How do PVG and AccessNI checks differ from a DBS check?

England and Wales: this page is not about you — DBS checks in England and Wales are covered on How do I actually run a DBS check, and what does it cost? Scotland: covered in full, and different in kind — PVG is a membership scheme with criminal offences for individuals and organisations; the fee figures are not given here, and membership offences committed outside Scotland can be prosecuted there. Northern Ireland: covered — AccessNI issues point-in-time certificates at three levels; failing to make a required referral is itself an offence there.

PVG is a membership scheme, not a check

Scotland’s system is scheme membership, not a one-off check. A person joins the PVG scheme for a type of regulated role and stays in it. Disclosure Scotland keeps checking their suitability while they stay in it.

This step is for the trustees or manager of a charity with work in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is the Scottish and Northern Irish counterpart of choosing the right level of check and running a DBS check. AccessNI, Northern Ireland’s system, is covered further down.

Scotland. This is a difference in kind, not in name. A certificate records a moment. PVG membership continues. In mygov.scot’s words, verbatim: “Disclosure Scotland will keep checking your suitability to work with children and protected adults, until you leave the scheme.”

The law also says who must be in it. Again verbatim: “It’s a legal requirement to join the PVG scheme if you’re going to do a regulated role.” And unlike in England, the law makes it a crime not to be in it. The crimes reach the organisation as well as the person.

The Scottish concept is “regulated roles”, not “regulated activity”. It comes from s.91 of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007, as substituted by the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 from 1 April 2025. It has no frequency test and no supervision exemption. The English regulated-activity test, and the DBS’s eligibility guidance, settle nothing in Scotland.

How the three nations’ systems compare is set out under criminal record checks.

So an English charity that opens a Scottish branch and uses its DBS policy there is not just using the wrong form. It may be committing an offence.

England and Wales has no equivalent of the membership offences below. There is no offence there of working, or of offering work, without a DBS check. The offences England and Wales does have are the barred-person and referral ones.

Four membership offences, and who commits each

Scotland. The 2007 Act, as amended in 2020, contains four offences about scheme membership, not two.

• Section 45C — the individual. Carrying out, or agreeing to carry out, a type of regulated role without being in the scheme for that type of role. In force from 1 July 2025. An agreement made subject to joining the scheme does not count as agreeing (s.45C(2)).
• Section 45D — the organisation. Offering a type of regulated role without first receiving a Level 2 disclosure confirming the person is in the scheme for that type of role. In force from 1 April 2025. It is an offence of offering the role, not of letting someone carry it out. An offer made subject to the organisation receiving that disclosure is not treated as an offer (s.45D(2)).
• Section 45E — the organisation, later. Failing to comply with regulations made under s.45E(1). It bites only once Scottish Ministers make those regulations. Whether any have been made was not established for this page.
• Section 45F — personnel suppliers. The equivalent offence for agencies that supply workers.

Section 45G sets the penalty for all four:

A person who commits an offence under section 45C, 45D, 45E or 45F is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).

The defences are not symmetrical. The individual has a two-limb defence under s.45C(3):

(a) to prove that the individual did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the role concerned was a regulated role, and (b) where the individual participated in the Scheme … to prove that the individual did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the individual's membership of the Scheme had not been renewed.

The organisation has a similar defence under s.45E(4) for the regulations offence. On the face of s.45D, it has none: the Act gives the organisation no defence of not knowing that the role was regulated. What s.45D(2) does instead is take a conditional offer out of the offence altogether. An offer made subject to receiving the Level 2 disclosure is not an offer for this purpose. Whether a particular offer was conditional in that sense is a question for a Scottish-qualified adviser.

Two groups the membership offences do not reach. Sections 45C(4) and 45D(3) take barred people and young people out of them:

Subsection (1) does not apply to an individual who is— (a) barred from the type of regulated role concerned (but see section 34), (b) aged under 16.

That is not a gap. A separate group of offences, carrying the same penalties, covers barred people.

The transition. Regulations made in 2025 saved two situations. An individual who had applied to join before the individual offence began, and whose application was still live, does not commit it.

