Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses

Satvir Kaur Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this important debate and to all Members for their powerful contributions. There is a lot that we can agree on.

It is fair to say that today’s discussion reflects a truth about the age in which we live: that, sadly, the rapid development of technology has presented new ways to exploit and abuse women and girls. While today’s discussion mainly centred on smart glasses, I recognise that many of the issues raised go much further than any single device. They speak to a broader challenge to ensure that innovation develops alongside the safety and protection of everyone, including women and girls.

Our response must be unwavering on that, and under this Government it is. Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone’s business, and that includes tech companies taking their responsibility to keep people safe seriously. Where they fail to do so, we will act. An example of that is our recent announcement on device-level controls legislation. The cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy addresses online and tech-facilitated abuse head on, setting out clear action to tackle it. That is a 10-year strategy, and with the one-year anniversary coming up, important measurables should be assessed and reviewed.

As mentioned, we know that when used responsibly, new technologies like smart glasses can be hugely beneficial. For example, smart glasses have been a game changer for those who are visually impaired, helping them navigate the world around them. However, we expect all tech companies to be designing and deploying products responsibly, with privacy and safety considerations built in from the start. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked an important question about whether those glasses were designed just with blind people in mind. I think the honest answer is probably not.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), said that companies have made it too easy for perpetrators, and I agree. Companies must consider the risks of their products being misused by those determined to abuse women and girls, and mitigate those risks through design. Safety by design of smart and connected technology means that we can better protect victims and survivors and stop perpetrators misusing technology.

On the question of a complete ban or restrictions of smart glasses, the benefits of smart glasses must be weighed against the harms that they can cause. The Government are already looking into options to restrict smart glasses in certain settings and restricting the sale to certain users. That work is happening at pace. Some settings have clear restrictions on taking images or videos, such as courts and tribunals, which is why the use of smart glasses in those settings is already prohibited. Other settings, such as healthcare and education, have existing safeguarding or professional policies that are relevant to smart glasses and any kind of digital recording. Both NHS England and the Department for Education are currently looking into wearable technology in certain settings as well.

The Government also recognise the concerns raised about the use of smart glasses on the parliamentary estate. These concerns are serious and I share them. Appropriate next steps are currently being considered, notwithstanding the decisions that a parliamentary Commission and Speakers of both Houses can make on the matter.

Everyone, including women and girls, has the right to feel safe going about their daily life without worrying that images or videos of them are being made and then potentially shared online without their knowledge. The Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which was brought into force earlier this year, makes it illegal for someone to harass someone else based on their sex or presumed sex, and perpetrators are already being held to account as a result. This could include taking images or videos without a person’s consent, and it can be a one-off offence.

Equally, stalking protection orders can be used to tackle stalking that is facilitated by technology, including devices such as smart glasses. That work is supported by Project Vigilant, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned. The project, which is funded by Government, is a proactive policing tactic used by trained officers to identify and disrupt perpetrator behaviour in public spaces.

[Marie Goldman]

The Minister is making some important points; I am pleased to hear that the Government are listening. I gently say to her that posting an image or some video footage online of a woman who has been recorded without her knowledge often does not meet the threshold of stalking or harassment in itself, yet the effect on the woman can be absolutely awful. That is what the police are grappling with at the moment—they do not feel that they can prosecute. Even when the victim asks the platforms to take the footage down, the platforms do not do anything about it. What more can the Government do to tackle those specific points?

[Satvir Kaur]

The hon. Member is right to focus on the victim. This should not just be the responsibility of the victim. We need to design out the issues so that it does not happen in the first place, and platforms 1000% have a responsibility and should take down any images that were put up without a person’s consent. The sharing of those images without consent is illegal.

As I was about to say, where content captured using smart glasses is illegal and uploaded or shared, the Online Safety Act 2023 provides important protections. Platforms must remove non-consensual intimate images, prevent users from encountering them and prevent their services from being used to carry out an offence.

[Edward Morello]

I had the dubious pleasure of questioning representatives of the social media platforms during the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry into misinformation and disinformation. Although I take the Minister’s point that there may be online safety regulation that directs them to remove it, the problem is that spreading engaging content is fundamental to their business model.

By the time someone has gone through the process of flagging something to a social media company and having it removed, it has already been spread by a dozen different accounts. These companies are monetising it; it is inherent to their business model. Until we start tackling the profitability of sharing this content, we will never force them into action. Can we please get some provision that allows us to fine the hell out of them for sharing this information, so that it stops making them money?

