Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during the Committee sitting, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to [email protected].
My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. There will be a single debate on both clauses, and I will first call Munira Wilson to speak as the Member in charge of the Bill. Following her speech, Members may indicate a wish to speak by bobbing in the usual way. After the debate has concluded, I will call Munira Wilson to wind up.
Clause 1
Child-like sexual abuse dolls
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is an absolute pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I start by thanking all the hon. Members who have given up their time today to discuss and scrutinise this Bill on a horrific yet important issue. I am going to provide a trigger warning to everyone here today—hon. Members, and also those in the Public Gallery and listening online—because of the disturbing nature of some of the material I will share. It has certainly been a difficult issue for me and my parliamentary assistant, Max, to explore in detail in recent months. He is in the Public Gallery, and I am very grateful for all his work.
Given the quirks of the private Member’s Bill process, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak about my Bill in Parliament, so I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will forgive and indulge me if I spend a few moments speaking about the Bill in broad terms and setting the context before I address its specific clauses.
Child-like sexual abuse dolls are life-like, anatomically correct dolls, or any other object, designed to resemble a child and to be used for sexual activity. I was shocked to discover that these things even existed, let alone that they are legal to possess or sell in our country, but they are, and I have seen them in person. I have even felt one, and it is impossible to make it clear in words just how vile they are and how they are produced to be as life-like as possible. Increasingly, they are custom-made to order, and with the advance of technology, I shudder to think how closely these dolls will be made to resemble an actual child.
These dolls are dangerous. They sexualise children. They normalise sexual abuse and form part of a pattern of behaviour that can and does end in real children being harmed. I have heard this at first hand from the police and the National Crime Agency, as well as from leading child protection charities such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. For example, in 2017, an ex-school governor here in the UK was found to have imported a child-like sexual abuse doll. He was also found to be in possession of 34,000 images of child sexual abuse. His case is one of many that demonstrate the horror of the issue and the real consequences of these dolls being legal.
As the law stands, the dolls expose a gaping hole in our child protection laws. It is not an offence to own, use or make them. Existing laws can sometimes be used where these items are imported, sold or distributed, and Border Force plays an important role in stopping them entering the country. However, those offences were not designed specifically for child-like sexual abuse dolls, and they do not provide a clear or comprehensive legal framework. The result is a patchwork approach that can leave gaps in protection.
Since 2017, when the NCA and Border Force ran Operation Shiraz, law enforcement authorities have been using this dated customs legislation that prohibits the importation of “indecent or obscene articles”. There have been some prosecutions, but too many are falling through the cracks, as is demonstrated by the following case study. A registered sex offender had his home searched following a prompt relating to child sexual abuse imagery. A child-like sexual abuse doll was found, resembling a child of approximately four to five years of age. It came with a child’s underwear and pink, fluffy slippers, as well as accessories, including a removable penis. He was able to be charged only with the indecent images of children offence, not the possession and use of a child-like sexual abuse doll. Furthermore, under current legislation, the police did not have the legal powers to remove and destroy the doll.
The Bill we are considering will close that gap in the law by amending the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It will make it an offence to make, possess, import, supply or offer to supply—that is, advertise—a child-like sex doll. How we define a child-like sex doll in legislation is important, and for that, I draw Members’ attention to clause 1 and proposed new subsections 46D(2) and (9) of the 2003 Act. A child-like sex doll will be defined as
“a doll or other object…which resembles a child or any part of a child’s body, and…which a reasonable person would consider has been made for, or is intended to be used for, engaging in a sexual activity, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.”
That definition is drafted to make the legislation as effective as possible without being overly prescriptive. For example, manufacturers of the dolls sometimes ensure that the dolls have large breasts, because that is what their customers want. They then try to claim that the dolls are not child-like due to their breast size, regardless of the fact that these dolls are, in every other sense, clearly designed and intended to resemble a child. This definition will also close another loophole that has been increasingly exploited to evade the existing customs legislation that I referred to, whereby parts of a doll are ordered separately rather than a whole doll and are subsequently assembled at home.
A number of countries around the world have already put similar legislation in place. The reference to whether a “reasonable person” would consider it likely that dolls have been made for sexual activity is modelled on the Australian legislation. It is an objective test and allows consideration to be given to the characteristics of the doll in its entirety rather than insisting that it has set features. As with similar judgments involving child sexual abuse material and other offences where age, appearance and context are relevant, it will be up to the court to weigh up the circumstance of each case.
