Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is an absolute pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I start by thanking all the hon. Members who have given up their time today to discuss and scrutinise this Bill on a horrific yet important issue. I am going to provide a trigger warning to everyone here today—hon. Members, and also those in the Public Gallery and listening online—because of the disturbing nature of some of the material I will share. It has certainly been a difficult issue for me and my parliamentary assistant, Max, to explore in detail in recent months. He is in the Public Gallery, and I am very grateful for all his work.

Given the quirks of the private Member’s Bill process, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak about my Bill in Parliament, so I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will forgive and indulge me if I spend a few moments speaking about the Bill in broad terms and setting the context before I address its specific clauses.

Child-like sexual abuse dolls are life-like, anatomically correct dolls, or any other object, designed to resemble a child and to be used for sexual activity. I was shocked to discover that these things even existed, let alone that they are legal to possess or sell in our country, but they are, and I have seen them in person. I have even felt one, and it is impossible to make it clear in words just how vile they are and how they are produced to be as life-like as possible. Increasingly, they are custom-made to order, and with the advance of technology, I shudder to think how closely these dolls will be made to resemble an actual child.

These dolls are dangerous. They sexualise children. They normalise sexual abuse and form part of a pattern of behaviour that can and does end in real children being harmed. I have heard this at first hand from the police and the National Crime Agency, as well as from leading child protection charities such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. For example, in 2017, an ex-school governor here in the UK was found to have imported a child-like sexual abuse doll. He was also found to be in possession of 34,000 images of child sexual abuse. His case is one of many that demonstrate the horror of the issue and the real consequences of these dolls being legal.

As the law stands, the dolls expose a gaping hole in our child protection laws. It is not an offence to own, use or make them. Existing laws can sometimes be used where these items are imported, sold or distributed, and Border Force plays an important role in stopping them entering the country. However, those offences were not designed specifically for child-like sexual abuse dolls, and they do not provide a clear or comprehensive legal framework. The result is a patchwork approach that can leave gaps in protection.

Since 2017, when the NCA and Border Force ran Operation Shiraz, law enforcement authorities have been using this dated customs legislation that prohibits the importation of “indecent or obscene articles”. There have been some prosecutions, but too many are falling through the cracks, as is demonstrated by the following case study. A registered sex offender had his home searched following a prompt relating to child sexual abuse imagery. A child-like sexual abuse doll was found, resembling a child of approximately four to five years of age. It came with a child’s underwear and pink, fluffy slippers, as well as accessories, including a removable penis. He was able to be charged only with the indecent images of children offence, not the possession and use of a child-like sexual abuse doll. Furthermore, under current legislation, the police did not have the legal powers to remove and destroy the doll.

The Bill we are considering will close that gap in the law by amending the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It will make it an offence to make, possess, import, supply or offer to supply—that is, advertise—a child-like sex doll. How we define a child-like sex doll in legislation is important, and for that, I draw Members’ attention to clause 1 and proposed new subsections 46D(2) and (9) of the 2003 Act. A child-like sex doll will be defined as

“a doll or other object…which resembles a child or any part of a child’s body, and…which a reasonable person would consider has been made for, or is intended to be used for, engaging in a sexual activity, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.”

That definition is drafted to make the legislation as effective as possible without being overly prescriptive. For example, manufacturers of the dolls sometimes ensure that the dolls have large breasts, because that is what their customers want. They then try to claim that the dolls are not child-like due to their breast size, regardless of the fact that these dolls are, in every other sense, clearly designed and intended to resemble a child. This definition will also close another loophole that has been increasingly exploited to evade the existing customs legislation that I referred to, whereby parts of a doll are ordered separately rather than a whole doll and are subsequently assembled at home.

A number of countries around the world have already put similar legislation in place. The reference to whether a “reasonable person” would consider it likely that dolls have been made for sexual activity is modelled on the Australian legislation. It is an objective test and allows consideration to be given to the characteristics of the doll in its entirety rather than insisting that it has set features. As with similar judgments involving child sexual abuse material and other offences where age, appearance and context are relevant, it will be up to the court to weigh up the circumstance of each case.

I would also like to bring proposed new subsection 46D(9) in clause 1 into this part of the discussion. The offence of making a child-like sexual abuse doll includes adaptation. For example, an offender found to have made their own doll through adapting a child’s toy doll—a real scenario presented to me by the NCA—would also fall under this legislation. The subsection also defines a child as

“a person aged under 18.”

The Bill makes exception for relevant defences in clause 1 through proposed new subsections 46D(3) to (5) of the 2003 Act, including the protection of law enforcement officers working on detecting or investigating a crime relating to such dolls, as well as unsolicited or unintentional possession. I reassure Members that these defences are tightly drafted; vitally, the burden will be on the accused to prove that they are eligible for the defences. Offenders will be penalised, as detailed in clause 1, through proposed new subsection 46D(6), in line with offences involving indecent images of children: on summary conviction, up to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine, and on indictment, up to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine. Crucially, under clause 1(2), offenders will be placed on the sex offenders register if they are imprisoned for a term of at least 12 months and eligible for notification requirements, so that their risk can be managed by the police and the Probation Service.

Proposed new subsection 46D(7) ensures that UK nationals committing an offence abroad will be able to be prosecuted here, and it extends the same provision to relevant UK bodies and unincorporated associations. That aligns with other child sexual abuse offences. Proposed new subsection 46D(8) sets out the powers for the police in terms of entry, search, seizure and forfeiture of child-like sexual abuse dolls, again in line with legislation relating to possession of indecent images of children. Proposed new section 46E is relevant to organisations or companies’ involvement with CSA doll offences. When a body commits an offence and that offence is committed with the consent or complicity of senior figures, they will be held liable.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful case about something that, I think we can all agree, is utterly abhorrent. I want to ask about proposed new subsection 46D(9), which, as she rightly emphasised, would ban the adaptation of something into a CSA doll. Does the Bill also ban the supplying of parts to allow that to happen? She has mentioned that the Bill would look at banning the supply of CSA dolls. There is also separately a concern about modifying an object into a CSA doll. Is there a potential loophole whereby supplying the parts to enable the modification would not be covered by the Bill, which would address only the supply of entire CSA dolls?