[Satvir Kaur]

Ofcom is fining platforms, but I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. Do I believe that all platforms are doing everything possible to root this out? Absolutely not. Do they need to go further? Absolutely.

[Shockat Adam]

Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) about profitability for social media platforms—and going back to what the shadow Minister said about how the manufacturers of these products intend to be good—I think we may be being a little naive. The company that makes the most popular smart glasses on the market is worth £28.5 billion. These are very smart people, and they know how these things can be utilised. Does the Minister agree that the product manufacturers hold a great deal of responsibility, and that we must be able to legislate for that as well?

[Satvir Kaur]

The hon. Member will have heard me talk at the beginning of my speech about designing out the problem. That is really targeted at manufacturers—an Apple or a Google—rather than the platforms themselves. One example of us going further where tech companies have failed is device-level controls. We need to nip this in the bud rather than allowing it to get out of control, and one way to do that is designing out the problem in the first place.

[Blake Stephenson]

I want to take the opportunity to clarify that I did not make the point that manufacturers were intending to do good. I said that they were not intending in their design to cause harm to women and girls, which is different. I do not think they intend to cause harm, but through their design, harm is being caused. I just wanted to clarify that; maybe the Minister agrees with me.

[Satvir Kaur]

I do, although I would add that tech companies are very clever, and while they may not intend harm, they absolutely should feel their responsibility when producing and designing these products to safeguard women and girls. I know the shadow Minister and I agree on that.

I was asked directly about this, so let me be clear: sharing or threatening to share an intimate image without consent is a criminal offence. That includes creating or requesting the creation of deepfake intimate images of adults without consent. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 strengthens those offences further.

[Marie Goldman]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. I feel that this is how debates should work in this place—it is really good to have this back and forth, and lots of Members are making really good contributions.

The Minister has talked a couple of times about intimate images. I want to make the point that these are not all intimate images, but it is nevertheless really distressing when they are shared across social media. I am worried about that focus on intimacy, because it is not always about intimacy in the way that we might understand it.

[Satvir Kaur]

No, absolutely. Irrespective, if someone’s image is out there without their consent, that is a problem.

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for sharing the harrowing story of Isabella, and I thank Isabella for allowing him to do so. It is completely unacceptable. Stories like that, which I sadly now hear on a very regular basis, make me and the Government even more determined to tackle this issue and focus on supporting the victim. We have heard so many times about how women and girls can act differently, and nothing frustrates me more. We really need to go for the perpetrators and for those that are creating the harm—big tech companies.

I want to reassure the hon. Member that misogyny, and particularly online misogyny, is being taken seriously by this Government. That is why we have created the national taskforce for tackling misogyny, which received £15 million in the Budget to do its work. Healthy relationships are now being taught about in schools. I have been part of one of those sessions, which I found really insightful and powerful. It was a bit sad hearing about teenagers’ experiences and what they think is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. We sit here and think, “Surely children must know,” but actually they do not, because of what they are seeing online.

To reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset further, the Government have looked at domestic violence protection orders to ensure that they are not just about violent behaviour but that we broaden the scope to include abuse, which is why they are evolving into domestic abuse protection orders. There is already a pilot, and we are hoping to roll it out nationally by the end of this year. It will better protect victims, and it covers not just violence but things such as coercive control and stalking. To date, the pilot has resulted in the introduction of more than 2,000 police-led DAPOs, so I see it as a turning point that will widen the scope, increase our understanding and result in the police being given more powers.

I again thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for securing the debate, and I am grateful to Members for their invaluable contributions. This is not the end of the journey; it is very much the beginning. The Government are committed to this agenda, and I am personally determined to ensure that everyone—especially women and girls—can live their lives without fear of abuse. Our response must include a clear and robust response to the technological advancements of our age, whether in the form of smart glasses or any other product. Safety must be prioritised.

Tech companies have a responsibility. This Government will hold them to account, and we will not hesitate to act where they are failing. The scale of the challenge is vast, and we will tackle violence against women and girls only if everyone plays their part, but I am confident that together—including by working across parties—we can do that.

Strangulation: Prevention and Awareness

Satvir Kaur Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVeigh.

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), both for securing this important debate and for her tireless efforts in advocating for improved prevention of strangulation and for greater public awareness of the risks that it poses. I was also going to thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution to the debate, but sadly he has left the Chamber.

Before addressing the many points that the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury made, I will first say that I agree with her on why tackling this issue matters. As she said, this Government have committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, and improving our response to strangulation forms an important part of that mission. As she also said, that means recognising the signs early, supporting victims and training professionals to identify those signs.