An organisation may also have held a scheme record from before the reform, for the same type of work. If so, it can rely on that record instead of a fresh Level 2 disclosure.

The higher-consequence offence: offering a role to someone who is barred

Scotland. Sections 34 to 36 are the barred-person offences, and s.37 gives them the same penalty as s.45G. The one that matters most to a charity is s.35(1), the organisation’s offence. Verbatim:

It is an offence for an organisation to offer a regulated role to an individual barred from that role.

Here the organisation does have protection, of two kinds. Under s.35(6) there is a due-diligence defence: that it “did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the individual was barred”. Under s.35(7), there is no offence where the offer is conditional. The condition is that the organisation is satisfied the person is suitable to carry out the role.

Together with s.45D(2), this is why the wording of an offer matters in Scotland. The Act treats a conditional offer differently from an unconditional one.

Leaving this offence off a Scottish safeguarding page would be a safeguarding gap, not a drafting slip. The membership offences are the ones the sector talks about. This is the one that punishes putting a barred person in front of children.

The trustees personally, and conduct outside Scotland

Scotland. Two provisions change who can be prosecuted and where.

Section 89 reaches individuals. It applies where an offence under the Act is committed by a company, a Scottish partnership or an unincorporated association. If the offence was committed with a person’s consent or connivance, or was down to their neglect, that person is guilty too. The list covers:

• directors, managers and officers
• members of a body run by its members
• partners
• “a person who is concerned in the management or control of the association”

Read the last part again. Most small Scottish charities are unincorporated associations. Their trustees are exactly the people who manage them. A Scottish charity trustee can be convicted in person where the charity’s offence is proved to have been committed with their consent or connivance, or to be attributable to their neglect. The wider question of what trustees carry personally is covered on what trustees are personally liable for.

Section 37A reaches across the border — for the barred-person offences. An offence under ss.34 to 36 committed outside Scotland may be prosecuted in Scotland. That matters directly to an English charity with a Scottish branch.

Section 45H does the same for the membership offences. It was inserted by s.88(3) of the Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 and came into force with the organisation’s offence. Where an offence under ss.45C to 45F is committed outside Scotland, the person “may be prosecuted, tried and punished for the offence” in a Scottish sheriff court district. legislation.gov.uk’s revised text of the 2007 Act lists s.45H in its contents but does not yet display it; its words are read here from s.88(3) of the 2020 Act.

Whether a particular manager’s conduct outside Scotland falls within one of these offences is a question for a Scottish-qualified adviser.

Failing to refer is a crime in Scotland

Scotland. Organisations with people in regulated roles have a legal duty to report harmful behaviour to Disclosure Scotland. The duty is wider than the English one.

In mygov.scot’s words, verbatim, the duty “applies whether the person is a member of the PVG scheme or not”. Again verbatim, organisations “must report harmful behaviour even if it takes place outside of work, or if the organisation only finds out about it after the person has left.”

Failing to do so is an offence under s.9, committed by the organisation, with a statutory clock:

An organisation which fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a duty imposed by any of sections 3 to 5 within 3 months of the date on which the duty arose is guilty of an offence and liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both, (b) on a conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine, or to both.

Section 89 applies here too, so the people who manage the organisation can be liable personally. Making the reports has its own page: make the reports, and know which are legal duties.

PVG membership: how long it lasts, and what volunteers pay

Membership now expires — except for many who joined before

Scotland. Two things are true at once. Guidance written before the middle of 2026 will only tell you one of them.

• For anyone joining now, membership lasts 5 years. That took effect on 1 April 2026.
• For existing members, Disclosure Scotland is moving people across gradually. Its words, verbatim: “Existing members will move from lifetime membership to the five-year membership in phases. This work will take place over time … If you are already a PVG scheme member, you do not need to take any action.”

So a member who joined years ago may still hold lifetime membership. Guidance that says “lifetime” was right when it was written and is wrong for new members now. The statutory name for keeping membership current is a “confirmation of scheme membership”, under s.54, not a “renewal”.