I would also like to bring proposed new subsection 46D(9) in clause 1 into this part of the discussion. The offence of making a child-like sexual abuse doll includes adaptation. For example, an offender found to have made their own doll through adapting a child’s toy doll—a real scenario presented to me by the NCA—would also fall under this legislation. The subsection also defines a child as
“a person aged under 18.”
The Bill makes exception for relevant defences in clause 1 through proposed new subsections 46D(3) to (5) of the 2003 Act, including the protection of law enforcement officers working on detecting or investigating a crime relating to such dolls, as well as unsolicited or unintentional possession. I reassure Members that these defences are tightly drafted; vitally, the burden will be on the accused to prove that they are eligible for the defences. Offenders will be penalised, as detailed in clause 1, through proposed new subsection 46D(6), in line with offences involving indecent images of children: on summary conviction, up to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine, and on indictment, up to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine. Crucially, under clause 1(2), offenders will be placed on the sex offenders register if they are imprisoned for a term of at least 12 months and eligible for notification requirements, so that their risk can be managed by the police and the Probation Service.
Proposed new subsection 46D(7) ensures that UK nationals committing an offence abroad will be able to be prosecuted here, and it extends the same provision to relevant UK bodies and unincorporated associations. That aligns with other child sexual abuse offences. Proposed new subsection 46D(8) sets out the powers for the police in terms of entry, search, seizure and forfeiture of child-like sexual abuse dolls, again in line with legislation relating to possession of indecent images of children. Proposed new section 46E is relevant to organisations or companies’ involvement with CSA doll offences. When a body commits an offence and that offence is committed with the consent or complicity of senior figures, they will be held liable.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful case about something that, I think we can all agree, is utterly abhorrent. I want to ask about proposed new subsection 46D(9), which, as she rightly emphasised, would ban the adaptation of something into a CSA doll. Does the Bill also ban the supplying of parts to allow that to happen? She has mentioned that the Bill would look at banning the supply of CSA dolls. There is also separately a concern about modifying an object into a CSA doll. Is there a potential loophole whereby supplying the parts to enable the modification would not be covered by the Bill, which would address only the supply of entire CSA dolls?
Munira Wilson
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I confess that I had not thought about that angle. The examples I have seen, presented to me by the NCA and the police, were literally like Annabell dolls that had had orifices made in the appropriate places. Presumably, tools that we would utilise in everyday life were used, such as screwdrivers and knives. I am not aware of tools specifically made to adapt these dolls, but the Minister is indicating that she may be able to pick that up with a prompt from the officials.
Clause 2 details the territorial extent, commencement and title of the Bill. As would be expected, the commencement of clause 1 would allow time for operational guidance and training, as well as assessments on the impact of the justice system. Finally, on the territorial extent, the Bill will apply to England and Wales, given that criminal law and policing are devolved matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although I would have liked the Bill to have a UK-wide remit, it was challenging to do that in the time available, given the constraints of the private Member’s Bill process. I very much hope, however, that Holyrood and Stormont will bring forward equivalent measures as soon as they can. I am grateful to Home Office officials for already sharing their expertise in this area with their counterparts.
The Bill is a very small part of the work that we need to do to protect children from harm, but it is a vital step. I am grateful to have the support of a significant number of leading charities, including the NSPCC and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, and I am grateful to have the support of the NCA. I also want to give particular credit to Detective Sergeant Kat Knock from Lancashire constabulary and Hazel Stewart from the NCA—two amazing women who have worked incredibly hard to tackle this issue on the ground for several years. Without their dedication, we would not be here discussing this Bill.
I thank the group-based child sexual exploitation response team in the Home Office, as well as the Government Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for its work in advising my staff and me, as well as for drafting this legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls and her predecessors for getting behind the Bill. I am also grateful to my cross-party co-sponsors. I very much hope that we can collectively get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as is humanly possible.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham on bringing forward this Bill to close a clear legislative gap on child-like sexual abuse dolls, and I welcome the Government’s support. She has been a fierce champion for women and children for many years, and she should be commended for her leadership on this issue. This legislation comes at an important time, when the Government’s legislation to prohibit pornography with an actor purporting to be a child is due to come into operation on 6 November. It feels as though we are truly making steps forward to combat the environment that normalises child sexual abuse.
However, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a digital counterpart of the same harm: chatbots that simulate sexual scenarios with children. They are referred to by multiple members of the Pornography Harms Coalition, which includes CEASE, Barnardo’s, Rape Crisis and the Internet Watch Foundation, among many others, as digital sexual abuse dolls. These chatbots are more accessible, more scalable and arguably more immersive than any physical doll, and they are not clearly illegal today.
