Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill
Wednesday 21st October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:25
09:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I will first call Munira Wilson to speak as member in charge of the bill is available online and in the room. There will be a single debate on both clauses of the 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. We begin with clause one, with which it will be convenient to consider clause two.
The question is that clause one stand part of the bill. I call Munira Wilson. Thank you very much, Miss Vaz.
The question is that clause one stand part of the bill. I call Munira Wilson. Thank you very much, Miss Vaz.
09:26
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And it's an absolute pleasure to have you in the chair today. Can I please start by thanking all the honourable members here today who've given up their time to come and discuss and scrutinise a bill on what is a horrific yet important issue, and I'm going to provide a trigger warning to all those here today. Both honourable members, but also those in the public gallery and listening online because of the disturbing nature of some of the material that I will share, it has certainly been a difficult issue for me and my parliamentary assistant, Max, who's in the gallery to whom I'm very grateful for all his work to explore in detail in recent months.
Now, given the quirks of the Private Members bill process, this is the first time I have the opportunity to speak about my bill in Parliament, so I hope that you will forgive me and indulge me if I spend a few moments just speaking about the bill in broad terms and setting the context before I address the specific clauses in the bill. Child like sexual abuse dolls are lifelike, anatomically correct dolls or any other object designed to resemble a child and be used for sexual activity. I was shocked to discover these things even existed, let alone are legal to possess or sell in our country.
But they are, and I've seen them in person. I have even felt one, and it is impossible to make clear with words just how vile they are, and how they are produced to be as lifelike as possible. Increasingly, they are custom made to order, and with the advance of technology, I shudder to think just how closely these dolls will be made to resemble an actual child. As we go forward, these dolls are dangerous. They sexualize 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 first hand from the police and from the National Crime Agency, as well as from leading child protection charities such as the NSPCC and the Lucy Faithful 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 this issue and the real consequences of these dolls being legal as the law stands today. These dolls expose a gaping hole in our child protection laws.
It is not an offence to own, use or make these dolls. 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, these offences were not designed specifically for child 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 prohibiting importation of indecent or obscene articles.
There have been some prosecutions, but too many are falling through the cracks, as demonstrated by the following case study that I'd like to share. A registered sex offender had his home search following a prompt relating to child sexual abuse imagery. A child like sexual abuse doll was found resembling a child of approximately 4 to 5 years of age. It came with child's underwear and pink fluffy slippers, as well as accessories, including a removable penis. He was only able to be charged 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. So the bill we are considering today will close this 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's advertising a child's child like sex doll. How we define a child like sex doll in legislation is important, and for that I would like to draw members attention to clause one, sections 46, D, two and nine. A child like sex doll will be defined as, and I quote , 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 sexual activity, taking account of all of the circumstances of the case.
Now, this definition is drafted to make the legislation as effective as possible without being overly prescriptive. For example, manufacturers of these dolls sometimes ensure the dolls have large breasts because that's what their customers want. They then try to claim that these are not childlike dolls 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, this definition will also close another loophole that has been increasingly exploited to evade the existing customs legislation I referred to, whereby parts of a doll are ordered separately rather than a whole doll, and subsequently assembled at home.
A number of countries around the world have already put similar legislation in place already. The reference to whether a reasonable person would consider it likely the dolls have been made for sexual activity is modelled on the Australian legislation that is in place. It is an objective test and allows consideration to be given to the characteristics of the doll in its entirety, rather than insisting it have 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 up to the court to weigh up the circumstances of each case.
I would also like to bring clause one new subsection 46 D nine 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, which was a real scenario presented to me by the NCA, would also fall under this legislation. This subsection also defines a child as a person aged under under 18. The bill makes exception for relevant clause defences in clause one. New subsections 46 D 3 to 5, including the protection of law enforcement officers working on detecting, detecting or investigating a crime related to such dolls, as well as unsolicited or unintentional possession.
I want to reassure members that these defences are tightly drafted and, vitally, that the burden will be on the accused to prove they are eligible for these defences. Offenders will be penalised, as detailed in clause one, subsection 46 D six, in line with offences involving possession of indecent images of children on summary conviction, up to 12 months imprisonment and or a fine and on indictment up to five years and or a fine. Crucially, under clause one, subsection two, 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 their risk can be managed by the Police and probation service.
Section 46 D seven ensures that UK nationals committing an offence abroad will be able to be prosecuted here, and extends the same provision to relevant UK bodies and unincorporated associations. This aligns with other child sexual abuse offences. Section 46 D eight sets out the powers for the police in terms of entry, search, seizure and forfeiture of child child sexual abuse dolls. Once again, in line with legislation relating to possession of indecent images of children, section 46 E is relevant to organisations or companies involvement with CSA. Doll offences where a body commits an offence and that offence is committed with the consent or complicity of senior figures, they will be held liable.