We know that strangulation is a life-threatening form of violence and abuse, and non-fatal strangulation is one of the strongest indicators of future serious violence and domestic homicide. The scale of the challenge is vast. The hon. Member mentioned some of the statistics; around 44,000 strangulation offences were recorded last year alone, up by 13% from the previous year, with research suggesting that over half of young people aged between 16 and 25 have experienced strangulation or suffocation. I thought that nothing could shock me in this job any more, but that last statistic certainly did. There is also worrying evidence that strangulation is becoming normalised among young people.

Let me be clear: there is no safe way to strangle someone. As the hon. Member rightly said, we know that behind every one of those statistics is a victim—a victim living in fear, a victim dealing with trauma, a victim whose life has been put at risk. I thank the hon. Member for sharing Rose’s story, and I thank Rose herself for having the bravery to come forward and tell it. What Rose experienced is shocking and unacceptable, and clearly the failures in her case must be addressed and acted on.

We also know that victims of strangulation can experience serious physical and psychological consequences without displaying obvious signs of injury. Opportunities to identify risks can therefore be missed and victims can be left without the support they need, as the hon. Member rightly said. That is why prevention and public awareness are so important. I assure her that this Government are taking action focused on prevention, but she is right that legislation alone is not enough. There must also be changes in the education, health care and criminal justice systems to prevent and tackle strangulation.

On prevention, we are challenging the harmful attitudes and behaviours that can underpin violence against women and girls through our Enough campaign, which is raising awareness of this abuse. I am happy to send the hon. Member more information about that campaign. We are also supporting young people in and out of schools to understand healthy and respectful relationships by strengthening statutory relationship, sex and health education guidance to include specific teaching on strangulation and suffocation. That is now part of the school curriculum and will be financially supported. As the hon. Member rightly said, it is vital that we get to children early. As she knows, new offences criminalising the possession and publication of pornography depicting acts of strangulation will come into force this Friday. We are taking decisive action to challenge content that can contribute to the normalisation of dangerous and abusive behaviours.

The hon. Member mentioned health, and we are improving the identification of domestic abuse and sexual violence in healthcare settings through the NHS Steps to Safety programme, helping to ensure that victims are connected to specialist support at the earliest opportunity. She gave some really powerful examples of how cases have been missed; hopefully, the roll-out of Steps to Safety will act as a preventive measure, enabling us to get to victims as early as possible. We are also improving research, professional training, clinical guidance and public awareness through our support since its inception of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation. It has become an important centre of expertise. I will come on to its funding in a minute.

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury mentioned the importance of justice. We are bringing perpetrators to justice, even where there is no visible injury, through the stand-alone offence of strangulation and suffocation. The police can already use domestic violence protection notices and orders to provide immediate protection following violence or the threat of violence, and that includes strangulation. I am pleased to say that by the end of this year we will strengthen those protections through the roll-out of the new domestic abuse protection notices and orders, which will provide longer term and more flexible protections against all forms of domestic abuse, including strangulation.

An important part of that is multi-agency working. The hon. Member rightly identified that this is not just a matter of the police doing their part, but one of everybody really focusing on the victim and how best to support their needs. We know that there is more to do. Preventing abuse requires awareness, early intervention and a co-ordinated response across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services. Hopefully, the multi-agency work that we are bedding in will make a difference.

The hon. Member asked about policing. She will be aware that we are introducing specialist teams in every single police force across the country. Hopefully, the domestic abuse protection orders that will sit alongside that will go further in encouraging victims and survivors to come forward and know they will be taken seriously. I have heard, as I am sure she has, that too often victims do not come forward because they do not think that they will be believed. Hopefully, we can turn a corner with that.

The hon. Member mentioned the important work of the Institute for Addressing Strangulation, and we agree on how invaluable its work is. The Government are proud to have supported IFAS since its inception, investing more than £2 million in strengthening the research, improving professional practice and raising awareness of this issue. Through that support, the Institute has become a recognised centre of national expertise on strangulation, helping to improve understanding of these crimes across healthcare, policing and the criminal justice system while providing training to more than 22,000 frontline professionals. On funding in particular, she will know and, hopefully, understand that I cannot comment on funding arrangements currently being considered. I can say that I support her analysis of the exceptionally good work that the institute does, and I will push for those decisions to be made as soon as possible, so that we can offer the certainty that it so desperately needs.

