Westminster Hall
Wednesday 4th November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 16 hours, 30 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:30
09:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
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 weren't going to be at the forefront of how we design those spaces and places. And yet, having won this 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.
And one of the key selling points was that these glasses could be used to film discreetly. To me, this didn't look like a fantastic new innovation. It looked like a device for filming women and girls without their knowledge in the very spaces we'd 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 on. Already my fears about their use are being realised.
Women are reporting waking up after nights out to find videos of themselves have gone viral online, filmed without their knowledge or consent by men wearing smart glasses. The only indication anyone has that they're being filmed is a small LED light in the corner of these glasses, but that's quickly disappearing, with ghost meter shops opening, offering to remove the light entirely so that no one in a public space knows they're being filmed. To me, these devices have the potential to not only erode safety and privacy in public spaces, but they raise really important questions about consent.
A few weeks ago, I met a campaign group called Stop Smart Glasses. One of their 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, 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 asking him to stop.
What are we teaching young people? That consent is something you learn in the classroom and you abandon on the street. Covert filming is not new, and the member for bath has done excellent work on tackling this problem in nightclubs and other public spaces. But smart glasses make this easier, harder to detect and harder to challenge. In Australia, one solution has been to ban the use of smart glasses in certain areas, like swimming pools. But I feel this sends a message to women that they're only safe in certain places. And surely we don't want this to become the case.
Waking up to a video of yourself online undermines perceptions of safety. But it's also a breach of privacy, and it raises real concerns around data protection. According to Meta's smart glasses, terms of use, content captured by their glasses can be used to train meta AI. The burden of consent allowing meta to do this is placed on the person wearing the glasses. This means that if you are filmed without your knowledge or permission, meta can still use that content to train their AI because the wearer has given de facto consent. I don't see how that squares with data protection law.
GDPR says companies need a proper reason to use your personal data, and an individual walking past someone wearing smart glasses in the street hasn't agreed to anything small. Discreet cameras make secret filming easier, and women and girls will be disproportionately impacted by this. But 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 this, I've heard nothing from the government about how these glasses should be regulated. When I've raised 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 this point of view, and I met with the rniB, the Royal National Institute for the blind a few weeks ago to hear from them directly. They were very clear that while there are huge benefits that technology can offer their community, they don't want to become a fig leaf for meta to justify poor practice and surveillance technology, and that their members have the same concerns about this 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 may require. These glasses pose a threat to everyone's safety in public spaces and their privacy. Meta and other developers are breaching everyone's right to privacy, while failing to be transparent about what they're doing with the data they've collected. As in so many other areas of life, the impact of this modern technology will undoubtedly have a heightened impact on violence against women and girls. On Monday, I sat in in this room in 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 had been there for years, I don't want smart glasses to go the same way where we only regulate once it's 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 these glasses are being worn everywhere? We've called for these glasses 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 this debate today, and I'm thankful to everyone who's attended.
I hope to hear from members across the House concerned about the use of smart glasses, and from the minister directly to understand what the government is intending to do about this potentially dangerous new technology.
And one of the key selling points was that these glasses could be used to film discreetly. To me, this didn't look like a fantastic new innovation. It looked like a device for filming women and girls without their knowledge in the very spaces we'd 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 on. Already my fears about their use are being realised.
Women are reporting waking up after nights out to find videos of themselves have gone viral online, filmed without their knowledge or consent by men wearing smart glasses. The only indication anyone has that they're being filmed is a small LED light in the corner of these glasses, but that's quickly disappearing, with ghost meter shops opening, offering to remove the light entirely so that no one in a public space knows they're being filmed. To me, these devices have the potential to not only erode safety and privacy in public spaces, but they raise really important questions about consent.
A few weeks ago, I met a campaign group called Stop Smart Glasses. One of their 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, 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 asking him to stop.
What are we teaching young people? That consent is something you learn in the classroom and you abandon on the street. Covert filming is not new, and the member for bath has done excellent work on tackling this problem in nightclubs and other public spaces. But smart glasses make this easier, harder to detect and harder to challenge. In Australia, one solution has been to ban the use of smart glasses in certain areas, like swimming pools. But I feel this sends a message to women that they're only safe in certain places. And surely we don't want this to become the case.