We are happy to give way.
Now, given the quirks of the Private Members bill process, this is the first time I have the opportunity to speak about my bill in Parliament, so I hope that you will forgive me and indulge me if I spend a few moments just speaking about the bill in broad terms and setting the context before I address the specific clauses in the bill. Child like sexual abuse dolls are lifelike, anatomically correct dolls or any other object designed to resemble a child and be used for sexual activity. I was shocked to discover these things even existed, let alone are legal to possess or sell in our country.
But they are, and I've seen them in person. I have even felt one, and it is impossible to make clear with words just how vile they are, and how they are produced to be as lifelike as possible. Increasingly, they are custom made to order, and with the advance of technology, I shudder to think just how closely these dolls will be made to resemble an actual child. As we go forward, these dolls are dangerous. They sexualize 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 first hand from the police and from the National Crime Agency, as well as from leading child protection charities such as the NSPCC and the Lucy Faithful 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 this issue and the real consequences of these dolls being legal as the law stands today. These dolls expose a gaping hole in our child protection laws.
It is not an offence to own, use or make these dolls. 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, these offences were not designed specifically for child 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 prohibiting importation of indecent or obscene articles.
There have been some prosecutions, but too many are falling through the cracks, as demonstrated by the following case study that I'd like to share. A registered sex offender had his home search following a prompt relating to child sexual abuse imagery. A child like sexual abuse doll was found resembling a child of approximately 4 to 5 years of age. It came with child's underwear and pink fluffy slippers, as well as accessories, including a removable penis. He was only able to be charged 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. So the bill we are considering today will close this 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's advertising a child's child like sex doll. How we define a child like sex doll in legislation is important, and for that I would like to draw members attention to clause one, sections 46, D, two and nine. A child like sex doll will be defined as, and I quote , 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 sexual activity, taking account of all of the circumstances of the case.
Now, this definition is drafted to make the legislation as effective as possible without being overly prescriptive. For example, manufacturers of these dolls sometimes ensure the dolls have large breasts because that's what their customers want. They then try to claim that these are not childlike dolls 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, this definition will also close another loophole that has been increasingly exploited to evade the existing customs legislation I referred to, whereby parts of a doll are ordered separately rather than a whole doll, and subsequently assembled at home.
A number of countries around the world have already put similar legislation in place already. The reference to whether a reasonable person would consider it likely the dolls have been made for sexual activity is modelled on the Australian legislation that is in place. It is an objective test and allows consideration to be given to the characteristics of the doll in its entirety, rather than insisting it have 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 up to the court to weigh up the circumstances of each case.
I would also like to bring clause one new subsection 46 D nine 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, which was a real scenario presented to me by the NCA, would also fall under this legislation. This subsection also defines a child as a person aged under under 18. The bill makes exception for relevant clause defences in clause one. New subsections 46 D 3 to 5, including the protection of law enforcement officers working on detecting, detecting or investigating a crime related to such dolls, as well as unsolicited or unintentional possession.
I want to reassure members that these defences are tightly drafted and, vitally, that the burden will be on the accused to prove they are eligible for these defences. Offenders will be penalised, as detailed in clause one, subsection 46 D six, in line with offences involving possession of indecent images of children on summary conviction, up to 12 months imprisonment and or a fine and on indictment up to five years and or a fine. Crucially, under clause one, subsection two, 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 their risk can be managed by the Police and probation service.
Section 46 D seven ensures that UK nationals committing an offence abroad will be able to be prosecuted here, and extends the same provision to relevant UK bodies and unincorporated associations. This aligns with other child sexual abuse offences. Section 46 D eight sets out the powers for the police in terms of entry, search, seizure and forfeiture of child child sexual abuse dolls. Once again, in line with legislation relating to possession of indecent images of children, section 46 E is relevant to organisations or companies involvement with CSA. Doll offences where a body commits an offence and that offence is committed with the consent or complicity of senior figures, they will be held liable.
We are happy to give way.
09:35
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I thank him for giving way. She's making an incredibly powerful case about something which I think we can all agree is utterly abhorrent. I did just want to ask her about clause one, subsection 46 D nine, where, as she has rightly emphasised, this bill would ban the adaptation of of something into a doll. I wondered whether the bill also bans the supplying of parts in order to allow that. Because she's mentioned already that the bill would look at banning the supply of doll, and that there is also separately this concern around modifying an object into a doll.
Is there a potential loophole here where supplying the parts in order to enable that modification wouldn't be covered by the bill, only supplying a CSA doll altogether?
Is there a potential loophole here where supplying the parts in order to enable that modification wouldn't be covered by the bill, only supplying a CSA doll altogether?