I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury again for securing this important debate. I offered her a meeting beforehand, and I am more than happy to follow up on that to talk about this further. This debate has, rightly, highlighted the progress that has been made but also the challenges that remain. We know that strangulation is a serious and potentially life-threatening form of abuse; we know that its impacts are often hidden, and we know that improving awareness, identifying risks early and strengthening support for victims can save lives. While progress has been made through the introduction of a stand-alone offence, improving professional awareness and the work of organisations such as IFAS, there is more to do.

We must continue to improve understanding of the risks associated with strangulation and challenge the attitudes that can normalise this abuse. We must continue to work across healthcare, policing, education, safeguarding and specialist support services to ensure that victims receive the support they need and deserve. Although it is action rather than words that will ultimately make the difference, debates such as this one provide an important opportunity for us to review our commitment to working together across political parties, sectors and services. Victims deserve nothing less. By doing this work, we can improve awareness, prevent harm, support victims and ensure that this dangerous form of abuse is recognised, challenged and addressed wherever it occurs.

Question put and agreed to.

Equality Act 2010 Guidance: Gynaecological Conditions

Satvir Kaur Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Equalities (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I will endeavour to speak at pace so that I can cover everyone’s points and respond accordingly.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) for introducing this important debate on a serious issue faced by so many women and girls; I am sure that we can all agree that she spoke extremely passionately. I thank her personally for her ongoing efforts in this campaign. I extend my thanks to the campaigners in the Gallery and acknowledge the challenges that my hon. Friend’s constituent Sanju Pal has faced, which led her to create this petition to add gynaecological conditions to the Equality Act 2010 guidance.

I thank everyone for sharing their stories and for their contributions. I am personally passionate about this issue. The stats speak for themselves; I am not going to repeat them, but we all know that behind every one of them is a woman potentially suffering in silence—a woman getting dismissed and a woman who needs support.

This Government recognise the difficulties and pain that women and girls face in managing symptoms related to gynaecological conditions. As today’s debate has highlighted, menstrual and reproductive health issues can have a significant impact on the physical and mental wellbeing of women and girls, including on their participation in the workplace. The struggle is real and I have felt it myself, so I can relate to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). I personally thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate for her efforts inside this House as well: I have definitely reaped the benefits from those internal campaigns. For example, I have been able to vote by proxy when struggling with my health.

As a Government, we do not believe that anyone in this country should have to choose between managing their health and pursuing their career. We are committed to protecting the rights of women against unlawful discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that they have access to redress. As Members will know, depending on the circumstances, the Equality Act already provides protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex, age or disability. The Act’s definition of disability focuses, for the most part, on how a condition affects a person’s day-to-day life, rather than listing specific conditions or impairments. That flexibility is important to allow the law to cover a vast range of conditions, as well as to avoid the risk of excluding changing, fluctuating or progressive conditions that impact on individuals differently.

My hon. Friend and other Members may be aware that the Government intend to produce guidance explaining how the law protects against combined discrimination. We can, of course, consider how gynaecological conditions can form part of that, and I will ensure that that is considered effectively. Alongside that, my hon. Friend and others will agree—I know that she made noises to this effect—that the issue can be addressed more effectively and quickly through ongoing efforts to help employers themselves to take more effective steps to support the health and wellbeing of their female employees: strengthening rights related to sick leave and flexible working, and improving how the health system addresses these conditions.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, and I do not doubt for one second her belief in the policy moving forward. However, I am concerned—and it is just a concern—that putting it into the Act will make employers recognise that it is specifically there, whereas saying that the Act can deal with it is still a bit opaque. This is one of the problems we have had; we want specificity, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, to make employers recognise just how serious the situation is.

[Satvir Kaur]

I accept that making it clearer will absolutely help; that should be considered as part of the combined discrimination guidance. I reassure Members that that will be considered. It is also important that we stress what else the Government are doing to address these issues. This debate has been healthy in reflecting that this is a wider issue that cannot only be addressed in legislation, although legislation is, of course, important.

We want to encourage employers to implement workplace adjustments, which have been raised by several Members in the debate, to help women remain in work and thrive in their careers. This Government are committed to that—not just because it is the right thing to do, but because equality is a precondition to our economic success, as many have already pointed out.

By creating more supportive and informed workplaces, we can help ensure that women with endometriosis or other health conditions can remain in work, progress in their careers and reach their full potential. That is why there is a great deal of action being taken by this Government to improve the support and protections available to women experiencing symptoms relating to gynaecological conditions.

In April this year, Mariella Frostrup was appointed as the Government’s women’s employment ambassador. In that role, she will campaign on women’s health throughout their life course, working with employers across the country to strengthen workplace support, raise awareness of key health issues and address wider challenges affecting women in work, highlighting the vital economic contribution that women make.

