Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

Debate between Jess Asato and Alicia Kearns

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.