Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses
Wednesday, 4 November 2026
Contributions
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)Liberal Democrat
I beg to move, That this House has considered smart glasses and violence against women and girls. A few months ago I was delighted, with the support of many women in the urban design industry and the Minister for Housing and Planning, to get women and girls mentioned in the national planning policy framework. Across the UK, 86% of women and girls aged 18 to 24 have experienced harassment in public spaces, and it seemed crazy to me that they were not going to be at the forefront of how we design those spaces and places. Having won that victory just before the summer, I was horrified to see stories about AI glasses appearing all over the press. Adverts for smart glasses appeared across London. Online, celebrities sold them as a device to “stay in the moment” and enjoy “effortless connection”. A key selling point was that the glasses could be used to film discreetly. To me, that did not look like a fantastic new innovation; it looked like a device for filming women and girls without their knowledge in the very spaces we have been campaigning to make them feel welcome in. Planning policy had finally accepted that women’s safety matters in the spaces we build, but at the same moment technology was eroding women’s privacy and safety in those same spaces. Sales of smart glasses are now soaring, and already my fears about their use are being realised. Women are reporting waking up after nights out to find that videos of them, filmed without their knowledge or consent by men wearing smart glasses, have gone viral online. The only indication anyone has that they are being filmed is a small LED in the corner of the glasses, but that is quickly disappearing, with “ghost Meta” shops offering to remove the light entirely so that no one in a public space knows they are being filmed. To me these devices not only have the potential to erode safety and privacy in public spaces, but raise really important questions about consent. A few weeks ago, I met the campaign group Stop Smart Glasses. One of its campaigners is a secondary school teacher, and he told me that as part of his job he stands in front of teenagers and teaches them that consent must be sought proactively—that yes means yes and no means no. But increasingly those same children go home, pick up their phones and scroll on social media, where they see videos of girls who were filmed without even being asked or knowing. He pointed out the irony that if one of his female students is filmed by AI glasses in public, the onus is on her to approach the man doing the filming and ask him to stop. What are we teaching young people—that consent is something we learn in the classroom and abandon on the street? Covert filming is not new, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has done excellent work on tackling the problem in nightclubs and other public spaces, but smart glasses make it easier, and harder to detect and challenge. In Australia, one solution has been to ban the use of smart glasses in certain areas, such as swimming pools, but I feel that sends a message to women that they are safe only in certain places. Surely, we do not want that to become the case. Waking up to a video of yourself online undermines perceptions of safety, but it is also a breach of privacy and raises real data protection concerns. According to Meta’s smart glasses terms of use, content captured by the glasses can be used to train Meta AI. The burden of consent allowing Meta to do that is placed on the person wearing the glasses. That means that if someone is filmed without their knowledge or permission, Meta can still use that content to train its AI, because the wearer has given de facto consent. I do not see how that squares with data protection law. GDPR says that companies need a proper reason to use our personal data, and an individual walking past someone wearing smart glasses in the street has not agreed to anything. Small discreet cameras make secret filming easier, and women and girls will be disproportionately impacted by that. More broadly, in the age of wearable tech, all of us, male or female, are losing a bit of our privacy every time we step outside. Despite that, I have heard nothing from the Government about how smart glasses should be regulated. When I raise this topic in public, one main argument comes back as a justification for smart glasses: they provide huge benefits for people with accessibility requirements, including blind and partially sighted people. I completely understand that point of view. I met the Royal National Institute of Blind People a few weeks ago to hear from it directly. It was very clear that although technology can offer huge benefits to its community, it does not want to become a fig leaf for Meta to justify poor practice and surveillance technology, and that its members have the same concerns about the technology as everyone else. Furthermore, Meta glasses have not been made with blind people in mind. If they had, they would be vastly better at accommodating the range of needs that those with disabilities might have. These glasses pose a threat to everyone’s safety and privacy in public spaces. Meta and other developers are breaching everyone’s right to privacy, while failing to be transparent about what they are doing with the data they have collected. As in so many other areas of life, this modern technology will undoubtedly have a heightened impact on violence against women and girls. On Monday, I sat in this room for a debate on the social media ban, and it struck me how long all Governments of whatever flavour have put off acting on social media, even though the evidence of harm has been there for years. I do not want smart glasses to go the same way, where we only regulate once it is too late. We are only 50 days from Christmas, and we can expect these glasses to be sold everywhere in numbers. How can we put the genie back in the bottle once they are being worn everywhere? We have called for them to be banned on the parliamentary estate, but frankly, everyone deserves the same privacy that we should enjoy in this place. I look forward to the debate, and I am thankful to everyone who has attended. I hope to hear from Members across the House who are concerned about the use of smart glasses and from the Minister, to understand what the Government intend to do about this potentially dangerous new technology.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)Conservative
