and partnership activities.

Initially, the DfE indicated that the peer exemption does not ordinarily apply to pupils volunteering in a different school, including a school within the same multi-academy trust. However, the DfE has subsequently indicated that schools may consider whether other organised group activity, such as an established organised school partnership, forms a single ‘group’ for the purposes of the peer exemption (see ‘Key limitations and risks’ below).

Our interpretation of the latest (9 October) guidance from the DfE is as follows:

• Volunteers must be under the direction of someone in regulated activity. It does not seem to be critical which school the overseeing member of staff is from. In that sense, it could be from the pupil’s own school, or the partnership school.
• The focus is on the composition of the ‘group’ and some helpful latitude is given for partnerships. Our note below sets out the steps a school will need to take when considering whether it is a ‘group’. If an established partnership falls within the terms of the peer group, this should be supported by a risk assessment. As this is a safeguarding measure, ideally this should be led by the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL). The DSL in a school is most likely to have relevant information about the context of pupils’ volunteering. The risk assessment should record why the peer exemption applies (or that the school is relying on the peer exemption) and that DBS checks with barred list information are not required. The risk assessment should also include the school’s rationale for why it believes it is still meeting all safeguarding requirements. Inspectors may ask, and in the worst case scenario of a safeguarding incident, schools need to feel confident in setting out the measures they have put in place.
• The location of the activity is not critical but is a factor to take into consideration as part of the risk assessment.
• Any decision on whether the peer exemption applies rests on whether pupils are under the direction of someone in regulated activity and whether the school can show they are part of the same peer group. Our view is that the context of ‘group’ may therefore include, for example, a sports club run on the school site, where everyone in the hockey club (even if they are from different schools) will be part of a ‘group’. More senior pupils may rely on the peer exemption in that scenario, subject to a risk assessment.

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 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 DfE has now indicated that a ‘group’ can be interpreted to mean pupils within a single school, as well as an established, organised school partnership. 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 initial 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, other than to say on 9 October 2026 that any risk assessment should ideally be led by the DSL. There is no reference to maintaining records, timetabled oversight, documentation of supervisory arrangements or any other form of compliance evidence. In our view, schools should document a written risk assessment confirming why the peer exemption applies in the particular circumstances, as inspectors may ask for it.

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.

The peer exemption is not a blanket exclusion. It applies to 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 (including at a different site or division of that school, and outside timetabled sessions such as a breakfast club) 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.
• 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).
• In-school volunteering outside timetabled sessions (e.g. breakfast club, sports club or DofE volunteering): the peer exemption applies to sixth form pupils volunteering with younger pupils in the same school, including in a different division or site of that school, and is not confined to timetabled volunteering slots. For example, a pupil helping in a breakfast club one morning a week will not be in regulated activity, provided that they are genuinely assisting, or acting under the direction of, a member of staff who is in regulated activity throughout. The analysis turns on the substance of the arrangement, not its label: describing the activity as a ‘pupil leadership’ or ‘service’ activity rather than ‘volunteering’ does not alter whether it is regulated activity. If the pupil would at any point be in sole charge of children, the exemption would not apply for that period. Schools should document a risk assessment confirming why the peer exemption applies in the particular circumstances, as well as documenting why any safeguarding measures are appropriate.
• Sixth form pupils on work experience in their own school: in our view, two separate provisions are relevant. Where the work experience pupil is supporting younger children (for example, with reading or classwork), the question is whether the pupil is under the direction of a member of staff and whether the peer exemption applies. In a five-day placement this may meet the frequency condition, but the peer exemption will apply if the pupil is acting under the continuous direction of a member of staff in regulated activity. Where the placement affords the pupil a degree of independence (for example, working alone with children), the peer exemption may not apply and an enhanced DBS check with barred list information should be considered and documented.
• External work experience placements and supervisors: Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026 (KCSIE) states the frequency test (more than three days in a 30-day period, or overnight) for those supervising children on work experience, but also states that schools cannot ask providers to obtain enhanced DBS checks with barred list information for staff supervising 16–17-year-olds. In our view, these positions are reconciled by the employment exclusion: supervisors of 16–17-year-olds on genuine placements are not in regulated activity, whereas designated supervisors of under-16s who meet the frequency or overnight condition may be. Schools should record their interpretation of the interaction between KCSIE and the SVGA 2006 (for example, in their work experience policy and the triage record for each placement) to demonstrate that they have had regard to KCSIE.