The ambassador attended the launch of the “Endometriosis (Not) in the Workplace” report. In her remarks, she emphasised that supporting women’s health in the workplace is not only the right thing to do, but vital in retaining talent, reducing inequalities and strengthening the economy. This work will also include engaging with Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent “Keep Britain Working” review, which highlighted the scale of economic inactivity due to ill health and disability, as well as the important role employers can play in helping people to stay in work.

During the vanguard phase, we have worked with employers, providers, unions and people with health conditions to develop and refine approaches that will help people thrive in work, including promoting early conversations about health needs and supporting reasonable workplace adjustments for women’s health conditions.

As we develop workplace health systems, we are considering how health and work interact across different stages of life, including the impact of endometriosis and other long-term fluctuating menstrual health conditions on people’s ability to remain and thrive in work.

We welcome the involvement of Endometriosis UK in the vanguard phase, which provides valuable insight into the experiences of people living with these conditions and helps inform our approach. As well as taking steps to create more supportive and informed workplaces, the renewed women’s health strategy, published in April, represents a decisive shift towards addressing long-standing failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences, and access to care. Some of the stories shared in this debate are heartbreaking, and all of them have led to this important shift. The women’s health strategy identifies endometriosis as a priority condition and states our commitment to improve the treatment and ongoing care for every woman affected.

Through the plan Make Work Pay, we are strengthening support for people and managing health conditions alongside their work by requiring employers to accept flexible working requests where it is reasonable for them to do so. We want to ensure that all employers are supporting their employees’ health and wellbeing, because that will benefit the employees and their organisation. That is why the Government are getting large employers to publish action plans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned, setting out how they will make meaningful changes to tackle the barriers women face throughout their working lives, including the steps being taken to improve support for menopause and endometriosis and to address the gender pay gap.

Importantly, the EHRC was mentioned. As Members will know, that is independent of the Government and will make its own operational decisions. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I am sorry if I did not get to everyone’s points.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of adding gynaecological conditions to Equality Act 2010 guidance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Satvir Kaur Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon (Chester North and Neston) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

Violence against women and girls is one of the biggest challenges of our time, and this Government have made a commitment to halve it. Progress towards achieving that includes rolling out dedicated VAWG teams in every police force, specialist rape and serious sex offence courtrooms, and the introduction of domestic abuse protection orders. We are teaching children in schools about healthy relationships, and we are preparing legislation to make it impossible for children to take, share and view nude images.

[Samantha Dixon]

I pay tribute to Chester Women’s Aid, which continues to campaign hard for victims and survivors of domestic abuse in my constituency. Can the Minister update the House on the roll-out of the new domestic abuse protection orders, which enable support services to apply for a protective order on behalf of a survivor?

[Satvir Kaur]

I thank my hon. Friend for her continued work in this space and Chester Women’s Aid for its vital work in supporting the community. Supporting victims is at the heart of the Government’s strategy, which is backed by £1 billion of cross-Government investment. Domestic abuse protection orders already exist in five areas, and more than 2,000 police-led DAPOs have been issued. DAPOs will be rolled out across England and Wales by the end of the year, providing stronger protection for victims, widening the scope and, as my hon. Friend says, enabling applications from the police, victims themselves and third parties such as Chester Women’s Aid.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Cheshire constabulary was named the best police force in England and Wales for the highest charge rates for crimes against women and girls—specifically, sexual offences, violence against the person, stalking and harassment. The chief constable, under whose leadership this has happened, is retiring next week. Will the Minister join me and fellow Cheshire MPs in congratulating him on his dedicated life of service, and is she, like me, surprised that the police and crime commissioner for Cheshire did not seek to extend the chief constable’s tenure when he offered to remain in service?

[Satvir Kaur]

I extend my congratulations to the chief constable on his dedicated service, and join Cheshire MPs in congratulating Cheshire police force.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Foreign nationals, including illegal immigrants, make up 23% of sex offenders. The Home Office knows that, and even hands out leaflets asking illegal immigrants nicely not to rape. That is why mothers in Piddington are now terrified that over 1,000 young male illegal immigrants are about to turn up. In order to protect women and girls, rather than allowing 95% of illegal immigrants to stay and accommodating them in Piddington or anywhere else, should the Government not leave the European convention on human rights and deport them?