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this debate and for her remarks, which summarised the concerns and challenges around this important topic very clearly. This debate comes at an important time. We live in a time of rapid technological advancement, which is exciting but also must be safeguarded. We have seen how these developments can threaten the safety of our women and girls with deepfake videos, stalking and monitoring devices, and wearable tech such as smart glasses. The hands-free technology of smart glasses promises crucial assistance to visually impaired people across the country, but the promise must be backed up with the right precautions and protections. We should not restrict law-abiding citizens from using this technology where it causes no harm to others. Our responsibility is to ensure that the innovations do not outpace the very protections that keep our women and girls safe in public spaces. Unlike smartphones, which are clear and visible when in use, camera-enabled smart glasses allow covert recording to take place at eye level, completely disguised as regular human eye-to-eye contact. For many women who are already navigating public spaces with extra vigilance, that creates real unease. Ministers have rightly set out that recording individuals without consent in order to cause alarm or distress or for sexual gratification falls under existing criminal offences such as harassment and voyeurism. The legal position is clear: anyone who misuses this technology to intimidate or harass women must feel the full force of the law. The real issue, however, is enforcement. Proving intent when someone is covertly filmed on a bus or a high street is incredibly difficult, and once that footage hits the internet, the damage to a victim’s privacy and dignity is already done. Expecting victims to rely on post-hoc takedown requests under GDPR or the Online Safety Act 2023 places the burden entirely on the wrong shoulders.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)Independent
Will the hon. Member join me in praising the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland through initiatives such as Project Vigilant, which targets technologies that are used to abuse women and girls, and calling for greater research to support our police across the UK in identifying covert recording technologies, as that remains an operational hurdle?
The hon. Gentleman is right: we must view this issue in the context of the wider challenges of violence against women and girls. The Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls, which I wholeheartedly welcome, but warm words must be backed by actions. It was concerning that the Government missed their own deadline to publish their VAWG strategy on three separate occasions. Women and survivors deserve better than delayed timelines. Now that it has been published, the Government must ensure the law is strongly enforced so that perpetrators are caught and punished. Technology should enrich our lives, not serve as a tool for covert harassment. I urge the Minister to work with manufacturers on basic safety-by-design standards such as mandatory untamperable recording lights on smart frames, and to ensure that our police forces have the digital tools needed to keep the women and girls in our communities safe and sound.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)Liberal Democrat
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this timely and important debate on a subject that she has been campaigning hard on. Smart glasses are a new technology that, despite their benefits for accessibility, provide yet another way for people to secretly film, promote and broadcast violence against women and girls. We have not even got a grip on the violence that is already being filmed and shared using mobile phones. Every woman and girl, wherever she lives and whatever her circumstances, has a right to feel safe. She should not have to worry that someone is secretly recording her, following her or waiting for an opportunity to capture a moment of violence and turn it into entertainment for other people. More than 10% of women in England have experienced online violence, and among women aged 16 to 24 the figure rises to 25%. Digital abuse follows women into schools, workplaces, homes and communities. I will once again share the story of Isabella, a 15-year-old girl from my constituency. In May 2025, she was lured to a local cemetery in Lyme Regis, where a group of young people were already waiting for her. The attack was premeditated. Someone had a phone ready and began recording before Isabella even arrived. Isabella knew the person who attacked her. Her head was smashed against a concrete step, and she was stamped on repeatedly and kicked in the face. While that happened, nobody stepped in to help her. Rather, they stood by, filmed, laughed and asked for the video to be sent to them. That video was circulated across schools in Beaminster, Bridport and Lyme Regis. Children who were not there—some who did not know Isabella—watched her brutal attack on their phones. The violence was shared, forwarded, replayed and discussed. Her humiliation was repeated in classrooms, corridors and group chats. The attacker received anger management classes and a six-month restraining order, but the person who filmed the attack was not punished at all. Someone had planned to record a young girl being brutally assaulted. They were ready when she arrived. They chose to film, not help, and they helped to turn the attack into something that could be watched again and again.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
The hon. Gentleman is outlining an appalling incident. Does he agree that we need to do what we can to get a societal change so that the friends, associates and families of those who carry out such activity, whether using smart glasses or mobile phones, understand that it is totally appalling and unacceptable and that they will be made to feel like the pariahs that they are in society?