09:36
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank the honourable member for that intervention. I confess that's not an angle I'd thought about, because certainly the examples that I've seen that have been presented to me by the NCA and the police, it was literally like an Annabelle doll that had had orifices made in the appropriate places where presumably tools such as, I don't know, screwdrivers and, and knives and, and other such tools that we would use in everyday life were probably used. I'm not aware of specific tools to adapt these dolls, but the minister is indicating that that's something that she might be able to pick up with some prompt from the officials there.
Clause two details territorial extent, commencement and title of the bill. As would be expected, commencement of clause one will allow time for operation. Allow time for operational guidance and training, as well as assessments of the impact on the justice system. Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to address the territorial extent of this bill. The bill will apply to England and Wales. Given that criminal law and policing are devolved matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Now, whilst I would have liked this bill to have a UK wide remit, given the constraints of the Private Members Bill process, it was challenging to do that in the time available.
However, I very much hope that both Holyrood and Stormont will bring forward equivalent measures as soon as they are able, and I am grateful to the officials in the Home Office for sharing their expertise already in this area with their counterparts. This bill is a very small part of the work we need to do to protect children from harm, but it is a vital step to take. I am very grateful to have the support of a significant number of leading charities, including the NSPCC and the Lucy Faithful Foundation. I'm also grateful to have the support of the National Crime Agency.
Finally, I want to pay particular credit to DS Kat Knock from Lancashire Police and Hazel Stewart from the NC. CAA, two amazing women who have worked incredibly hard to tackle this issue on the ground for several years and without their dedication, we would not be here discussing this bill today. I'd also like to thank the group based Child Sexual Exploitation Exploitation Response Team in the Home Office, as well as the Government Office for Parliamentary Counsel for their work on advising me and my staff, as well as for drafting this legislation. Finally, I'm grateful to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls and her predecessors for getting behind this bill, as well as my cross-party cross-party co-sponsors.
I very much hope that we can collectively get this bill onto the statute books as soon as humanly possible.
Clause two details territorial extent, commencement and title of the bill. As would be expected, commencement of clause one will allow time for operation. Allow time for operational guidance and training, as well as assessments of the impact on the justice system. Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to address the territorial extent of this bill. The bill will apply to England and Wales. Given that criminal law and policing are devolved matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Now, whilst I would have liked this bill to have a UK wide remit, given the constraints of the Private Members Bill process, it was challenging to do that in the time available.
However, I very much hope that both Holyrood and Stormont will bring forward equivalent measures as soon as they are able, and I am grateful to the officials in the Home Office for sharing their expertise already in this area with their counterparts. This bill is a very small part of the work we need to do to protect children from harm, but it is a vital step to take. I am very grateful to have the support of a significant number of leading charities, including the NSPCC and the Lucy Faithful Foundation. I'm also grateful to have the support of the National Crime Agency.
Finally, I want to pay particular credit to DS Kat Knock from Lancashire Police and Hazel Stewart from the NC. CAA, two amazing women who have worked incredibly hard to tackle this issue on the ground for several years and without their dedication, we would not be here discussing this bill today. I'd also like to thank the group based Child Sexual Exploitation Exploitation Response Team in the Home Office, as well as the Government Office for Parliamentary Counsel for their work on advising me and my staff, as well as for drafting this legislation. Finally, I'm grateful to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls and her predecessors for getting behind this bill, as well as my cross-party cross-party co-sponsors.
I very much hope that we can collectively get this bill onto the statute books as soon as humanly possible.
09:39
09:39
09:39
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, and I wholeheartedly congratulate the honourable member for Twickenham for bringing forward this bill to close a clear legislative gap on child sexual abuse dolls, and I welcome the government's support. The honourable member 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, when an actor is purporting to be a child, is due to come into operation on November 6th.
It feels as though we are truly making steps forward to combat the environment which normalises child sexual abuse. I do, however, want to draw the committee's attention to a digital counterpart of the same harm chat bots that simulate sexual scenarios with children, which are referred to by multiple members of the Pornography Harms Coalition, which includes Cease, Barnardos, Rape Crisis and the Internet Watch Foundation, among many others. As digital sexual abuse dolls, these chat bots are more accessible, more scalable, and arguably more immersive than any physical doll. And they are not clearly illegal today. The Internet Watch Foundations analysts, for example, have found AI 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 chat bots.
Both general purpose 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, within a few clicks, the user can reach AI generated sexual abuse images of children. Last year, the Iuf Action 17 reports have confirmed child sexual abuse images on these chat bots, with some depicting children as young as seven.
Professor Clare McGlynn and her colleagues found that some chat bots, 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 character.ai users could interact with characters such as bestie Epstein, based on the prolific pedophile 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, for example, has noted that text only chat bots are not considered pornography under part five of the Online Safety Act. So an incest roleplay chat bot 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 18 seconds, something that I and many here will welcome. But it is unclear what counts as sexualised chat bot, how the ban will be enforced and what exemptions apply.