Not free for volunteers by default

Scotland. PVG for volunteers is free only if the organisation registers as a Qualifying Voluntary Organisation. Most of the sector believes otherwise. mygov.scot, verbatim: “Some organisations can get free PVG checks for their volunteers … The organisation must register as a qualifying voluntary organisation (QVO).”

Registering as a QVO through Volunteer Scotland Disclosure Services is free. Registering directly with Disclosure Scotland carries an annual cost. This page does not give PVG fee figures. Check them with Disclosure Scotland before you budget.

Northern Ireland: AccessNI

Northern Ireland. The Northern Irish system is closer to the English one in shape. AccessNI issues certificates that record a moment, not scheme membership. But the detail is its own.

Three levels, and a trap. AccessNI issues basic, standard and enhanced certificates. The trap is standard. AccessNI says in terms that standard checks are “not suitable for roles working with children or vulnerable adults”.

Enhanced is, in AccessNI’s words, “normally required where the applicant will work or volunteer in a role providing services to or having close and regular supervision of children or vulnerable adults.”

The fees. AccessNI publishes these: basic £16, standard £16, enhanced £32. They move; check nidirect before you budget.

The volunteer waiver is narrower than it reads. Standard and enhanced checks are free for a volunteer who, verbatim, “gives their time in a position in a non-profit organisation, free of charge, doing something for the good of the community or a voluntary group”. Basic checks are not waived.

AccessNI does charge in two cases. One is where the person volunteers directly for a statutory body. The other, verbatim, is volunteering “for a non-profit organisation in a position which delivers statutory services under contract or in a specific project, where that organisation receives government funding to pay for volunteers’ checks”.

Barring, referral and supervision. The barred lists for Northern Ireland are held by the DBS, not by AccessNI. The duty to refer sits in Articles 37 and 38 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007. Failing, without reasonable excuse, to refer is an offence under Article 40, punishable on summary conviction by a fine capped at level 5 on the standard scale. Referrals go to the DBS.

The supervision exemption has gone here too. Section 140 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 removed it on 1 September 2026. Supervising a volunteer no longer takes the role out of regulated activity. The Order’s own frequency figures were not read.

The barred-person offences. Two, both in the 2007 Order. Article 11 is the individual’s:

"11.—(1) An individual commits an offence if he— (a) seeks to engage in regulated activity from which he is barred; (b) offers to engage in regulated activity from which he is barred; (c) engages in regulated activity from which he is barred. (2) A person guilty of an offence under paragraph (1) is liable— (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to a fine, or to both; (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both."

Article 13 catches a person who permits a barred individual to engage in regulated activity, knowing or having reason to believe they are barred:

"13.—(1) A person commits an offence if— (a) he permits an individual (B) to engage in regulated activity from which B is barred, (b) he knows or has reason to believe that B is barred from that activity; and (c) B engages in that activity."

The Article 13 offence has the same penalty structure as Article 11, under Article 13(3). Both articles carry a defence for acting to prevent harm. Article 11 also has a defence of not knowing and not reasonably being expected to know of the bar.

Side by side

	Scotland	Northern Ireland
What it is	Membership, with continuous monitoring by Disclosure Scotland	A point-in-time certificate from AccessNI
Levels	One scheme, joined for children, adults, or both	Basic, standard, enhanced
Offence for the role without it?	Yes — for the individual (s.45C) and the organisation (s.45D)	No equivalent standalone offence was found
Free for volunteers?	Only through QVO registration	Standard and enhanced, if the volunteer definition is met; not for commissioned statutory work; basic not waived
Barred lists held by	Disclosure Scotland	The DBS
Referrals go to	Disclosure Scotland — failing to refer is an offence (s.9)	The DBS, under Articles 37–38 — failing to refer is an offence (art.40), a fine capped at level 5

With checks settled for every nation you work in, the next step is to write a safeguarding policy.