Waking up to a video of yourself online undermines perceptions of safety. But it's also a breach of privacy, and it raises real concerns around data protection. According to Meta's smart glasses, terms of use, content captured by their glasses can be used to train meta AI. The burden of consent allowing meta to do this is placed on the person wearing the glasses. This means that if you are filmed without your knowledge or permission, meta can still use that content to train their AI because the wearer has given de facto consent. I don't see how that squares with data protection law.
GDPR says companies need a proper reason to use your personal data, and an individual walking past someone wearing smart glasses in the street hasn't agreed to anything small. Discreet cameras make secret filming easier, and women and girls will be disproportionately impacted by this. But 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 this, I've heard nothing from the government about how these glasses should be regulated. When I've raised 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 this point of view, and I met with the rniB, the Royal National Institute for the blind a few weeks ago to hear from them directly. They were very clear that while there are huge benefits that technology can offer their community, they don't want to become a fig leaf for meta to justify poor practice and surveillance technology, and that their members have the same concerns about this 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 may require. These glasses pose a threat to everyone's safety in public spaces and their privacy. Meta and other developers are breaching everyone's right to privacy, while failing to be transparent about what they're doing with the data they've collected. As in so many other areas of life, the impact of this modern technology will undoubtedly have a heightened impact on violence against women and girls. On Monday, I sat in in this room in 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 had been there for years, I don't want smart glasses to go the same way where we only regulate once it's 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 these glasses are being worn everywhere? We've called for these glasses 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 this debate today, and I'm thankful to everyone who's attended.
I hope to hear from members across the House concerned about the use of smart glasses, and from the minister directly to understand what the government is intending to do about this potentially dangerous new technology.
09:35
09:35
09:36
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you. Chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And I want to thank the honourable member for Frome, Somerset, for securing this debate today and for her opening remarks, which I feel she summarized the concerns and challenges around this topic very clearly. The debate this debate covers an important topic and it indeed 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 in deepfake videos, in stalking and monitoring devices, and in wearable tech like smart glasses.
The hands free technology of smart glasses does promise 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 protections, 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 of our women who are already navigating public spaces with extra vigilance, this creates a real unease. Ministers have rightly set out that the that recording individuals without consent to cause alarm, distress or for sexual gratification falls under the existing criminal offences like harassment and voyeurism, and 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, comes down to enforcement. Proving intent when someone is covertly filmed on a bus or on 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 for GDPR or the Online Safety Act places the burden entirely on the wrong shoulders. We. Yes, I'll give way.
The hands free technology of smart glasses does promise 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 protections, 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 of our women who are already navigating public spaces with extra vigilance, this creates a real unease. Ministers have rightly set out that the that recording individuals without consent to cause alarm, distress or for sexual gratification falls under the existing criminal offences like harassment and voyeurism, and 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, comes down to enforcement. Proving intent when someone is covertly filmed on a bus or on 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 for GDPR or the Online Safety Act places the burden entirely on the wrong shoulders. We. Yes, I'll give way.
09:38
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank the honourable member for giving way. It's greatly appreciated. But the member. I agree with me that we join in praising the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and initiatives like Project Vigilance, which targets technology which are used to abuse women and girls , and call for greater research to support our police across the UK and identifying covert recording technologies. As this remains an operational hurdle.
09:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I thank the honourable gentleman for his for his comments. And he's right. We must view this issue within the wider challenges of violence against women and girls. The government has pledged to half violence against women and girls, and that is something that I wholeheartedly welcome. But warm words must be backed by actions. It was concerning that the government missed its own deadlines to publish its Vawg strategy on three separate occasions. Women and survivors deserve better than delayed timelines. Now that it is published, the government must ensure the law is strongly enforced so perpetrators are caught and punished.
Technology should enrich our lives, not serve as a tool for covert harassment, and I urge the minister to work with manufacturers on basic safety by design standards like mandatory and comparable recording lights on smart frames, and ensure that our police forces have the digital tools needed to keep the women and girls in our communities safe and sound. Thank you.
Technology should enrich our lives, not serve as a tool for covert harassment, and I urge the minister to work with manufacturers on basic safety by design standards like mandatory and comparable recording lights on smart frames, and ensure that our police forces have the digital tools needed to keep the women and girls in our communities safe and sound. Thank you.
09:49
09:49
09:49
09:49
09:49
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
For covert filming. The answer is that the information is not held centrally, and we are. When people have asked, and I'd like a response from the Minister on this particular point, please. How many arrests have been made? Appears to be legislating in the dark on this. Nor is this only about cameras. If you would just allow me to. Hearing. Technology is now arriving in spectacle frames. Two 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. And again, I welcome that because live captions, conversation boosting real time translations, which is something that is incredible.