And of course, it only protects under 18 seconds. So it does nothing about an adult using a chat bot which generates written child sexual abuse scenarios. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 gave the Secretary of State a power to bring AI chatbots within its scope, including illegal AI generated content of all kinds not only priority illegal content, but that route only helps if the underlying conduct is actually illegal. What's more, no timetable has been given for either of these measures. This issue was raised by my friend Baroness Gaby Burton in the other place during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill.
She tabled an amendment which would have made written material which glorifies sexual activity with a child as a crime. This was prompted by a case reported in The Guardian of Emily, a pseudonym whose father fantasised about and described in detail raping and sexually abusing her as a child in an online chat room. 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 CPS refused to prosecute, arguing that the father had no intent to deprave . Government ministers at the time said Baroness Burton'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 for the messages to be obscene or that when sending the messages, he was aware that they would be considered so if seen by a reasonable member of the public in relation to AI chatbots. It is clear that companies themselves would argue that they are not publishers, nor would an AI chatbot have the intent required to satisfy the requirements of the Obscene Publications Act, not least due to the fact that the CPS could not apply this act in the situation of a human who wrote this content himself.
Having spoken to officials at the Home Office and Ofcom alongside academics researching this, it is clear that this is a grey area of law and requires significant tightening. It is worth raising a question about how AI chatbots are able to so easily create this content, and why their training data includes child sexual abuse scenarios, but that is for another time. The case for this bill rests on offender pathways that sexualised objects resembling children normalise abuse and can lower barriers to offending. That same reasoning applies with at least equal force to chatbot simulating the sexual abuse of children.
Indeed, the risk may be intensified. Chatbot role play is personalized and interactive and can be more realistic than static material, particularly when the avatar is modelled on a real child chatbot. Simulated child sexual abuse represents a significant evolution in the normalisation and perpetration of abuse. It is also a question of parity. The government has acknowledged a clear and urgent need for parity between offline and online regulation of pornography, and has committed to a delivery plan soon.
It feels as though we are truly making steps forward to combat the environment which normalises child sexual abuse. I do, however, want to draw the committee's attention to a digital counterpart of the same harm chat bots that simulate sexual scenarios with children, which are referred to by multiple members of the Pornography Harms Coalition, which includes Cease, Barnardos, Rape Crisis and the Internet Watch Foundation, among many others. As digital sexual abuse dolls, these chat bots are more accessible, more scalable, and arguably more immersive than any physical doll. And they are not clearly illegal today. The Internet Watch Foundations analysts, for example, have found AI 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 chat bots.
Both general purpose 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, within a few clicks, the user can reach AI generated sexual abuse images of children. Last year, the Iuf Action 17 reports have confirmed child sexual abuse images on these chat bots, with some depicting children as young as seven.
Professor Clare McGlynn and her colleagues found that some chat bots, 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 character.ai users could interact with characters such as bestie Epstein, based on the prolific pedophile 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, for example, has noted that text only chat bots are not considered pornography under part five of the Online Safety Act. So an incest roleplay chat bot 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 18 seconds, something that I and many here will welcome. But it is unclear what counts as sexualised chat bot, how the ban will be enforced and what exemptions apply.
And of course, it only protects under 18 seconds. So it does nothing about an adult using a chat bot which generates written child sexual abuse scenarios. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 gave the Secretary of State a power to bring AI chatbots within its scope, including illegal AI generated content of all kinds not only priority illegal content, but that route only helps if the underlying conduct is actually illegal. What's more, no timetable has been given for either of these measures. This issue was raised by my friend Baroness Gaby Burton in the other place during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill.
She tabled an amendment which would have made written material which glorifies sexual activity with a child as a crime. This was prompted by a case reported in The Guardian of Emily, a pseudonym whose father fantasised about and described in detail raping and sexually abusing her as a child in an online chat room. 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 CPS refused to prosecute, arguing that the father had no intent to deprave . Government ministers at the time said Baroness Burton'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 for the messages to be obscene or that when sending the messages, he was aware that they would be considered so if seen by a reasonable member of the public in relation to AI chatbots. It is clear that companies themselves would argue that they are not publishers, nor would an AI chatbot have the intent required to satisfy the requirements of the Obscene Publications Act, not least due to the fact that the CPS could not apply this act in the situation of a human who wrote this content himself.
Having spoken to officials at the Home Office and Ofcom alongside academics researching this, it is clear that this is a grey area of law and requires significant tightening. It is worth raising a question about how AI chatbots are able to so easily create this content, and why their training data includes child sexual abuse scenarios, but that is for another time. The case for this bill rests on offender pathways that sexualised objects resembling children normalise abuse and can lower barriers to offending. That same reasoning applies with at least equal force to chatbot simulating the sexual abuse of children.