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. There is a societal conversation to be had about this behaviour, but there is also a question about regulation and whether the law is appropriate. In December 2025, ongoing bullying forced Isabella to leave Beaminster school in the middle of year 10. She had only recently started her GCSE courses. She moved schools, but the same subject options were not available, so she had to change courses and catch up on four months’ work. Isabella still experiences flashbacks and anxiety in loud and crowded places. Her mother said to me: “I have to live with knowing that the video will be forever available on social media.” Isabella was filmed on a mobile phone. She was not attacked by someone wearing smart glasses, but her experience shows the world we already live in and the consequences of allowing technology to amplify violence and humiliation. If we cannot properly protect victims now, how can we possibly be confident that we will protect them when filming becomes even more discreet? Smart glasses risk creating yet another avenue for covert filming, whether that is secretly recording women in public, filming sexual harassment or capturing assault. The victim may not even know that they have been recorded until the footage appears online. The Youth Endowment Fund’s 2025 “Children, Violence and Vulnerability” survey found that 70% of children had encountered violent content on social media, up from 55% in 2022. More than four in five have seen online conversations about harming specific groups. Among children involved in perpetrating serious real-world violence, 84% had engaged in online discussions about harming particular groups. Twenty-five per cent of children said that violent content had been promoted to them by social media platforms, and just 6% had actively searched for it. Social media platforms’ algorithms are pushing real-world violence, much of it against women and girls, towards children. We know that these companies have the technology and the ability to remove content quicky: when copyrighted music appears in videos, it can be flagged and removed almost immediately because there is money at stake. The question is, why is the same urgency not being applied to violence against women and girls? When a video shows a girl being brutally attacked or a woman secretly filmed, the protections too often fail the people who need them the most. We need a specific criminal offence covering the premeditated filming and distribution of violent attacks where the intent is to humiliate, distress or psychologically harm the victim. The law must recognise that the person holding the camera or wearing the smart glasses can be responsible for deliberately extending the abuse, even if they never physically touched the victim. Social media platforms must be properly regulated, so that they are forced to act immediately when violent footage involving women, girls and children is reported. The platforms must take action against accounts that deliberately distribute it. I hope the Government will act before it becomes too late.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)Independent
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a practising optometrist. For my whole working life a pair of glasses has been my livelihood, and it has been nothing but an object of trust and good, allowing people to see and changing their lives. It is one of the most trustworthy pieces of clothing we could have. No one has ever been deceived by a pair of glasses, except perhaps when Clark Kent prevented us knowing he was Superman. My son likes to wear glasses with no lenses, so he can look very intelligent posting on social media with books in coffee shops. It is a matter of debate how convincing that is, but generally glasses are a product for good. I am not a technophobe. I have seen in my practice, and that of colleagues, what this technology can do, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members. It can be used for good. More than 2 million people in this country live with sight loss and 250 more begin to lose their sight every day. For a blind or partially sighted person walking down the street to be able to ask their glasses what is front of them and hear that, for example, a van is unloading scaffolding, is genuinely life changing. I will not argue that we should take that away—I suspect nobody here would—but we cannot ignore what is happening. It has been reported that more than 7 million pairs of one brand alone were sold last year in this country. We have all witnessed men using these glasses covertly on our streets, posting the footage online and then demanding money to take it down. There are reports of women being filmed during sex without knowledge or consent. As the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) mentioned, a small LED is supposed to warn of recording, but it is easy to miss. I sell these glasses and know it is not always possible to see the lights.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)Labour
I am not familiar with the glasses the hon. Member is discussing, but it strikes me, as a lay person, that it would not be difficult to cover a small LED on a pair of glasses. Does he agree?