But I have tried this technology. And what happens is that even if you're in a noisy room, it does not just help me to hear the conversation that I was having. I was able to hear the conversation on the other side, on the other side of the table. So somebody else's conversation I could hear at the same time. So what we're getting is that if you take that all into account, you've got facial recognition manufacturers are reportedly exploring, and you have a device that can know who you are, where you are, and what you said without you even knowing it was there.
So the wearer knows they're using this device. People around them do not. So I just would like to know what the law is doing about this. Filming in public is generally lawful. Data protection laws does not apply to individuals acting on a personal capacity. The information Commissioner has said doxing is largely outside its remit. Wearables are not regulated as any particular form of category. 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 it's good for.
What's good at this year's 100% optical Luxottica, which makes the Ray-Ban meta glasses, told our practitioners that devices should show people nearby when they are in use, and that encryption is not nice to have, but an absolute must and that only necessary data should be collected. I will do.
But I have tried this technology. And what happens is that even if you're in a noisy room, it does not just help me to hear the conversation that I was having. I was able to hear the conversation on the other side, on the other side of the table. So somebody else's conversation I could hear at the same time. So what we're getting is that if you take that all into account, you've got facial recognition manufacturers are reportedly exploring, and you have a device that can know who you are, where you are, and what you said without you even knowing it was there.
So the wearer knows they're using this device. People around them do not. So I just would like to know what the law is doing about this. Filming in public is generally lawful. Data protection laws does not apply to individuals acting on a personal capacity. The information Commissioner has said doxing is largely outside its remit. Wearables are not regulated as any particular form of category. 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 it's good for.
What's good at this year's 100% optical Luxottica, which makes the Ray-Ban meta glasses, told our practitioners that devices should show people nearby when they are in use, and that encryption is not nice to have, but an absolute must and that only necessary data should be collected. I will do.
09:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Remember whether he would agree with me that while I welcome the suggestion that nearby users should be notified if these devices are in use, but the point still stands around consent, I don't think it should be on me, an individual, to have to go and challenge people using them. I think they should have to seek my consent before they even start filming me.
09:51
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I couldn't agree more. I agree wholeheartedly with that because as you know, we can't leave this to goodwill. This belongs in the law. I do not believe in a blanket ban because as it would punish disabled people who benefit most. And rniB is right that blind and partially sighted wearers already face hostility from people who cannot tell they have sight loss. But no ban cannot mean no action. So I ask the Minister for, for, for, for the following consideration a statutory duty on manufacturers to provide a clear tamper proof recording indicator and an offence for turning it off or selling products designed to defeat it.
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 provision of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 fully into force without delay. And thirdly, give survivors a fast and affordable route to redress, as the Women and Equalities Committee has recommended. Fourthly, protect accessibility for those who need to use them for assistive purposes should not be penalised. And fifthly, if we are not, 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.
And my own profession has a part to play too. And finally, no chair. 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. So let us act. It's too late. Thank you.
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 provision of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 fully into force without delay. And thirdly, give survivors a fast and affordable route to redress, as the Women and Equalities Committee has recommended. Fourthly, protect accessibility for those who need to use them for assistive purposes should not be penalised. And fifthly, if we are not, 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.
And my own profession has a part to play too. And finally, no chair. 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. So let us act. It's too late. Thank you.
09:53
09:53
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I was hoping it might be about 28 minutes, but anyway, look, I'm not speaking for 28 minutes. I'll I'll do my contribution and try to keep it succinct and, and focused as possible. First of all, Mr. Chairman, a real pleasure to serve under your chair. And thank you for for calling me. Can I thank the honourable lady for Frome and East Somerset for setting the scene incredibly well on a subject matter that has to be discussed and has to be highlighted, and awareness today, and this opportunity is here to do just that. This matter strikes at the very heart of the safety, dignity and the privacy of our of our citizens, and most notably, the protection of women and girls in our communities.
We stand at a crossroads, I believe, where technological innovation is outpacing our moral and legal safeguards. And if we don't act, the consequences will continue to be felt by the most vulnerable on our streets. And everyone has made that point incredibly clear and thank them for that. Let us look first, if I can, Mr. Chairman, at the scale of what we're dealing with, we're not talking about a niche gadget or a far off futuristic concept, which some of us may think of. The figures are stark, Mr. chairman. It's estimated that hundreds of thousands of these smartglasses have already been sold right here in the United Kingdom.