Indeed, the risk may be intensified. Chatbot role play is personalized and interactive and can be more realistic than static material, particularly when the avatar is modelled on a real child chatbot. Simulated child sexual abuse represents a significant evolution in the normalisation and perpetration of abuse. It is also a question of parity. The government has acknowledged a clear and urgent need for parity between offline and online regulation of pornography, and has committed to a delivery plan soon.
09:46
09:46
09:47
09:47
09:47
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Mars, and I thank the honourable member for Twickenham for bringing forward this bill, which poses a really vile loophole in the law, and I am really grateful to her for her leadership, for bringing together a group of people in this room together who are all fully behind her, so I really commend her for 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 member said, can be prosecuted under Customs Consolidation Act 1876.
But as the CPS has acknowledged, simply possessing one is not an offence. The law stops a pass at the border but not the person who receives it, and this bill is therefore proportionate and has the support of the opposition. It creates offences of making, possessing, importing and supplying with a maximum sentence of five years, the same as 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, and the defences are sensible for those investigating crime, for unsolicited receipt and for those who had no reason to know what they had.
And the burden of proof again on the defendant mirrors the indecent images regime. And that is right. And the definition is targeted too. So this is a ban on sexualizing children's bodies. And why does it matter? Because the Lucy Faithful Foundation warns that these dolls normalise and legitimise sexual behaviour towards children. Now, some argue the opposite that they could be a safe outlet for paedophiles. But there is no evidence at all that these vile objects prevent offending. And 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 has said that police have encountered these dolls while investigating suspected child sex abuse, and were monitoring registered sex offenders, and the bill, therefore, rests on the judgement that a replica of a child made for sexual use has no place in a decent society. Now technology is moving fast and we've touched on that briefly in this debate already, and these products can be made to order and becoming more realistic. Now the bill covers a doll or other object, a physical object. So can the minister confirm that that would include a robot or any AI enabled physical product made to resemble a child for sexual use?
Secondly, the term making includes adapting something so it becomes a doll. But how does the bill apply to someone who 3D prints a doll or. Moreover, the gap I think exists in the bill is. Supplies the files to allow the 3D printing because they themselves are not producing it, but they are providing the core content that allows that doll to therefore go on and be 3D printed in an individual's home. Now, I have not tabled amendments committee, but I am considering doing a report on both these points. Unless the government reassures me they are not needed or they can do so themselves, and I'd welcome the Minister's view.
Therefore. Third, there will be guidance on what the reasonable person test is for police, border force and prosecutors. So that will there be sorry so that it is applied consistently and legitimate items such as medical or training models, clearly fall outside the offence, because what we do not want is for paramedics or others to be unable to train on the items they need. Fourth, the bill gives no commencement date. So will the government tell us when they would hope to bring it into force, and what resources, Border force and the police will have to enforce it now, one passing point raised by the honourable member sponsoring the bill is that it extends only to England and Wales.
I expect the government will want to push for equivalent protection elsewhere, given how many of these products are being imported. Parliament has repeatedly legislated for to protect children. It is at its best when we work as one country. Finally, I would urge the government to consider requiring anyone who was found to own such a device to be placed on a sexual risk order, even if they do not find themselves in prison, because actually there is no need for a conviction for someone to be placed on a sexual risk order, protection order. Apologies. And I think that is really vital because anyone from the National Crime Agency or Chief Constable can apply for one, and this would recognise that even if individual has not yet offended against a child or fully wrecked the need for an imprisonment, we can take action because there is no question 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 there is no one more deserving than that protection than a child. This bill is a small step, but it is the right one and we are proud to support it. So today in this room, we are making clear that child sex abuse dolls have no place in our country. A child's body is not a product and child like sexual abuse dolls have no place in our country. Owning a child sex abuse doll is morally indefensible. There is no innocent reason and those who own them are degenerates, normalising the sexual abuse of children, and they must be treated as the danger they are.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Minister.
But as the CPS has acknowledged, simply possessing one is not an offence. The law stops a pass at the border but not the person who receives it, and this bill is therefore proportionate and has the support of the opposition. It creates offences of making, possessing, importing and supplying with a maximum sentence of five years, the same as 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, and the defences are sensible for those investigating crime, for unsolicited receipt and for those who had no reason to know what they had.
And the burden of proof again on the defendant mirrors the indecent images regime. And that is right. And the definition is targeted too. So this is a ban on sexualizing children's bodies. And why does it matter? Because the Lucy Faithful Foundation warns that these dolls normalise and legitimise sexual behaviour towards children. Now, some argue the opposite that they could be a safe outlet for paedophiles. But there is no evidence at all that these vile objects prevent offending. And 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 has said that police have encountered these dolls while investigating suspected child sex abuse, and were monitoring registered sex offenders, and the bill, therefore, rests on the judgement that a replica of a child made for sexual use has no place in a decent society. Now technology is moving fast and we've touched on that briefly in this debate already, and these products can be made to order and becoming more realistic. Now the bill covers a doll or other object, a physical object. So can the minister confirm that that would include a robot or any AI enabled physical product made to resemble a child for sexual use?