I absolutely agree. We must ensure that they are tamper-proof. Somebody will always create something to supersede technology, which I will come to. A woman cannot move away from a camera if she cannot see it. I also want to consider what these glasses could do in school changing rooms. We know children can be cruel. It could be devastating to record a child—girl or boy—in their insecure period, upload the footage and threaten them with blackmail. Harm does not stop at the wearer. It was reported earlier this year that workers paid to label footage for AI training were viewing intimate recordings captured by these devices, including people using the toilet. The people in the footage had not consented and were not aware that it was being used for training purposes. The National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection told us last month that at least one in five flagged online VAWG crimes are image-based abuse, with almost 75% of the victims being female. Every digital form of this abuse is rising, yet when we ask how many arrests have been made for covert filming, the answer is that the information is not held centrally, so we are legislating in the dark. I would like a response from the Minister on that point. This abuse is not restricted to cameras, because hearing technology is now arriving in spectacle frames. Hearing glasses with directional microphones are already in our practices, and the patients starting to lose their hearing are often the same patients who are fitted with varifocal glasses. Again, I welcome that because live captions, conversation boosting and real-time translations are incredible. I tried the technology and even though I was in a noisy room, it did not just help me hear the conversation I was having—I was able to hear somebody else’s conversation on the other side of the table. If we take all that into account, we have facial recognition, which manufacturers are reportedly exploring, and a device that can know who we are, where we are and what we say without us even knowing it is there. The wearer knows they are using the device; people around them do not. What is the law doing about that? Filming in public is generally lawful and data protection laws do not apply to individuals acting in a personal capacity, but the Information Commissioner has said that doxxing is largely outside their remit, wearables are not regulated in any particular category and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy does not mention smart glasses. As Doughty Street Chambers put it, “English law was not written with this technology in mind”. The industry already knows what is good. At this year’s 100% Optical, EssilorLuxottica, which makes the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, told practitioners that devices should show people nearby that they are in use, that encryption is “not nice to have, but an absolute must”, and that only necessary data should be collected.
While I welcome the suggestion that nearby users should be notified if the devices are in use, the point still stands around consent. It should not be on me as an individual to have to challenge people using them; they should have to seek my consent before they start filming me.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. We cannot leave this issue to good will; it belongs in the law. I do not believe in a blanket ban, as it would punish the disabled people who benefit most. The RNIB is right that blind and partially sighted wearers already fear hostility from people who cannot tell they have sight loss. However, no ban should not mean no action. I ask the Minister to consider the following: putting a statutory duty on manufacturers to provide a clear, tamper-proof recording indicator and making it an offence to turn that off or sell products designed to defeat it. Secondly, we need to close the gap in the criminal law so that covert sexualised filming and posting it for whatever reason is clearly an offence, and bring the intimate image provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 fully into force without delay. Thirdly, we must give survivors a fast and affordable route to redress, as the Women and Equalities Committee recommended. Fourthly, we must protect accessibility for those who need to use the technology for assistive purposes, as they should not be penalised. Fifthly, if we are not already, we need to collect national data on covert filming offences and include smart glasses and other sensing wearables in the violence against women and girls action plan. My profession has a part to play, too. We are told that the harms of social media were unforeseeable; these harms are not. They are right in front of us—quite literally at our eye level. Let us act on this issue before it is too late.