They're flooded across the markets. They're sitting in the faces of everyday passers by that we don't know and we want. Many of them wear them innocently with a with an innocent purpose. We cannot blind ourselves to the reality that these devices are a powerful tool of surveillance masquerading as ordinary eyewear. Mr. chairman, as we rightly focus on efforts on eradicating violence against women and girls, we must recognise how this technology changes the very nature of that harassment, the very nature based stalking, and by intimidation as well. This is not just my own observation, Mr. Chairman.
The UK is leading domestic abuse charities are sounding the alarm as well and they're very clear in what they say. Refuge is. One example has warned us directly that perpetrators are weaponizing these very gadgets to covertly track and film survivors, and we had a very, very clear illustration from one gentleman to my left hand side, to a horrifying 62% spike in tech facilitated abuse. Furthermore, Women's Aid is another example has forcefully stated that these glasses with AI facial recognition threatens the very safety of all women and girls, and handed 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, Mr. Chairman, the fear of being targeted is already a daily reality. But now we have the horror of upskirting magnified by technology that is completely hands free and virtually invisible. A person can commit an act of visual violation without ever holding on to a phone, leaving the victim entirely unaware that her privacy, her dignity, and her body have been captured and digitized. I'm very happy to it.
We stand at a crossroads, I believe, where technological innovation is outpacing our moral and legal safeguards. And if we don't act, the consequences will continue to be felt by the most vulnerable on our streets. And everyone has made that point incredibly clear and thank them for that. Let us look first, if I can, Mr. Chairman, at the scale of what we're dealing with, we're not talking about a niche gadget or a far off futuristic concept, which some of us may think of. The figures are stark, Mr. chairman. It's estimated that hundreds of thousands of these smartglasses have already been sold right here in the United Kingdom.
They're flooded across the markets. They're sitting in the faces of everyday passers by that we don't know and we want. Many of them wear them innocently with a with an innocent purpose. We cannot blind ourselves to the reality that these devices are a powerful tool of surveillance masquerading as ordinary eyewear. Mr. chairman, as we rightly focus on efforts on eradicating violence against women and girls, we must recognise how this technology changes the very nature of that harassment, the very nature based stalking, and by intimidation as well. This is not just my own observation, Mr. Chairman.
The UK is leading domestic abuse charities are sounding the alarm as well and they're very clear in what they say. Refuge is. One example has warned us directly that perpetrators are weaponizing these very gadgets to covertly track and film survivors, and we had a very, very clear illustration from one gentleman to my left hand side, to a horrifying 62% spike in tech facilitated abuse. Furthermore, Women's Aid is another example has forcefully stated that these glasses with AI facial recognition threatens the very safety of all women and girls, and handed 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, Mr. Chairman, the fear of being targeted is already a daily reality. But now we have the horror of upskirting magnified by technology that is completely hands free and virtually invisible. A person can commit an act of visual violation without ever holding on to a phone, leaving the victim entirely unaware that her privacy, her dignity, and her body have been captured and digitized. I'm very happy to it.
09:56
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank him for giving way. I mean, he cites these figures from refuge that 62% of, you know, of referrals, referrals to their tech abuse have increased by 62%. He says that we're at this crossroads, but actually, it seems to me that we're already here. We're already at this. And just echoing what the member from Somerton and Frome said earlier, this is a this is an echo of what happened with the social media ban, that the government's going to come along too late. So do we not need to consider right now whether smart glasses are an aggravating factor in humiliation and abuse, whether we need more regulations that wrap around and emphasize that this is a problem that is here right now.
09:57
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Yeah. Thank you, gentlemen, for that. He's absolutely right. The threat is already here. But the opportunity to ask for the legislative change to the minister has been opportune by the Honourable lady for Falmouth and for from and Somerton. Today in this debate, I'm hoping that legislatively and from the Minister we look forward to to her response and and welcome her to to the role. And she's been here for two days running and becoming a habit. That's a good habit to have. Even more sickening was the chairman. Are the reports reaching communities across our regions? Tales of 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 just looking around worrying what appears to be standardized prescription lenses.
These individuals can be recording our young girls and our 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 are a mockery of consent. They're easily covered up and intervention says with a bit of tape or a sticker. So how are mothers, teachers or young girls supposed to feel safe with any stranger standing near a playground could be covertly documenting them and what they're doing. This is not just a nuisance anymore, Mr.