[Satvir Kaur]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that returns are up, and we will accommodate that in any way we can.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As she will know, there are dedicated teams in every single police force. The Health Secretary has announced the steps to change in our local GP practices, and we are working across Government to halve violence against women and girls.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

There is wide consensus across the House on the need to tackle modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 went a long way towards doing that, but fails to have any real teeth to stop slave-produced goods being sold in this country. The Immigration and Asylum Bill presents this House with an opportunity to give that Act some real teeth. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister sit down with me to discuss the options to give that Act teeth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)]

I warmly welcome the £722,000 investment that the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly integrated care board will receive as part of the new steps to safety programme, which will train GPs’ staff to spot the signs of domestic abuse and provide referrals to specialist support. Does the Minister agree that trusted local services such as GPs’ services have a vital role to play to identify victims earlier?

[Satvir Kaur]

I do.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for confirming that the contract for the Cladhan to be used as asylum accommodation signed by the previous Government will be cancelled this year. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that was enabled only by significantly falling small boat numbers and the lowest backlog since 2019, and that claims that people are just being moved around are not borne out by the numbers?

Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Victim and Survivor Advisory Panel

Satvir Kaur Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

I am today announcing the establishment of an advisory panel for adult victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation, fulfilling a commitment made by the former Home Secretary in 2025. The panel will be established independently by the office of the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, supported by up to £1 million of Home Office funding over the next three years.

Too often, victims and survivors tell us that policies are developed for them, rather than with them. This new advisory panel will help to change that by placing victim and survivor voices at the heart of the Government’s work to tackle child sexual abuse and exploitation. It will give victims and survivors living in England and Wales a stronger voice in shaping relevant policy, as well as the support they receive.

The panel will be established and operated independently by the office of the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales. The Victims’ Commissioner plays a crucial role in championing the interests of victims and witnesses across the criminal justice system. Locating the panel in the commissioner’s office will enable victims and survivors to contribute independently and share their views openly with Government and their partners. The office will use its position and influence to enable consistent and meaningful engagement between the panel and Government.

We have taken a thoughtful and considered approach to developing this panel because we recognise that participation must be safe, trauma-informed and shaped by people with lived experience. Victims and survivors have been involved in its development from the outset. It also draws on evidence from wider participation models, including those established by the Independent Inquiry into child sexual abuse, alongside expertise from the specialist child sexual abuse sector and relevant international practice.

I would like to thank each and every victim and survivor who has given their time and insight to help shape this panel, including those who contributed through the committee facilitated by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. We are committed to honouring the legacy of their work by carrying forward what they have shared and ensuring that their experiences, perspectives and recommendations continue to inform the development and future work of the new panel.

The panel will comprise a core group of members, and will be supported by wider routes for engagement, so that a broader range of victims and survivors can contribute to its work. This model recognises that no single group can reflect every experience of child sexual abuse and exploitation, and will help ensure that the panel’s advice is informed by diverse voices, perspectives and experiences.

The Victims’ Commissioner will lead the recruitment of panel members through a fair, transparent and trauma-informed process. Recruitment will open later this year, with the panel expected to begin its work in 2027. The Government will support the commissioner to publicise the opportunity widely, and will encourage applications from people with a broad range of experiences, perspectives and backgrounds.

Victims and survivors know better than anyone where systems fail and where they need to improve. Their insight can help us build services that respond more effectively to the needs of victims and survivors, both now and in the future. This Government are committed not only to listening carefully to the panel’s advice, but to ensuring that their advice meaningfully informs policies, services and outcomes for those affected by child sexual abuse and exploitation. Our ambition is that the panel will help turn that insight into lasting change.

[HCWS411]

Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

Satvir Kaur Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Hate Crime Law: Misogyny

Satvir Kaur Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I pay tribute to the organisers of the petition, including several student unions, whose commitment and hard work have helped to ensure that this important issue receives the attention it deserves. Sadly, their report, which highlights the scale of the problem, is only reinforced by other surveys and research. We know that people aged between 16 and 24 are more likely to be victims of sexual assault, and that those aged 16 to 19 experience higher levels of harassment than any other age group. As has been mentioned, we also know that non-contact abuse strongly leads to contact abuse. In addition, we know that behind every statistic is a daughter, a niece, a friend, a colleague or another loved one.

To the petition organisers, to those who have signed the petition, and to the women and girls whose experiences lie behind it, I want to be clear that misogyny, harassment and violence against women and girls have no place in our homes, on our streets, where we study, where we work or anywhere in our society, and that tackling this is and will remain a Government priority. My hon. and learned Friend has my personal commitment to the violence against women and girls strategy, and everything that it seeks to deliver. For me, it has a particular focus on prevention.