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)Scottish National Party
I call Jim Shannon—you have up to half an hour.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
Half an hour; I was hoping it might be 28 minutes. I am not going to speak for 28 minutes; I will try to keep my contribution as succinct and focused as possible. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart and I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for setting the scene incredibly well. This subject has to be discussed and highlighted, and the debate has given us the opportunity to do that. This matter strikes at the very heart of the safety, dignity and privacy of our citizens, and most notably the protection of women and girls in our communities. We stand at a crossroads where technological innovation is outpacing our moral and legal safeguards. If we do not act, the consequences will continue to be felt by the most vulnerable on our streets. Other Members have made that point incredibly clear and I thank them for that. Let us look first at the scale of what we are dealing with. We are not talking about a niche gadget or a far-off futuristic concept as some may think. The figures are stark. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of these smart glasses have already been sold right here in the United Kingdom. They are flooding the market, and they are sitting on the faces of everyday passers-by—people we do not know. Although many people wear them innocently, we cannot blind ourselves to the reality that these devices are a powerful tool of surveillance, masquerading as ordinary eyewear. As we rightly focus our efforts on eradicating violence against women and girls, we must recognise how this technology changes the very nature of harassment, stalking and intimidation. That is not just my observation; the UK’s leading domestic abuse charities are also sounding the alarm, and they are clear in what they say. Refuge has given the example of perpetrators weaponising these gadgets to covertly track and film survivors—the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) clearly illustrated that—which has contributed to a horrifying 62% spike in tech-facilitated abuse. Furthermore, Women’s Aid has forcefully stated that pairing these glasses with AI facial recognition threatens the very safety of all women and girls and hands a digital toolkit to stalkers who want to identify and track strangers in real time without their knowledge. For a woman walking down the street, the fear of being targeted is already a daily reality, but now the horror of upskirting is being magnified by technology that is completely hands-free and virtually invisible. A person could commit an act of visual violation without ever holding a phone, leaving the victim entirely unaware that her privacy, her dignity and her body have been captured and digitised.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)Liberal Democrat
The hon. Gentleman cited the figure from Refuge that referrals to its tech abuse team have increased by 62%. He said that we are at a crossroads, but it seems to me that we are already past that. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) said, this is an exact reflection of what happened with the social media ban: the Government are going to come along too late. We need to emphasise that smart glasses are an aggravating factor in humiliation and abuse, and we need more wraparound regulations to tackle this problem right now.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The threat is already here. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset has taken the opportunity to ask the Minister for legislative change in today’s debate, which is something I am also hoping for. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I welcome her to her role. She has been in Westminster Hall for two days running—it is becoming a habit, but it is a good habit to have. Even more sickening are the reports from communities across our regions—tales of perverts sitting on benches at children’s play parks or walking dogs casually outside school gates. Under the guise of just going for a walk and looking around, wearing what appears to be standardised prescription lenses, these individuals can be recording very young girls and women. School safeguarding leaders have already issued urgent alerts to teachers and parents, because these sleek, modern frames make it near impossible to detect when a child is being filmed. The tiny indicator lights on these devices make a mockery of consent. They are easily covered up, as the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, with a bit of tape or a sticker. How are mothers, teachers or young girls supposed to feel safe when any stranger standing near a playground could be covertly documenting them and what they are doing? This is not just a nuisance anymore; it is a direct threat to public safety and an engine for child exploitation. Let me clear: I am not a man who stands against progress. Innovation, when properly challenged, can be a force for immense good, and we have to recognise that. We see that in our invaluable national health service. Our dedicated district nurses, who travel the length and breadth of our communities to provide care to the vulnerable, are piloting these glasses for a good purpose. For them, the ability to stream real-time footage to a specialist consultant while treating a patient in their home is a magnificent breakthrough. That is one of the good things that modern technology can do. It saves lives, saves time and improves care. But the fact that a tool can be used for good does not mean it should be given free rein in society—that is what this debate is about. The contrast is clear: those who use these glasses in the NHS, such as our district nurses, should be able to do so, under a strict, regulated licensing framework. Their devices must be fully auditable, restricted to secure clinical networks and bound by the highest standards of professional conduct and patient consent. We cannot allow the positive uses of technology to blind us to its profound capacity for abuse. Innovation cannot come at the cost of the safety of our daughters, wives and mothers. We need robust regulations and clear boundaries, and we must ensure that the law firmly protects women and girls from those who would use these devices to prey on them.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)Liberal Democrat
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this crucial debate. As we have heard, smart glasses can pose a very real threat to the safety and personal privacy of women and girls in particular. Smart glasses, combined with the ease of communication and anonymity provided by social media, have offered a new avenue for gender-based harassment. Recordings of women and girls taken without their knowledge or consent can be livestreamed or uploaded and distributed online with far too much ease. The initial harm of an in-person encounter is then compounded by social media algorithms. Quick to follow are abusive online commentary, online stalking and other technology-facilitated harassment. All that translates to real-world harm. Reporting in the past week by London Centric illustrates how perpetrators are getting away with it. The publication found that, if these so-called content creators film themselves approaching a different woman every day and post the videos on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, they can receive millions of views, earn money from them and face no legal consequences. The police are aware, but they are simply working within the law—in this case, law that was written in the last century. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires repeated harassment of an individual to reach the threshold for prosecution. However, harassing behaviour of the sort committed by those who are non-consensually filming women, such as those with smart glasses, is allowed as long as the women are only filmed once. To be frank, the current law makes this area the wild west when it comes to privacy and online abuse. It does not matter that the same harassing behaviour is replicated against potentially dozens of women. All that currently matters in law is that it is not done repeatedly to the same woman. As such, this disgusting behaviour is not only legal but profitable—it is monetised misogyny, plain and simple. Those who claim, as the men filming these videos do, that it is “just a bit of fun”, need only read about the impact a few seconds of non-consensual filming has on the women who are victims of it. In one case, London Centric reported on a woman who, after being filmed without her consent by a “content creator”, described how other men have since entered her workplace, where she was recorded, to ask her whether she knows that she is “TikTok famous”. Other women have moved away from London altogether after being non-consensually filmed.