The Internet Watch Foundation’s analysts have found artificial intelligence companion chatbots modelled as children that encourage users to act out specific child sexual abuse scenarios, including “child prostitute in a hotel”, “sex with your daughter while your wife is on holiday” and “child and teacher alone after class”. General purpose chatbots and companion apps are being used for interactive role play in which users actively co-produce abusive scripts. That can be text, but it can also involve visual, cartoon-like characters that narrate and reinforce the scenario. These are not isolated text exchanges; they create an immersive environment in which a user can interact with a child avatar and rehearse abusive scenarios. In some cases, the user can reach AI-generated sexual abuse images of children within a few clicks.
Last year, the IWF actioned 17 reports of confirmed child sexual abuse images on those chatbots, with some depicting children as young as seven. Professor Clare McGlynn and her colleagues found that some chatbots, freely accessible to millions of users, let people role-play rape, incest and child sexual abuse. Research by Graphika cited by Professor McGlynn found a Chub AI character card with 109,000 chats depicting a grooming scenario. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that character.ai users could interact with characters such as “Bestie Epstein”, based on the prolific paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Under UK law, child sexual abuse material is unlawful whether it is real, AI-generated, synthetic or a hybrid. The Government accepts that AI-generated material causes comparable harm, yet a chatbot built to simulate written sexual scenarios with a child sits in a legal gap. Professor McGlynn has noted that text-only chatbots are not considered pornography under part 5 of the Online Safety Act 2023, so an incest role-play chatbot with a young girl’s avatar could fall outside its pornography duties. In July, the Government announced a ban on sexualised AI chatbots for under-18s—something that I and many here welcome. However, it is unclear what counts as a sexualised chatbot, how the ban will be enforced and what exemptions apply. It protects only under-18s, so it does nothing about an adult using a chatbot that generates written child sexual abuse scenarios.
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 gave the Secretary of State power to bring AI chatbots within its scope, including illegal AI-generated content of all kinds—not only priority illegal content. However, that route helps only if the underlying conduct is actually illegal. Furthermore, no timetable has been given for either of those measures. This issue was raised by my friend Baroness Gabby Bertin in the other place during the passage of that Act. She tabled an amendment that would have made written material that glorifies sexual activity with a child a crime.
That was prompted by a case reported in The Guardian of Emily, a pseudonym, whose father fantasised about, and described in detail in an online chatroom, raping and sexually abusing her as a child. Though the physical sexual abuse was never real, the trauma of its description has had a very real impact on Emily, who should have been recognised as a victim. The Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute, arguing that the father had no intent to deprave. Government Ministers at the time said Baroness Bertin’s amendment was unnecessary, as written child abuse content was already illegal. The relevant legislation they cited was the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Communications Act 2003. However, the CPS said that it was not possible to establish that the defendant in Emily’s case intended the messages to be obscene, or that he was aware when sending them that they would be considered so if seen by a reasonable member of the public.
Jess Asato
Through the Bill, the Government have recognised the need for swift action on physical child sexual abuse, and I completely support that. I would therefore urge them to apply the same urgency to the digital equivalent.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for introducing the Bill, which closes a vile loophole in the law. I am grateful for her leadership in bringing together in this room a group of people who are all fully behind her, and I commend her work.
A child-like sexual abuse doll is a replica of a child’s body made for perverse sexual use. Someone who imports one, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, can be prosecuted under the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. However, as the CPS has acknowledged, simply possessing one is not an offence. The law stops a parcel at the border, but not the person who receives it. The Bill is therefore proportionate and has the Opposition’s support.
The Bill creates offences of making, possessing, importing and supplying, with a maximum sentence of five years—the same as for indecent images of children, which is exactly the right comparison. It provides for seizure and forfeiture, notification requirements, liability for directors and reach for UK companies abroad. The defences are sensible: for those investigating crime, for unsolicited receipt and for those who had no reason to know what they had. The burden of proof—which is, again, on the defendant—mirrors the indecent images regime, and that is right. The definition is targeted, too: this is a ban on sexualising children’s bodies.
Why does it matter? The Lucy Faithfull Foundation warns that the dolls normalise and legitimise sexual behaviour towards children. Some argue the opposite: that they could be a safe outlet for paedophiles. However, there is no evidence at all that these vile objects prevent offending. When the evidence is uncertain and the potential victims are children, the burden must lie with those who permit the product, not those who protect against it. The Government have said that police have encountered those dolls while investigating suspected child sex abuse and when monitoring registered sex offenders. The Bill therefore rests on the judgment that a replica of a child made for sexual use has no place in a decent society.