Secondly, the term making includes adapting something so it becomes a doll. But how does the bill apply to someone who 3D prints a doll or. Moreover, the gap I think exists in the bill is. Supplies the files to allow the 3D printing because they themselves are not producing it, but they are providing the core content that allows that doll to therefore go on and be 3D printed in an individual's home. Now, I have not tabled amendments committee, but I am considering doing a report on both these points. Unless the government reassures me they are not needed or they can do so themselves, and I'd welcome the Minister's view.
Therefore. Third, there will be guidance on what the reasonable person test is for police, border force and prosecutors. So that will there be sorry so that it is applied consistently and legitimate items such as medical or training models, clearly fall outside the offence, because what we do not want is for paramedics or others to be unable to train on the items they need. Fourth, the bill gives no commencement date. So will the government tell us when they would hope to bring it into force, and what resources, Border force and the police will have to enforce it now, one passing point raised by the honourable member sponsoring the bill is that it extends only to England and Wales.
I expect the government will want to push for equivalent protection elsewhere, given how many of these products are being imported. Parliament has repeatedly legislated for to protect children. It is at its best when we work as one country. Finally, I would urge the government to consider requiring anyone who was found to own such a device to be placed on a sexual risk order, even if they do not find themselves in prison, because actually there is no need for a conviction for someone to be placed on a sexual risk order, protection order. Apologies. And I think that is really vital because anyone from the National Crime Agency or Chief Constable can apply for one, and this would recognise that even if individual has not yet offended against a child or fully wrecked the need for an imprisonment, we can take action because there is no question 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 there is no one more deserving than that protection than a child. This bill is a small step, but it is the right one and we are proud to support it. So today in this room, we are making clear that child sex abuse dolls have no place in our country. A child's body is not a product and child like sexual abuse dolls have no place in our country. Owning a child sex abuse doll is morally indefensible. There is no innocent reason and those who own them are degenerates, normalising the sexual abuse of children, and they must be treated as the danger they are.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Minister.
09:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Miss Barnes. It's a pleasure to have you in the chair today. And thank you to everybody's contributions. I wanted to, of course, begin by thanking the honourable member for Twickenham, Munira Wilson, for bringing forward this important bill and for the constructive way she has been working with government. I won't repeat her her passionate words on the detail, quite frankly, which is harrowing of the importance of tackling this issue. I will I part my contribution, of course, cover some of the questions and concerns that were raised. But to start with, the government is fully supportive of this bill and its central objective strengthening the law so that child 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, as a as a new mum, I find even the existence of them absolutely harrowing, even to the point where I can't even bring myself to to see one. The new offences of making possession, importation and supply will close a recognised gap in the criminal law and provide a clear basis for action against this concerning material. I wanted to reassure the member that, yes, it will cover parts of of a doll or anything that resembles a child within it, but it will also include any type of robotic or AI enabled doll, including 3D printing.
And to reassure the member that, yes, anyone that is found guilty, of course, will go on the sexual risk register.
These items sexualise the appearance of children and raise serious safeguarding and public protection concerns. Like any parent, as a as a new mum, I find even the existence of them absolutely harrowing, even to the point where I can't even bring myself to to see one. The new offences of making possession, importation and supply will close a recognised gap in the criminal law and provide a clear basis for action against this concerning material. I wanted to reassure the member that, yes, it will cover parts of of a doll or anything that resembles a child within it, but it will also include any type of robotic or AI enabled doll, including 3D printing.
And to reassure the member that, yes, anyone that is found guilty, of course, will go on the sexual risk register.
09:53
09:53
09:53
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Of course. I thank her for confirming that any doll that is 3D printed will be included, but those who create the files that allow those individuals to create one at home, could she kindly confirm whether or not actually producing the file itself that enables the criminality then take place would also be covered? And if not, would she kindly write to me to confirm it and look into how it might be done?
09:54
09:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Yes, of course, from my understanding, it should, but I would prefer to come back to her and put in writing and confirm, because we want to ensure that if this piece of legislation is closing a loophole, it closes it properly and for good. The related provisions on entry, search, seizure and forfeiture are also essential. They will help the police and other operational partners investigate suspected offending, remove these items from circulation and intervene earlier where 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 preventative purpose by enabling earlier identification and intervention, when concerning behaviour may indicate a risk to children. I wanted to come in here around my hon. Friend's contribution around online harm and she is right to raise the most horrific crimes that we see online. We were actually at an event last night where we. Horrifically saw some of the outcomes it can lead to for children. I wanted to reassure her that the government is taking this seriously.