The hon. Lady is making a compelling speech. Does she agree that, in addition to the need perhaps to change the legislation and for greater enforcement, there is a huge amount of work to be done around education? I am afraid that education needs to be done for men and, sadly, boys. The statistics are clear: 91% of people prosecuted for sexual offences are men aged 18-plus. Does she think, as I do, that we need to be in schools and in the spaces where men and boys are talking, to explain to them just how disgusting this behaviour is and that it will have consequences?
The hon. Member makes an important point, and I agree, but we have to go after those who promote and normalise this behaviour—by which I mean the online platforms. They are essentially broadcasters. Reaching a mass audience, for example through television, used to mean having to have a broadcasting licence and being held to a high standard; but the online platforms get away with promoting disgusting, misogynistic content over and over again. People see it, so it becomes normalised.
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I reassure her that I completely agree that we need much tighter regulation of the social media companies. Frankly, the tech bros have had it too easy and too good for too long. We ought to find a way of holding them responsible and liable in law for some of the harms that their products cause, rather than merely suggesting that the users of their products are liable. Does she agree that we need to explore some of those concepts?
It seems that across the House we entirely agree on this matter.
In addition to the platforms, the manufacturers have a responsibility here. Does the hon. Member agree that manufacturing must come with greater responsibilities?
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention, which proves what a difficult and complex subject this is. Everybody has a role to play, not just the victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, it is important that we do not leave this matter just to the victims, but to manufacturers, broadcasters and social media platforms, as well as the so-called content creators—I struggle with that phrase, because they pose as content creators, but they make a lot of money out of this. That is one of the disgusting things; it is monetising misogyny, as I have said. Everyone has a role to play, and we must focus on that. As we have seen, legislation is falling woefully behind advances in technology such as smart glasses and changes in behaviour on social media. When we legislate, we need foresight about what might come later, not just what is happening now and what happened in the past. We need to write legislation in that way. I urge the Minister to review the effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, to ensure that the harassment loophole that I described is closed. I am sure she does not doubt that these examples are indicative of harassing behaviour, not least because social media feeds often show the same video to the same user over and over again. Every woman and girl, regardless of who they are or where they live, has the fundamental right to live free from fear, harassment and violence—but, to ensure that that is a reality, not just a slogan or aspiration, we have to act decisively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the issue. We can take simple steps right now to mitigate this misuse. We must begin by enforcing hardware-level standards to ensure that smart glasses are tamper proof, as other hon. Members have said. We must ban modifications that disable or remove the recording indicator, as well as those that might cover it up—a bit of electrical tape might do the job, as others have suggested, and that should not be okay either. We must also expand the scope of sexual harm prevention orders to prohibit completely the purchase or use of smart glasses by sex offenders, where appropriate, including as a condition of release. The problems with emerging technologies do not exist in isolation. They are amplified by and rely on social media. I implore the Government to take stronger action to hold to account the social media giants—the companies that do not just facilitate, but promote this content. Stories such as those detailed in London Centric would not exist if not for the impunity with which these companies currently operate. Profit must never be placed above the safety and dignity of our citizens. We should have ensured that Ofcom had the powers and legal backing to enforce accountability years ago. It must be equipped to prevent smart glasses-enabled abuse online, with tangible consequences for the companies that fail to comply. The Liberal Democrats have also called on the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, and build a digital world where women and girls can live safely and without fear. As we have heard, it is important that we acknowledge that developments in technology can still be harnessed for the better. Smart glasses act as genuinely life-changing technologies for blind and partially sighted people. As we have heard, by providing hands-free access to information, object recognition and descriptions of surroundings, they can dramatically increase an individual’s personal independence. However, that is all the more reason for action. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported that users are becoming increasingly hesitant to wear smart glasses for fear of a backlash and of others becoming angry or suspicious towards them. Preventing smart glasses from being used for predatory and covert filming will not only protect women and girls from abuse but help to protect legitimate users from suspicion so that those who benefit from this technology can use it with confidence. I hope the Minister will take very seriously today’s cross-party calls for much stronger action to tighten the law to prevent the monetised online harassment of women and girls, to give Ofcom real teeth to regulate social media companies and ultimately to provide a stronger legal framework for smart glasses, so that those who genuinely benefit from them are not subject to suspicion or threats.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)Conservative
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this very important debate, and I thank hon. Members from across the House for their very thoughtful contributions. Counterpoint Research estimates that global sales of AI glasses rose by 263% in the first half of 2026, and the market is predicted to reach $44 billion by 2032—like other hon. Members, I expect the stockings this Christmas to be filled with AI glasses. It is essential that we examine how to keep women and girls safe as this market expands. Technological innovations are too often accompanied by consequences that harm people, including women and girls. As a catalyst, technology can take the worst behaviour that already exists in our society and accelerate it, whether it is the pervasive use of early cameras, which resulted in the exploitation of women and young girls in a way that we look back on in horror, or the explosion of the internet and smartphones, which created a new range of problems that I know the Minister and others are trying to combat, day in, day out. There are, of course, design issues with these smart glasses—we have heard about some of those today—but that does not mean that the technology itself was designed to cause harm. Rather, the problems arise from how it is used and exploited by those with the worst motivations in our society. That is why it is important to recognise that smart glasses are part of that wider pattern and present acute problems that impact women and girls. There have been numerous stories, some of which we have heard today, that illustrate the need to ensure that these glasses are not being used to harass women and girls in our country.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on digital product safety is worth considering? In a white paper that he published in July, he makes the point very effectively that, just as we require physical products to be regulated so that they are safe for users—for example, lift shafts have to be safe—we should insist, through a process that he sets out in his White Paper, that digital products are safe and that the manufacturers of those products must ensure that they are safe. I think this issue would come within that scope.
I have to say that I am not familiar with the work the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will undertake to look into it. Perhaps he could send me a copy of it—I will be glad to read it. His broader point that safety should be built into the design is important. The Government would be wise to consider that, and I have no doubt that they are doing so.
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) brought up an incredibly important issue in his intervention, and when the Minister comes to speak, she might address that methodology for bringing regulation. We are focusing, as we should, on why people are taking advantage of smart glasses and using them illegally and criminally, but in my speech I mentioned the health workers who, when they go to visit people in their houses, use smart glasses for the purpose of their job. If we want to regulate them, should we not ensure that people who use them for the right purposes are able to do so?
