.png)
RSE in Wales & the UK – Facts, Concerns, and Safeguarding Gaps
What’s being taught to UK children today is not traditional sex education — it’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), a global programme already rolled out in more than 52 countries. Rebranded as RSE, SRE, or RSHP, it introduces sexual concepts at unprecedented ages and raises serious safeguarding concerns.
Public Child Protection Wales (PCPW) is spearheading the fight against the Welsh Government’s implementation of the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act (2021). This Act mandates Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) from age three, with no parental opt-out. This is not just a Welsh concern — it’s a UK-wide safeguarding issue.
How We Got Here
According to page 8 of the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s Sexuality Education in Europe and Central Asia (2017), in 2017, the UK Government signed up to deliver a new form of sex education aligned with the WHO Standards for Sexuality Education and UNESCO’s 2018 International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education. Presented as “age-appropriate” and “evidence-based,” these frameworks promise to address STIs, unwanted pregnancies, online dangers, and discrimination. In theory, these aims sound positive — in practice, the content and approach raise serious safeguarding concerns.
Why This Matters: A Safeguarding Reality Check
From a criminological and safeguarding perspective, the current RSE rollout contains critical flaws:
Safeguarding Principle | Best Practice | What RSE Delivers | Why it's a Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
Medical safeguarding | NHS-backed, cautious approaches to gender issues. | Some schools socially transition children without parental consent (e.g., Rhondda case). | Cass Review warns against such premature interventions. |
Safe handling of data | Surveys follow GDPR & safeguarding protocols. | Sexually explicit surveys to minors in Scotland/Wales, with limited parental awareness. | Privacy breaches, emotional harm risks. |
Transparency of materials | Full parental access to teaching resources. | Schools hide resources citing “copyright” or “commercial confidentiality”. | Prevents scrutiny for safeguarding compliance. |
Evidence-based policy | Uses relevant UK studies and local risk assessments. | Relies on studies from non-UK contexts, many irrelevant to local safeguarding needs. | Evidence does not match the target population. |
Neutral, factual teaching | Biology and safeguarding taught without ideology. | Introduces gender ideology, queer theory, and contested beliefs as fact. | Politicises education and misrepresents opinion as science. |
No secret-keeping | Children should never be told to keep secrets. | WHO framework teaches “good” vs “bad” secrets to toddlers. | Confuses children, increasing grooming vulnerability. |
Sexual safeguarding through criminological lens | Incorporates grooming prevention and offender-behaviour analysis. | RSE is not offender-informed; lacks risk-reduction strategies. | Overlooks grooming red flags and exploitation pathways. |
Age-appropriate content | Based on recognised child psychology and UK safeguarding standards. | Sexual concepts from birth–4 (masturbation, “sexual rights”), intercourse from 6–9. No recognised tool exists to define developmental appropriateness for sexual content. | Premature exposure can sexualise children and create safeguarding breaches. |
Parental involvement | Parents are the primary safeguard; consent is essential for sensitive topics. | No parental opt-out; limited disclosure of content. | Removes parental oversight, undermining the first line of defence. |
Case Studies & UK-Wide Concerns
1. Early Sexualisation in Primary Schools
-
Warwickshire’s “All About Me” Programme – Encouraged “self-stimulation” for children as young as four; later scrapped after widespread parental backlash.1
-
Tower Hamlets, London (“Wet Dreams” Lesson Plan) – Lesson materials for 11–13 year olds caused outrage for prematurely introducing explicit sexual concepts.2
2. Parental Exclusion & Lack of Consent
-
Rhondda, Wales – A school socially transitioned a pupil without informing parents.3
-
Welsh Government “Health & Wellbeing” Survey – Asked children invasive sexual questions without parental knowledge or consent.4
-
Scottish Health & Wellbeing Census – Included explicit sexual questions for 14-year-olds; many parents were unaware.5
3. Inappropriate or Explicit Educational Materials
-
Scottish Secondary School Resources – Classroom materials depicted pornography, bondage, and sexual violence scenarios; too explicit for broadcast but cleared for classrooms.5
-
Miriam Cates MP (House of Commons, 2023) – Quoted official reports in Parliament highlighting inappropriate sexualised materials used in UK schools.6
-
Professor Emma Renold (Cardiff University) – Her RSE materials and approach have been criticised for encouraging inappropriate discussions with very young children.7
4. Gender Ideology in Schools
-