The tech world is moving at pace and we must keep up for the reasons given by the sponsoring member about why this piece of legislation is so tightly focused, I. I would welcome a meeting with her just to discuss how we move at pace when addressing online harm, particularly targeted at children. What I'm really keen to do is ensure that the scope of this remains tight, so that we can address this particular loophole when it comes to physical child sexualised dolls, but I thank her for raising it. The government has worked closely with the honourable member, operational partners and criminal justice stakeholders to ensure that the legislation is clear, robust and workable in practice.
Yes, of course. I thank the honourable member for giving way. I just wanted to clarify one point. About a year ago, a child like sex doll was found in a woodland in Devon, and I just want to confirm that the legislation would protect somebody who found one, who then had to call the police to report it without that. It feels to me that the defence is there, that that is the case, but I just thought it'd be worth putting on record that if a member of the general public were to find one, that they wouldn't be covered by the law, they would be protected by the defences included.
That's already covered in legislation. And naturally, we want to find these and find who's producing them and sharing them and using them. So of course. No, but thank you for raising it. The government is satisfied that the bill before the committee strikes the right balance, and we support the clauses standing part of the bill. I again wanted to end by thanking the member for Twickenham for her leadership and determination in bringing the Bill to this stage. The government is proud to support this important safeguarding measure and I commend the bill's clauses to the committee. Thank you chair.
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 preventative purpose by enabling earlier identification and intervention, when concerning behaviour may indicate a risk to children. I wanted to come in here around my hon. Friend's contribution around online harm and she is right to raise the most horrific crimes that we see online. We were actually at an event last night where we. Horrifically saw some of the outcomes it can lead to for children. I wanted to reassure her that the government is taking this seriously.
The tech world is moving at pace and we must keep up for the reasons given by the sponsoring member about why this piece of legislation is so tightly focused, I. I would welcome a meeting with her just to discuss how we move at pace when addressing online harm, particularly targeted at children. What I'm really keen to do is ensure that the scope of this remains tight, so that we can address this particular loophole when it comes to physical child sexualised dolls, but I thank her for raising it. The government has worked closely with the honourable member, operational partners and criminal justice stakeholders to ensure that the legislation is clear, robust and workable in practice.
Yes, of course. I thank the honourable member for giving way. I just wanted to clarify one point. About a year ago, a child like sex doll was found in a woodland in Devon, and I just want to confirm that the legislation would protect somebody who found one, who then had to call the police to report it without that. It feels to me that the defence is there, that that is the case, but I just thought it'd be worth putting on record that if a member of the general public were to find one, that they wouldn't be covered by the law, they would be protected by the defences included.
That's already covered in legislation. And naturally, we want to find these and find who's producing them and sharing them and using them. So of course. No, but thank you for raising it. The government is satisfied that the bill before the committee strikes the right balance, and we support the clauses standing part of the bill. I again wanted to end by thanking the member for Twickenham for her leadership and determination in bringing the Bill to this stage. The government is proud to support this important safeguarding measure and I commend the bill's clauses to the committee. Thank you chair.
09:57
09:57
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Munira Wilson much. Can I start by thanking those who spoke for their very kind and generous words to me? I want to thank the honourable member for Lowestoft for her campaigning on this issue. And, you know, she's come under quite a lot of significant personal abuse for the work that she's done on protecting women and girls from violence. So I thank her for that work. And I want to just say that I strongly support the comments she made, although the the amendment that she was seeking to, to bring to this bill and would like to see added to this bill around digital child like sexual abuse dolls around the chat bots that she so clearly laid out was out of scope.
I very much hope that the minister will find ways of taking this forward as as the honourable member said, the the sexualizing chat bots ban that was announced by government was specifically targeted at what children access. Here we're talking about what adults access in terms of physical dolls, but we know that they are also the online world is is developing at pace. So I know, as the government is looking to bring forward all sorts of legislation in this area, that I ask the minister to look as broadly as possible to capture all of these horrendous activities that are going on.
I also want to thank the official opposition for their strong support for this bill, and I wanted to just pick up on a point that the honourable member for Rutland, Stamford, made on the. The argument sometimes given against criminalising these dolls that actually they stop people abusing real children. And what a misnomer that is. I spoke to an amazing organisation in Australia called Collective Shout, who were involved in bringing forward the legislation in in Australia, and they gave me this horrendous example in Australia of a man who was found, who was picked up importing a child like sex doll.
They went to his home. Not only did they find a second child like sex doll and all sorts of child abuse imagery and on on his devices. But wait for this. He had actually created a lockable soundproof room in his house and maps because he was. He had based himself close to a nursery, and he quite clearly had the intention of kidnapping children and doing. I dread to think what. To them in this lockable room that could not be accessed by anyone or. Children's cries could not be heard. That gives you an idea of the intentions of the sorts of people who use these things.