The petition calls for misogyny to be considered within the hate crime legislative framework, alongside wider action against harassment, assault and online abuse of women and girls. I recognise that for many people who signed this petition, this debate is about so much more than legislative frameworks; for them, it is about whether women and girls feel safe, whether their experiences are taken seriously, and whether the law adequately recognises the harm caused by misogynistic behaviour and abuse. Like too many women, I have personally experienced it, and I am determined to do all I can to ensure that my daughter does not grow up in a world where feeling unsafe or being harassed purely because you are a woman is the norm.

As Members know, the Government have already legislated to recognise sex-based hostility within the aggravated offences framework, and we are taking action to tackle violence against women and girls. I will take each of those points in turn before addressing the petition’s calls directly, and I will respond to questions asked throughout the debate.

As Members know, when talking about hate crime legislation in England and Wales, we are referring not to a single Act, but to a framework. Therefore, calls to recognise misogyny as a hate crime may refer to different parts of the framework, each of which covers different protected characteristics and serves a distinct legal purpose. Broadly speaking, the framework operates through three main mechanisms: aggravated offences, enhanced sentencing provision and offences that criminalise the stirring of hatred against particular groups.

As mentioned throughout the debate, through the Crime and Policing Act, the Government legislated to extend the aggravated offences framework part to cover sex and presumed sex, alongside disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity. Under the Act, offences motivated by hostility towards those characteristics will be treated on the same basis as those involving race or religion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) said, it is all interconnected. That means that for the first time, the courts will be able to recognise hostility based on sex and reflect the additional harm caused when someone is targeted because of their sex.

The new legislation also targets nudification tools, which several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), raised. Such tools use artificial intelligence to generate intimate images of individuals without their consent. The legislation criminalises making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply such tools, and helps to tackle a growing form of online abuse that disproportionately affects women and girls, as mentioned throughout the debate. Those measures build on wider action to combat image-based abuse and ensure that those who create or facilitate such harmful content can be held to account. In addition, the Government have commenced the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which has already seen perpetrators brought to justice.

In response to the question about the commencement of the Crime and Policing Act, I assure Members that the Government are going as quickly as possible. We are working across Government, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, and hopefully we can get that through as quickly as possible.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Minister is listing a series of measures, which we all welcome, but I do not hear her actually committing to making misogyny a hate crime. It does not sound like the Government are really considering that. Could she explain why?

[Satvir Kaur]

As I said earlier, it is useful for Members to understand the context—what is already happening and how we built to that—before I directly address the call from the petition.

To further support our collective efforts, our cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy was published in December 2025. Actions include making the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful online content and misogynistic influences. We are doing that through our online safety regime and by banning under-16s from major social media platforms, backed by one of the toughest enforcement regimes in the world. We will always seek to go further where we can, with a focus on preventing rather than just reacting.

The Ministry of Justice will launch a call for evidence to better understand online misogynistic image-based abuse. In addition, the Department for Education has updated relationships, sex and health education curriculums, which now include teaching on online safety and awareness, healthy relationships and positive role models. Hon. Members talked about a whole societal shift. It is important that we focus on prevention, so I welcome that. Guidance and resources will be provided to support hard-working teachers to recognise the signs of ideologies so that we can intervene swiftly and effectively.

The higher education regulator has introduced strict new requirements that will ensure that every university works to prevent, address and investigate any incidents of sexual harassment and abuse affecting its students. To help address the issue that many people who engage in harmful behaviour do not always recognise their actions as abusive, we have developed a cross-Government behaviour change campaign called Enough. A few Members mentioned people not recognising what is not okay, and also the evidence gap and lack of reporting. It is really important that this campaign explicitly helps people in all walks of life—both victims and perpetrators—to recognise what is and is not acceptable.

I will directly address the petition’s call for misogyny to be recognised more broadly in the hate crime framework beyond the changes already made through the Crime and Policing Act. Although I cannot commit the Government to such changes today, we must always ensure that the hate crime framework is fit for purpose. It is right to mention alternative views, such as those from the Law Commission’s 2021 review, which concluded that adding sex or gender to the existing hate crime framework would not necessarily provide the most effective response in tackling violence against women and girls, and cautioned that reform in this area could have unintended consequences.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Home Secretary commissioned Lord Macdonald in October 2025 to undertake an independent review to consider whether public order and hate crime legislation remains effective. The review engaged extensively with stakeholders from across civil society, academia and community organisations to ensure that a wide range of perspectives informed its conclusions. Lord Macdonald has submitted his final report, which the Government is currently considering, and a response will follow in due course. It is right and fitting that the review’s conclusions help to underpin decision making on any further changes to the hate crime framework and how best to protect women and girls.