Social Transition Without Safeguarding – Schools across the UK have facilitated name/pronoun changes without informing parents.3
-
Cass Review (2023) – Highlighted that interventions for children around gender identity must be evidence-based and safeguarding-focused, yet ideological teaching persists.8
5. External Influence & Accountability Gaps
-
Third-Party Providers – NGOs and activist groups have delivered workshops in UK schools with minimal safeguarding oversight.3
Footnotes
-
"Parents relieved after controversial sex-ed policy ditched by Warwickshire Council following legal threat," Premier Christian News, 2019. https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/parents-relieved-after-controversial-sex-ed-policy-ditched-by-warwickshire-council-following-legal-threat ↩
-
"Parents angry over Tower Hamlets ‘Wet Dreams’ sex-ed lesson," The Telegraph, 2022. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/02/sex ↩
-
Safe Schools Alliance UK, "Advice for parents on social transitioning by schools," 2021. https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2021/08/22/advice-for-parents-on-social-transitioning-by-schools ↩ ↩2 ↩3
-
"Pupils as young as 13 asked intrusive sex questions in Welsh Govt-funded survey," Christian.org.uk, 2022. https://www.christian.org.uk/news/pupils-as-young-as-13-asked-intrusive-sex-questions-in-welsh-govt-funded-survey ↩
-
Scottish Government, Health and Wellbeing Census Scotland 2021-22, Relationships and Sexual Health section. https://www.gov.scot/publications/health-and-wellbeing-census-scotland-2021-22/pages/relationships-and-sexual-health ↩ ↩2
-
Miriam Cates MP, Hansard, House of Commons, 2023. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06103 ↩
-
Professor Emma Renold, Cardiff University Profile. https://profiles.cardiff.ac.uk/staff/renold ↩
-
Cass Review (2023), NHS-commissioned Independent Review of Gender Identity Services. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/26/cass-review-gender-identity-services-report ↩
Our Position
PCPW is not against education — we are against policies that sexualise children, override parental rights, and ignore evidence-based safeguarding principles. There is no tool to accurately define “age-appropriate” sexual education, and the current framework fails to consider sexual safeguarding through an offender-informed criminological lens. Without these safeguards, the system is vulnerable to misuse and risks normalising harmful behaviours.
We call for:
-
Parental right to opt-out of RSE for their children.
-
Independent safeguarding review of all RSE materials.
-
Removal of ideological content from compulsory lessons.
-
Compliance with Cass Review recommendations for gender-related content.
-
Development of a safeguarding framework that incorporates criminological expertise.
This is not about politics. It is about protecting children.
PCPW is spearheading a coalition against the Welsh Government for the implementation of the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act (2021). This Act mandates Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) from age three, with no parental opt out. This is a radical piece of legislation which should concern the whole of the UK.
In 2017, the governments of the UK unanimously signed an agreement to deliver a new form of sex education into schools. It has various titles throughout the U.K., Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) being one of them. The arguments in favour of overhauling the previous curriculum were convincing, after all, which caring parent would not want to educate their child about the potential harm of STIs, unwanted pregnancy and the dangers of online pornography? And who wants their child to be ignorant of the radical physical and emotional changes that puberty will cause in their body? The same would apply to discouraging a child from discrimination against others. Most parents would be mortified. So, what could go wrong with such a well-meaning and comprehensive educational tool? In theory, nothing. Parents should be able to fold their arms and feel confident in the educational process, relieved that much of the information they have passed on to their child in this regard will be sensibly and effectively fleshed out by the teachers they know and trust.
Below is the framework accepted by our governments, the people we trust to act in the best interest of its people, most important of all the future generations.
Age 0-4 “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation”, Childhood masturbation does exist but these families need support, children do not need encouragement nor should this be normalise, it is sometimes a sign of abuse. As part of safeguarding a child is expected to “differentiate between “good” and “bad” secrets”; firstly, a child cannot differentiate between a good or bad secret, they simply know what adults tell them, never should you ever ask a child to keep a secret. (pg 38-39)
One of the attitudes 0-4-year olds will have is “the feeling that they can make their own decisions” (pgs. 38-39) children under four years of age?
