Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill
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.