Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I confess that I had not thought about that angle. The examples I have seen, presented to me by the NCA and the police, were literally like Annabell dolls that had had orifices made in the appropriate places. Presumably, tools that we would utilise in everyday life were used, such as screwdrivers and knives. I am not aware of tools specifically made to adapt these dolls, but the Minister is indicating that she may be able to pick that up with a prompt from the officials.

Clause 2 details the territorial extent, commencement and title of the Bill. As would be expected, the commencement of clause 1 would allow time for operational guidance and training, as well as assessments on the impact of the justice system. Finally, on the territorial extent, the Bill will apply to England and Wales, given that criminal law and policing are devolved matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although I would have liked the Bill to have a UK-wide remit, it was challenging to do that in the time available, given the constraints of the private Member’s Bill process. I very much hope, however, that Holyrood and Stormont will bring forward equivalent measures as soon as they can. I am grateful to Home Office officials for already sharing their expertise in this area with their counterparts.

The Bill is a very small part of the work that we need to do to protect children from harm, but it is a vital step. I am grateful to have the support of a significant number of leading charities, including the NSPCC and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, and I am grateful to have the support of the NCA. I also want to give particular credit to Detective Sergeant Kat Knock from Lancashire constabulary and Hazel Stewart from the NCA—two amazing women who have worked incredibly hard to tackle this issue on the ground for several years. Without their dedication, we would not be here discussing this Bill.

I thank the group-based child sexual exploitation response team in the Home Office, as well as the Government Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for its work in advising my staff and me, as well as for drafting this legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls and her predecessors for getting behind the Bill. I am also grateful to my cross-party co-sponsors. I very much hope that we can collectively get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as is humanly possible.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham on bringing forward this Bill to close a clear legislative gap on child-like sexual abuse dolls, and I welcome the Government’s support. She has been a fierce champion for women and children for many years, and she should be commended for her leadership on this issue. This legislation comes at an important time, when the Government’s legislation to prohibit pornography with an actor purporting to be a child is due to come into operation on 6 November. It feels as though we are truly making steps forward to combat the environment that normalises child sexual abuse.

However, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a digital counterpart of the same harm: chatbots that simulate sexual scenarios with children. They are referred to by multiple members of the Pornography Harms Coalition, which includes CEASE, Barnardo’s, Rape Crisis and the Internet Watch Foundation, among many others, as digital sexual abuse dolls. These chatbots are more accessible, more scalable and arguably more immersive than any physical doll, and they are not clearly illegal today.

The Internet Watch Foundation’s analysts have found artificial intelligence companion chatbots modelled as children that encourage users to act out specific child sexual abuse scenarios, including “child prostitute in a hotel”, “sex with your daughter while your wife is on holiday” and “child and teacher alone after class”. General purpose chatbots and companion apps are being used for interactive role play in which users actively co-produce abusive scripts. That can be text, but it can also involve visual, cartoon-like characters that narrate and reinforce the scenario. These are not isolated text exchanges; they create an immersive environment in which a user can interact with a child avatar and rehearse abusive scenarios. In some cases, the user can reach AI-generated sexual abuse images of children within a few clicks.

Last year, the IWF actioned 17 reports of confirmed child sexual abuse images on those chatbots, with some depicting children as young as seven. Professor Clare McGlynn and her colleagues found that some chatbots, freely accessible to millions of users, let people role-play rape, incest and child sexual abuse. Research by Graphika cited by Professor McGlynn found a Chub AI character card with 109,000 chats depicting a grooming scenario. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that character.ai users could interact with characters such as “Bestie Epstein”, based on the prolific paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Under UK law, child sexual abuse material is unlawful whether it is real, AI-generated, synthetic or a hybrid. The Government accepts that AI-generated material causes comparable harm, yet a chatbot built to simulate written sexual scenarios with a child sits in a legal gap. Professor McGlynn has noted that text-only chatbots are not considered pornography under part 5 of the Online Safety Act 2023, so an incest role-play chatbot with a young girl’s avatar could fall outside its pornography duties. In July, the Government announced a ban on sexualised AI chatbots for under-18s—something that I and many here welcome. However, it is unclear what counts as a sexualised chatbot, how the ban will be enforced and what exemptions apply. It protects only under-18s, so it does nothing about an adult using a chatbot that generates written child sexual abuse scenarios.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 gave the Secretary of State power to bring AI chatbots within its scope, including illegal AI-generated content of all kinds—not only priority illegal content. However, that route helps only if the underlying conduct is actually illegal. Furthermore, no timetable has been given for either of those measures. This issue was raised by my friend Baroness Gabby Bertin in the other place during the passage of that Act. She tabled an amendment that would have made written material that glorifies sexual activity with a child a crime.

That was prompted by a case reported in The Guardian of Emily, a pseudonym, whose father fantasised about, and described in detail in an online chatroom, raping and sexually abusing her as a child. Though the physical sexual abuse was never real, the trauma of its description has had a very real impact on Emily, who should have been recognised as a victim. The Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute, arguing that the father had no intent to deprave. Government Ministers at the time said Baroness Bertin’s amendment was unnecessary, as written child abuse content was already illegal. The relevant legislation they cited was the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Communications Act 2003. However, the CPS said that it was not possible to establish that the defendant in Emily’s case intended the messages to be obscene, or that he was aware when sending them that they would be considered so if seen by a reasonable member of the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I ask the hon. Member to stick to the Bill.

[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.