On the broader calls from petitioners about tackling violence against women and girls, we know that legislation is an important part, but only one part, of the solution, and cannot tackle violence against women and girls on its own. We must also prevent offending, challenge harmful attitudes, support victims and improve criminal justice responses. We want women and girls to have the confidence to come forward and report crimes while knowing that they will be taken seriously, treated with respect and supported to secure justice. This Government are meeting the petition’s request to fund support for victims and the training to support it. A few Members mentioned training and funding, and I reassure them that training is being expanded and that specialist VAWG teams are being rolled out to all local police forces. The deadline for that was brought forward by the Prime Minister only a couple of weeks ago.

This year, the Home Office is investing more than £13.9 million in the national centre for VAWG and public protection to help ensure that all victims receive the right response. That is part of the Government’s wider investment of over £1 billion to support victims of VAWG, including nearly £500 million for local authorities to provide support in safe accommodation to victims of domestic abuse in Middlesbrough and across the country—I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) for raising that issue. More than £550 million will be invested across justice to pay for counselling, court guidance and children’s services to support victims. Up to £50 million will also be invested in therapeutic support for child victims of sexual abuse, alongside a further £5 million to support victims of VAWG.

[Blake Stephenson]

I want to be absolutely clear, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) made an interesting point about the funding that organisations receive through their police and crime commissioner. Can the Minister confirm that, once police and crime commissioners disappear from our framework, the same funding—or more, perhaps —will be available to those organisations? If so, how will they receive that money?

[Satvir Kaur]

As the Home Secretary said during her statement to the House last week, it will form part of the ongoing policing reform. That will naturally have an impact on how regional and local areas are funded, and that is right and proper.

[Luke Myer]

PCCs will be abolished in 2028, but the reforms will take much longer than that. In many parts of the country the PCC role will easily transfer over to a mayoral role, but that will not be the case in Cleveland, where the boundary of the police is not coterminous with that of the combined authority. The Minister mentioned that one of my councils is very advanced in this work. Can she take away the proposals for some of the funding and powers to go straight to the local authority level in cases where there are such tensions between different government boundaries and bodies?

[Satvir Kaur]

I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with the relevant policing Minister to ensure that that is explored fully.

Before I conclude, I want to cover the other issues that have been raised. On data gaps and reporting, I want to highlight that the Enough campaign is bearing fruit, but it is obviously a big piece of work. Specialist VAWG teams are also going into local areas, and a part of their role is ensuring that local police forces work with local communities so that there is an uptick in reporting, which must be taken more seriously to help address data gaps, because we know that is an ongoing concern.

I was asked about conversations with police forces, and those are ongoing. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has left the Chamber, but he mentioned what happened to the female protester at the Reform conference. That was disgusting and unacceptable, and I know that the police are encouraging the victim to come forward; I feel we should all do the same to ensure that justice is done.

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the Minister for her response, but I want to highlight the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) about cracking down on platforms that facilitate misogynistic abuse. Forgive me if the Minister has covered this, but Ofcom has come out with voluntary guidance that suggests various mechanisms for providers to follow. Ultimately, however, if they are not mandatory requirements in the same way as Ofcom’s amended codes of practice, how will that ever force these platforms to stop the monetisation of misogyny and the sorts of practices that are leading to the mass indoctrination of young people? Can she say something about how we might be tightening that up?

[Satvir Kaur]

On online abuse and harm, it is right and fitting that we work with tech companies because, fundamentally, we all have a responsibility. Where they are failing to come forward, legislation must always be the backstop. Of course, legislation is not the solution and the answer to everything, and working proactively should always be the first step, but we must ensure that we use all possible levers. The VAWG strategy makes it absolutely clear that we will continue to do that.

To conclude, I thank all Members who have participated today. The Government share the determination behind this petition. As I have set out, we have already taken significant action in this area through the Crime and Policing Act, and any further changes to hate crime legislation will be informed by the findings of Lord Macdonald’s independent review on public order and hate crime legislation. More broadly, our work to tackle violence against women and girls continues at pace. The VAWG strategy sets out a blueprint, and this Government are determined to deliver on our mission.

Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone’s business, and it is one of the biggest challenges of our time. The Government recognise that it is far too serious and important an issue for us not to act firmly on it, and we will continue to do so until women and girls—whoever they are and wherever they live—feel safe and can live free from fear.