It gets worse the older they get, age 6-9 “sexual intercourse” (pg 42).
We are told it is evidence based but much of it reference back to themselves and some not English, making it difficult for the average educator to question or trace back (that is if they question at all. Something we have discovered along this journey is most educators fail to question). Living under a devolved Government who is supposed to act in the best interest of Wales, one struggles to see how any global policy could be applicable.
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |  |
UNESCO International guidance on sexuality education 2018
Moving forward to 2018 we have the revised version, UNESCO (2018) (please see statement 1.3 in this document, it explains it is a revised version). This document also tells you it is part of the 2030 global agenda.appropriate. Biology and Safeguarding can be generalised, but sex cannot.
Here we have a rights-based approach starting from age 5 instead of birth, it sounds lovely but pleasure, consent, bodily rights & sexual rights for a child is a huge no from us. Sexual rights? from birth? you heard such nonsense? Now might be a good time to check out your child’s sexual rights. It speaks a lot of age appropriate and developmental sex education; this is an echo of the WHO (2010). According to mencap.org (2018), 4.6% of children in mainstream schools in Wales have Special Educational Needs (SEN), less than 10% attend special schools, with many more waiting diagnoses, some often go without diagnosis. This dissolves the argument for age appropriate. Biology and Safeguarding can be generalised, but sex cannot.
This document tells you it is evidence based. It is based on 87 studies with a third of those from third world countries, over 40 studies were carried out in the states, and a wealth of it is drawn from aids and HIV research. We live in a devolved country where we have policies based on our needs. The importance of tailoring our children’s services is a grounding principle of our youth justice system. The Criminal Justice System is governed by the Westminster Government yet the services which are the functions of the system are devolved, we recognise the need for local solutions to local problems there but all that work seems to dissolve when put next to the idea of a global sex education system whereby the research is wholly irrelevant. That expels the claim of “evidence based”. It is evidenced for those people, but it is not evidenced for us in Wales. JUST REMEMBER THE IDIOLOGY BEHIND THIS EDUCATION, THEY BELIEVE IT SHOULD BEGIN FROM BIRTH. ITS MANDATED AGAINST PARENTS WISHES FROM AGE THREE!!!
What's been going on around the UK?
A year later we discover 242 schools in England had began to pilot a scheme which included self-stimulation for children as young as four. On further investigation we found it was part of the “All About Me” package from the United Nations (UN). There are many articles online, from Surrey to Warwickshire, there was uproar from the parents and that piece was removed overnight. This is a clear demonstration of how these resources and policies can switch, change, or take a long time to fight. While we waste time on current contents, they are passing legislation to mandate from age three. Do you trust these policies and resources will remain appropriate the entire time that legislation is in force? The last time education act was changed was 20 years ago. We were operating under the WHO (2010) framework just two years ago, the same document the UK Government signed us up to after much pressure from lobbyist groups. In short, do NOT TRUST A POLICY CHANGE, we must fight the legislation which mandates this over parental rights, preventing the parent carer from acting in the child’s best interest and be the judge as to what is age appropriate. It is time the adults shouldered the responsibility of sex education in the form of appropriate safeguarding.
Scotland
Scotland seems to be well underway with its sex education, they are not afraid to hide it either, published online for all to see. It is supposed to be healthy but John Swinney; dept first Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education has no problem with advertising threesomes for girls, facial ejaculation, bondage, porn and prostitution. The images used had to be pixelated for the evening news, but it is fine for the classroom. The only person seemingly vocal on this issue is Richard Lucas, leader of the Scottish family party. Richard has challenged them over and over, but they refuse to back down, there was an incident where they forbid him to speak about its contents in a room full of adults but again its deemed appropriate for children.
Anal Sex
Facial Ejaculation
Bondage
Welsh Government
Before a campaign could begin we needed to be sure Welsh Government Ministers knew what we were getting involved with, the first step was to contact the Education Minister and ask what her skills and qualifications are and if she has properly scrutinised what is being proposed (the global adoption of sex education UNESCO).
What Do They Have to Say?
Government Correspondence
Education Minister Reassurance
July 21, 2020
_edited_.png)