Technology is moving fast, as we have already touched on briefly in the debate. These products can be made to order and are becoming more realistic. The Bill covers
“a doll or other object”
—a physical object. Can the Minister confirm that that would include a robot or any AI-enabled physical product made to resemble a child for sexual use? The term “making” includes adapting something so that it becomes a doll, but how does the Bill apply to someone who 3D-prints a doll, or—this is a gap in the Bill—supplies the files to allow such 3D printing? They themselves are not producing it, but are providing the core content that allows that doll to be 3D-printed in an individual’s home. I have not tabled amendments in Committee, but I am considering doing so on Report on both those points, unless the Government reassure me that they are not needed or table such amendments themselves. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that.
Will there be guidance on what the “reasonable person” test is for police, Border Force and prosecutors, so that it is applied consistently and legitimate items such as medical or training models clearly fall outside the offence? We do not want paramedics or others to be unable to train with the items that they need.
The Bill gives no commencement date. Will the Government tell us when they hope to bring it into force, and what resources Border Force and the police will have to enforce it? One passing point raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham was that the Bill extends only to England and Wales. I expect that the Government want to push for equivalent protection elsewhere given how many of these products are being imported. Parliament has repeatedly legislated to protect children, and it is at its best when we work as one country.
Finally, I urge the Government to consider requiring anyone who is found to own such a device to be placed on a sexual risk order, even if they are not imprisoned. There is no need for a conviction for someone to be placed on a sexual risk order. That is vital, because anyone from the National Crime Agency or a chief constable can apply for one, and it would recognise that, even if an individual has not yet offended against a child or fully meets the need for imprisonment, we can take action. There is no question that anyone interfering in any way with an object like this has some sort of malign intent.
I came into politics to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and no one is more deserving of protection than a child. This Bill is a small step, but it is the right one, and we are proud to support it. In this room, we are making clear that child-like sexual abuse dolls have no place in our country. A child’s body is not a product. Owning a child-like sex abuse doll is morally indefensible. There is no innocent reason to own one, and those who do are degenerates who are normalising the sexual abuse of children. They must be treated as the danger they are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Ms Vaz. I thank all Members who have contributed, and in particular the hon. Member for Twickenham for bringing forward this important Bill and for the constructive way in which she has been working with Government. I will not repeat her passionate words on the detail, which is harrowing, and on the importance of tackling this issue, although I will cover some of the questions and concerns that were raised.
The Government are fully supportive of the Bill and its central objective of strengthening the law so that child-like sexual abuse dolls can be tackled clearly, consistently and effectively. These items sexualise the appearance of children and raise serious safeguarding and public protection concerns. Like any parent, and as a new mum, I find even the existence of these dolls absolutely harrowing, to the point that I cannot bring myself to see one. The new offences of making, possession, importation and supply will close a recognised gap in criminal law and provide a clear basis for action against this concerning material. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford that the Bill will cover parts of a doll or anything that resembles a child, but it will also include any type of robotic or AI-enabled doll, including those that are 3D-printed, and anyone found guilty will of course go on the sexual risk register.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the Minister for confirming that any doll that is 3D-printed will be included. Could she confirm whether those who produce the files that allow those individuals to create one at home, and enable their criminal behaviour, will also be covered? If not, would she write to me to confirm it and look into how it might be done?
Satvir Kaur
Yes, of course. My understanding is that it should be, but I will come back to the hon. Lady in writing to confirm it. If this legislation is to close a loophole, we want to ensure that it does so properly and for good.
The provisions on entry, search, seizure and forfeiture are essential. They will help the police and other operational partners to investigate suspected offending, to remove items from circulation and to intervene earlier when wider risks to children are identified. The Bill’s penalties and notification requirements reflect the seriousness of the conduct while ensuring that the new framework is targeted and proportionate.
Taken together, the clauses will give law enforcement, prosecutors and the courts greater clarity and a more effective set of tools. They will also support the Bill’s wider preventive purpose by enabling earlier identification and intervention when concerning behaviour may indicate a risk to children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned online harm, and she was right to raise the most horrific crimes that we see online. We saw at an event last night some of the horrific outcomes that online harm can lead to for children. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are taking this seriously. The tech world is moving at pace and we must keep up. The hon. Member for Twickenham gave reasons this legislation is so tightly focused, but I would welcome a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss how we move at pace when addressing online harm, particularly when it is targeted at children. I am keen to ensure that the Bill’s scope remains tight so that we can address this particular loophole when it comes to physical sexualised child-like dolls, but I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.