• Evidence from placement providers: where a supervisor is in regulated activity, the provider (as the organisation responsible for the activity) is ordinarily the party that should obtain the check. Written confirmation from the provider that each named supervisor holds an enhanced DBS certificate with barred list information and is not barred is, in our view, a proportionate form of assurance. Schools should record the confirmation rather than the certificate contents, which also limits the school’s processing of criminal offence data under data protection law. Schools should not rotate supervisors to avoid the threshold.
• External volunteering, partnerships and host organisations: the DfE has indicated that a ‘group’ can be interpreted to mean pupils within a single school, but that schools may consider whether other organised group activity falls within the peer exemption, for example established organised school partnerships where those involved are considered to be a single ‘group’ of pupils.

Where a school concludes that an established partnership forms a single peer group, the location of the activity (whether at the pupil’s own school or the partner school) and the school from which the directing staff member comes do not appear to be determinative; the questions are whether the pupils form part of the same group and act under the direction of a person in regulated activity. The conclusion should be supported by a clear written risk assessment recording why enhanced DBS checks with barred list information are not considered necessary and how safeguarding requirements continue to be met, as inspectors may ask for it.

Where the peer exemption does not apply (for example, ad hoc volunteering at an unconnected external organisation), pupils over 16 who teach, train, instruct, care for or supervise children frequently (on more than three days in a 30-day period) or overnight will be in regulated activity, and the host organisation, as the regulated activity provider, is responsible for ensuring that the volunteer is not barred. The sending school should satisfy itself, through its placement arrangements, that the host has considered this.

• Under-16s volunteering in other schools: DBS checks are not available to individuals under 16, but the DfE does not consider that this should prevent such pupils volunteering with younger pupils. The receiving school should risk assess the volunteering, taking account of the activity and the age and needs of all pupils, and may ask the volunteer’s own school, ideally through the DSL, whether there are safeguarding concerns that ought to be shared. Unchecked volunteers should not be left unsupervised.
• Under-16s and pupils over 16 volunteering at the same event/activity: there is nothing to preclude under-16s and pupils over 16 from volunteering at the same event/activity. In those circumstances, schools will need to consider whether the peer exemption will apply to those over 16 and, if not, relevant checks should be undertaken.
• Blanket DBS checks for all sixth-form pupils: we do not recommend this approach. An enhanced DBS check with barred list information may only lawfully be requested where the individual will be engaging in regulated activity (or otherwise falls within the eligibility criteria for that level of check). Requesting such checks for pupils whose placements are not regulated activity (understood to be around 80% of the cohort) would risk ineligible applications and the processing of criminal offence data without a lawful basis, contrary to the data minimisation and proportionality principles under UK GDPR. A blanket approach would also be costly, administratively burdensome and would not displace the host organisation’s own safeguarding responsibilities.
• A targeted approach: under which checks are obtained only where a specific placement amounts to regulated activity, is more defensible. Ordinarily, the host organisation should apply for the check through its own registered body, since it is responsible for the activity (applying the KCSIE guidance on volunteers). If a school wishes to assist (for example, to overcome host reluctance), it should first confirm that the placement is regulated activity, that the application can properly be made on the correct workforce and position basis, and that its role and any information sharing with the host are documented and agreed in writing. Where a check is obtained, the standalone barred list check may be used if the volunteer starts before the certificate arrives, save in EYFS settings, where the volunteer should not start until the certificate is received. DBS checks are free for volunteers, and the DBS Update Service allows checks to be carried across settings.

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. Ensure the DSL is involved or leading this assessment process.
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.
6. Triage work experience placements by age: record, for each placement, the pupil’s age on the first day, whether any supervisor meets the frequency or overnight condition and, for under-16s, written confirmation from the provider that named supervisors are not barred
7. Avoid blanket DBS checks: obtain checks only where a specific placement is regulated activity and eligibility is confirmed, and update placement agreements so that host organisations acknowledge their own checking and referral duties.

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 and also within ‘group’ activities, without enhanced DBS checks, provided that 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 to the DfE that it would be helpful to have some practical examples.

To assist with understanding the updates to the peer exemption, HCR Law is currently preparing an FAQ document and flow chart to support you in understanding and applying these updates in your setting.