I think the hon. Member is saying that in anything that they do, the Government need to strike the right balance, because there are perfectly legitimate uses for these glasses that are useful to society, but of course there are harms. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) also talked about some of the cultural issues and problems and the education that is needed, particularly for young boys. I hope that the Government will be looking to strike the right balance. Covert filming and online harassment of women are real harms that deserve a serious response. It is particularly concerning that people have used these glasses to record young women without their knowledge, and then used that footage for their own benefit, including commercial benefit. That is an absolutely despicable violation, and it should not be tolerated. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to it as “monetised misogyny”, and I agree with her entirely, so there is cross-party agreement on this issue. Refuge has reported that referrals to its specialist technology-facilitated abuse and economic empowerment team rose by more than 62% in 2025. The Science and Technology Committee has launched a call for evidence on technology-facilitated abuse. I hope that the Committee will use this important opportunity to help us all understand the prevalence of abuse in our society. It is important to recognise that this issue is complicated by UK laws on filming. As hon. Members will be aware, it is not inherently unlawful to take photos or videos of people in public without their permission, but it can, of course, cross over into criminality. That is why the Home Office worryingly released a poster warning illegal immigrants about the legality of recording people without their permission. The fact that such a poster needed to be produced by Government in the first place is difficult for many to comprehend. The criticism it received from the National Union of Journalists illustrates the challenge of balancing protecting existing rights with stopping the unscrupulous use of technology. That makes it all the more necessary to examine the issue and work closely with companies to ensure that new technology does not increase the prevalence of crimes against women and girls. In 2019, Parliament considered the disgusting practice of upskirting and passed the Voyeurism (Offences) Act, which created targeted offences related to upskirting. That provides a useful example of Parliament addressing a particular harmful act without outlawing everyday cameras. If changes to legislation are necessary, they must be based on evidence, and we must ensure that we create the best policies we can. I would therefore appreciate the Minister setting out what evidence the Government are gathering on the prevalence of covert filming with smart glasses, its harms and the effectiveness of existing safeguards. We must be able to recognise the public’s concern when they see people using these glasses, while also distinguishing between their wrongful use and their use for genuinely important reasons, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. I understand that the Norwegian Government recently announced their intention to restrict the use of these devices in specific locations. To the point of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, women and girls should be safe everywhere, but it is important that any action here supports clear policies for genuinely sensitive environments, such as changing rooms, schools and clinical settings. There are existing laws that cover some of those matters, but we must be explicit about how we keep people safe in those environments. If we do not, we undermine those who seek to use this technology to truly improve people’s lives. One example, as we heard already this morning, comes from the Royal National Institute of Blind People. It has recognised concerns, as reflected on by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, but has also commented on how some blind and partially sighted people use smart glasses to benefit from enhanced access to information. Paul Arnold, the chief executive of the Information Commissioner’s Office, spoke about his experience using these glasses as a severely visually impaired person. The combination of AI and audio feedback has helped him to better understand his surroundings, access information and navigate the world with greater confidence. This technology may also help those suffering from other serious health conditions. CrossSense, which makes AI smart glasses, recently beat 174 other inventions from around the world to win the prestigious £1 million Longitude prize on dementia. Furthermore, it is easy to see the uses for journalists working in the public interest, or the potential long-term benefits if the police could use the technology in a similar way to body-worn cameras or use facial recognition technology, an effective tool for identifying and catching criminals who commit violence against women and girls. I do not seek to downplay the risks posed by these devices with those examples, but rather to encourage the Government to consider those beneficial uses before introducing any blanket bans. I recognise that the Minister’s Department is committed to the violence against women and girls action plan and to working across Government to encourage safety by design in smart and connected technology, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Rugby. There are concerns about delivery, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) raised concerns about missed deadlines in the development of the plan. As Dame Nicole Jacobs told the Home Affairs Committee last week, “I do not believe that, to date, this strategy has been implemented in a way that shows that it is at the top of the priority list, in terms of resource and all those things.” Can the Minister set out what measurable progress has been made on that commitment? Presumably, it involved the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—a Department that no longer exists given recent changes at the top. To conclude, all too often we have seen new technology used in a manner that puts women and girls at risk. I hope that we can find proportionate, sensitive and sensible policies that enable the continued use of that technology, while ensuring that we can prevent it from being used to facilitate the abuse and exploitation that we have seen throughout our society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)Labour
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I will not rehash everything that everyone has said, but I genuinely think that this has been a really useful discussion. I appreciate the way that everyone has been so generous with their time; it has made the debate much more conversational and useful. The Liberal Democrats and I are not calling for a total ban on this technology; I just worry that we are sleepwalking into finding that it is out of control before we have managed to do anything about it. MPs can feel rather exposed when we are out and about in public spaces; we wonder who is looking at us and clocking what we are doing. Once a number of MPs have been covertly filmed by this tech, I wonder whether we will suddenly find that it is shoved up the political agenda, but I would like it not to get to that point. I welcome the cross-party consensus on this issue and the Minister’s desire to work across parties—we would certainly like to do that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) will pass on our thanks to Isabella for sharing her story. It is only when people like her and her mother share their stories that the issue becomes personalised and we can effect change. [ Interruption. ] I have just seen a mouse running behind my hon. Friend, so I will draw my remarks to a close and exit the Chamber as quickly as possible. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered smart glasses and violence against women and girls.
Sitting suspended.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5432187.