The Government have worked closely with the hon. Member for Twickenham, operational partners and criminal justice stakeholders to ensure that the legislation is clear, robust and workable in practice.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I want to clarify something. About a year ago, a child-like sex doll was found in a woodland in Devon. Will the legislation protect somebody who found one and then had to call the police to report it? It feels to me that the defence is there, and that that is the case, but it would be worth putting on the record that were a member of the general public to find one, they would not be covered by the law—they would be protected by the defences in the Bill.
Satvir Kaur
Yes, that is already covered in the legislation. Naturally, we want to find these dolls and find who is producing, sharing and using them. I thank the hon. Lady for raising that.
The Government are satisfied that the Bill strikes the right balance, and we support the clauses standing part of the Bill. I again thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for her leadership and determination in getting the Bill to this stage. The Government are proud to support this important safeguarding measure, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Members who spoke for their very kind and generous words to me. I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft for her campaigning on this issue. She has come under a lot of significant personal abuse for her work on protecting women and girls from violence. I thank her for that work and strongly support her comments. Although the amendment she would have liked to make—on digital child-like sexual abuse dolls and chatbots, as she laid out so clearly—was out of scope, I very much hope that the Minister will find ways of taking that forward. As the hon. Member said, the ban on sexualising chatbots that the Government announced was targeted specifically at what children access; here, we are talking about adults accessing physical dolls. But we know that the online world is developing at pace so, as the Government are looking to introduce all sorts of legislation in this area, I ask the Minister to look to capture, as broadly as possible, all the horrendous activities that are going on.
I thank the official Opposition for their strong support for the Bill. To pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, the argument sometimes made against criminalising these dolls is that they stop people abusing real children. What a misconception that is. I spoke to an amazing organisation in Australia called Collective Shout, which was involved in bringing forward the legislation there. They gave me a horrendous example in Australia of a man who was picked up importing a child-like sex doll. They went to his home, and they found not only a second child-like sex doll and all sorts of child sexual abuse imagery on his devices, but also a lockable sound-proof room that he had created in his house, and some maps. He had based himself close to a nursery and quite clearly had the intention of kidnapping children and doing I dread to think what to them, in a lockable room that could not be accessed by anyone, from which children’s cries could not be heard.
That gives us an idea of the intentions of the sorts of people who use these things. I know that UK police enforcement authorities are working on other examples, but I am not able to share them because they are live cases.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. She is essentially giving the National Crime Agency and police forces across the country an additional reason to enter the homes of potential offenders and those who are planning a crime. It is absolutely vital that we move to prevention in this area, because the reality is that there are too many children and adults across this country whose lives have been forever harmed by this. It is something they will live with for ever. The hon. Member is not just tackling a doll but providing a preventive power to go in and catch people before they escalate, and she is therefore protecting children. I thank her ever so much for doing so.
Munira Wilson
Absolutely; I completely agree. The hon. Member also made the point about resources. When DS Kat Knock, who I mentioned in my speech, came to London from Cheshire with a couple of these vile objects for me to look at, a couple of officers from the Met police joined that meeting. I talked to them about the fact that the number of police officers who track and monitor those on sex offender registers has not gone up in recent years, while the number of offenders on the register has gone up—particularly with the early release scheme. That workload is increasing all the time, so we have to resource it properly. I hope that the Government will consider that. I know that everyone is demanding more money and we are fiscally constrained, but this is a really important area, especially when we are talking about protecting children and adding these offences to the statute book. This needs to be resourced properly.
To respond to the hon. Member for South West Devon, line 24 of the Bill says that a defence for a person who might be charged with an offence is that they
“did not keep it for an unreasonable time.”
I am confident that, if a member of the public finds one of these dolls in a public place and reports it, there would be a strong case for defence in that they were not in possession of it for use themselves.
On the points about files for 3D printing and tools to adapt dolls, I know that the Minister is committed to following that up. I am also very happy to work with officials to follow up with colleagues and address those issues, and to make amendments on Report if necessary.
I close by thanking everybody again. I think we are looking at the first Friday in February for Report and Third Reading, and we will hopefully get the Bill to the other place as soon possible in order then to get it in statute. I am very grateful for everybody’s strong support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be reported without amendment.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.