Common mistake (Scotland): applying an English DBS policy to a Scottish branch

The charity assumes the systems differ in name only. They differ in kind. PVG is a membership scheme with four offences attached. One of them is the organisation’s: s.45D, offering a regulated role without a Level 2 disclosure confirming membership. England has no equivalent of any of the four.

Common mistake (Scotland): assuming the charity can rely on not having known the role was regulated

The individual’s defence is the one that gets quoted. People assume the organisation has the same. It does not. s.45C(3) gives the individual a two-limb defence. s.45E(4) gives the organisation one for the regulations offence. But s.45D gives the organisation none on its face. What it has instead is s.45D(2): an offer made subject to receiving the Level 2 disclosure is not an offer for the offence.

Common mistake (Scotland): treating the membership offences as the whole of the criminal risk

The barred-person offences are older and quieter. s.35(1) — offering a regulated role to someone barred from it — carries the same penalty under s.37. The membership offences do not cover barred people at all (ss.45C(4), 45D(3)). Against s.35(1), the organisation has a due-diligence defence (s.35(6)) and a conditional-offer safe harbour (s.35(7)).

Common mistake (Scotland): assuming only the charity can be prosecuted, and that conduct outside Scotland is out of reach

Most small Scottish charities are unincorporated associations. Their trustees tend to assume they cannot be prosecuted. s.89 reaches “a person who is concerned in the management or control of the association” personally.

Section 37A allows a barred-person offence committed outside Scotland to be prosecuted in Scotland. Section 45H does the same for the membership offences in ss.45C to 45F.

Common mistake (Scotland): treating the duty to refer as guidance

mygov.scot calls it a “legal duty” without naming a penalty. So it reads as an expectation. It is a criminal offence under s.9, with a statutory clock. The duty applies whether or not the person is a scheme member.

Common mistake (Scotland): assuming PVG checks are free for volunteers

That is true of the DBS fee in England and Wales, and the sector generalises. In Scotland, free PVG for volunteers is available only if the organisation registers as a Qualifying Voluntary Organisation.

Common mistake (Scotland): describing PVG membership as lifetime — or as time-limited for everyone

Guidance written before the change was correct when written. Now two things are true: membership is time-limited for anyone joining, and existing members are being moved off lifetime terms in phases. Say both.

Common mistake (Northern Ireland): choosing a standard check for a children’s or vulnerable adults’ role

It sounds like the proportionate middle option. AccessNI says in terms that standard checks “are not suitable for roles working with children or vulnerable adults”.

Worked example

Saltmarsh Trust, a charitable company registered in England and Wales, opens an outreach service in Scotland. The plan is to run its existing DBS policy there, unchanged.

That plan does not work, and the reasons are not about paperwork.

• The concept is different. In Scotland there is no “regulated activity”. The question is whether the outreach roles are regulated roles. And PVG is a membership scheme, not a certificate.
• The offer is the offence. Say Saltmarsh made an unconditional offer of a regulated role before it had a Level 2 disclosure confirming the person is a scheme member. That is the conduct s.45D makes an offence, with no defence of not knowing on the face of the section. An offer made subject to receiving the disclosure is outside it (s.45D(2)). A worker who takes the role without membership is within s.45C, which gives the individual a defence.
• Barring is a separate risk. Offering the role to a barred person is an offence under s.35(1), with the same penalty. Saltmarsh makes every Scottish offer in writing. Each offer is subject to the Trust being satisfied the person is suitable for the role. Those are the terms of the s.35(7) safe harbour.
• Volunteers are not automatically free. The Trust registers as a Qualifying Voluntary Organisation before recruiting volunteers.
• Membership is time-limited for new joiners, and some existing members will still be on lifetime terms.
• Referral runs to Disclosure Scotland, is wider than the English duty, and carries a criminal offence under s.9.

Saltmarsh writes a separate Scottish disclosure procedure rather than a copy of the English one. It has a Scottish adviser review it before use. Section 45H means a membership offence committed from England can be prosecuted in Scotland. Whether any of its English managers’ conduct would fall within one is a question Saltmarsh puts to the adviser by name.