And there are other examples that I know that UK police enforcement authorities are working on at the moment, which I'm not able to share because they're live cases. Yes, please.
I very much hope that the minister will find ways of taking this forward as as the honourable member said, the the sexualizing chat bots ban that was announced by government was specifically targeted at what children access. Here we're talking about what adults access in terms of physical dolls, but we know that they are also the online world is is developing at pace. So I know, as the government is looking to bring forward all sorts of legislation in this area, that I ask the minister to look as broadly as possible to capture all of these horrendous activities that are going on.
I also want to thank the official opposition for their strong support for this bill, and I wanted to just pick up on a point that the honourable member for Rutland, Stamford, made on the. The argument sometimes given against criminalising these dolls that actually they stop people abusing real children. And what a misnomer that is. I spoke to an amazing organisation in Australia called Collective Shout, who were involved in bringing forward the legislation in in Australia, and they gave me this horrendous example in Australia of a man who was found, who was picked up importing a child like sex doll.
They went to his home. Not only did they find a second child like sex doll and all sorts of child abuse imagery and on on his devices. But wait for this. He had actually created a lockable soundproof room in his house and maps because he was. He had based himself close to a nursery, and he quite clearly had the intention of kidnapping children and doing. I dread to think what. To them in this lockable room that could not be accessed by anyone or. Children's cries could not be heard. That gives you an idea of the intentions of the sorts of people who use these things.
And there are other examples that I know that UK police enforcement authorities are working on at the moment, which I'm not able to share because they're live cases. Yes, please.
10:00
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank the decline because essentially what she is doing is 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 exactly planning it. It is absolutely vital that we move to prevention in this area, because the reality is that there are too many children across this country and adults whose lives have been forever harmed by this, something they will live with forever. So actually, what she's doing is not just tackling a doll, but actually she's giving that preventative power where they can go in and catch people before they escalate and therefore protecting children.
So I thank her ever so much for doing so.
So I thank her ever so much for doing so.
10:01
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Absolutely. Completely agree. And actually, the honourable member made the point in her speech about resources. So 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, and I was just talking to them that their number of police officers who track and monitor those on sex offenders registers. The numbers haven't gone up in recent years yet. The number of offenders on the register, particularly with the early release scheme, has gone up.
And so, you know, that workload is increasing all the time. So we've got to resource that properly, and I hope the government will be able to look at that. I know everyone is demanding more money and we're fiscally constrained, but this is a really important area, especially when we're talking about children and protecting children, adding these offences to the statute books. It does need to be resourced properly. And to the honourable member for South West Devon on her intervention. I'm confident that line 24 of the bill, where it talks in terms of the defences for a person who might be charged with an offence, it says the person did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
So I think if somebody's a member of the public finds one of these dolls in a public place and reports it, I think there would be a strong case for defence here that that they weren't in possession of it for use themselves and on, on the other points that were raised around files for 3D printing and tools to adapt dolls, I know the minister has committed to following up, and I'm very happy to work with officials to follow up with colleagues as well to answer those issues and, if necessary, try to make some amendments at report stage when we bring this forward.
So I'll just close by saying thank you again to everybody. I think we are looking at early February, the first week of February, the first Friday, to bring forward this bill to report stage and third reading, and hopefully then get it into the Lords as quickly as we can. So I sorry, I should say to the other place as soon as we can to get it on the statute books, but I'm very, very grateful for everybody's strong support.
And so, you know, that workload is increasing all the time. So we've got to resource that properly, and I hope the government will be able to look at that. I know everyone is demanding more money and we're fiscally constrained, but this is a really important area, especially when we're talking about children and protecting children, adding these offences to the statute books. It does need to be resourced properly. And to the honourable member for South West Devon on her intervention. I'm confident that line 24 of the bill, where it talks in terms of the defences for a person who might be charged with an offence, it says the person did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
So I think if somebody's a member of the public finds one of these dolls in a public place and reports it, I think there would be a strong case for defence here that that they weren't in possession of it for use themselves and on, on the other points that were raised around files for 3D printing and tools to adapt dolls, I know the minister has committed to following up, and I'm very happy to work with officials to follow up with colleagues as well to answer those issues and, if necessary, try to make some amendments at report stage when we bring this forward.
So I'll just close by saying thank you again to everybody. I think we are looking at early February, the first week of February, the first Friday, to bring forward this bill to report stage and third reading, and hopefully then get it into the Lords as quickly as we can. So I sorry, I should say to the other place as soon as we can to get it on the statute books, but I'm very, very grateful for everybody's strong support.
10:03
10:03
10:03
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Is, at clause one stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I have the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that clause two stand part of the bill, which has already been debated, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it.
The ayes have it. The final question I must put is that I do report the bill to the House.
The ayes have it. The final question I must put is that I do report the bill to the House.
10:04
10:04
10:04
10:04
10:04
10:04