Chairman. It's a direct threat to public safety. And that engine for child exploitation. But let me be very clear. I'm not a man who stands against progress. Innovation, when properly challenged, can be a force for immense good. And we have to recognize that we see this in our invaluable National Health Service. We see it in our dedicated district nurses, who travel the length and breadth of our communities to provide care to the vulnerable or piloting utilizing these glasses for that purpose, for the good purpose of what it could be done for them. The ability to stream real time footage to a specialist consultant while treating a patient in their home is a magnificent breakthrough.
Those are the good things of modern technology. It saves lives, it saves time, and it improves care. But, Mr. Chairman, because the tool can be used for good, does not mean it should be given free rein in society. And that's what this debate is about. The contrast is clear. Those who use them 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, and I conclude with this, Mr.
Chairman. 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, of our wives and our mothers. We need robust regulations. We need clear boundaries. And we need to ensure that the law firmly protects women and girls from those who would use these devices to prey upon them. Thank you very much.
These individuals can be recording our young girls and our 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 are a mockery of consent. They're easily covered up and intervention says with a bit of tape or a sticker. So how are mothers, teachers or young girls supposed to feel safe with any stranger standing near a playground could be covertly documenting them and what they're doing. This is not just a nuisance anymore, Mr.
Chairman. It's a direct threat to public safety. And that engine for child exploitation. But let me be very clear. I'm not a man who stands against progress. Innovation, when properly challenged, can be a force for immense good. And we have to recognize that we see this in our invaluable National Health Service. We see it in our dedicated district nurses, who travel the length and breadth of our communities to provide care to the vulnerable or piloting utilizing these glasses for that purpose, for the good purpose of what it could be done for them. The ability to stream real time footage to a specialist consultant while treating a patient in their home is a magnificent breakthrough.
Those are the good things of modern technology. It saves lives, it saves time, and it improves care. But, Mr. Chairman, because the tool can be used for good, does not mean it should be given free rein in society. And that's what this debate is about. The contrast is clear. Those who use them 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, and I conclude with this, Mr.
Chairman. 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, of our wives and our mothers. We need robust regulations. We need clear boundaries. And we need to ensure that the law firmly protects women and girls from those who would use these devices to prey upon them. Thank you very much.
10:00
10:00
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Wishart. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And thank you to my hon. Friend the member for Frome and East Somerset for securing this very crucial debate. As we've heard today, smart glasses can pose a very real threat to the safety and personal privacy of women and girls, in particular smart glasses, as other honourable members have said, 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 online. Quick to follow is the abusive online commentary. Online stalking and other technology facilitated harassment. All of this translates back to real world harm reporting in the past week by London Centric illustrated 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 like Instagram and TikTok, they can receive millions of views, earn money from said views and face no legal consequences. The police are aware of this.
They are simply working within the law. In this case, as the law was written in the last century. This is because the 1997 protection from Harassment Act requires repeated harassment of an individual to reach the threshold for prosecution. However, harassing behaviour of the sort committed by those filming women non-consensually such as those with smart glasses, is allowed so long as the women are only filmed once. To be frank, current law makes this the Wild West when it comes to privacy and online abuse. It doesn't matter that the same harassing behaviours replicated across potentially dozens of women.
All that currently matters in the law is that it's not done repeatedly to the same woman. As such, this disgusting behaviour is not only legal but profitable. It's monetised misogyny, plain and simple. For those who claim, like the men filming these videos, that it's just a bit of fun, you only have to read the impact a few seconds of non-consensual filming has on the women who are victims to 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 and asked her whether she knows she is TikTok famous.
Others have moved away from London altogether after being filmed non-consensually. I will give.
The initial harm of an in-person encounter is then compounded by social media algorithms online. Quick to follow is the abusive online commentary. Online stalking and other technology facilitated harassment. All of this translates back to real world harm reporting in the past week by London Centric illustrated 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 like Instagram and TikTok, they can receive millions of views, earn money from said views and face no legal consequences. The police are aware of this.
They are simply working within the law. In this case, as the law was written in the last century. This is because the 1997 protection from Harassment Act requires repeated harassment of an individual to reach the threshold for prosecution. However, harassing behaviour of the sort committed by those filming women non-consensually such as those with smart glasses, is allowed so long as the women are only filmed once. To be frank, current law makes this the Wild West when it comes to privacy and online abuse. It doesn't matter that the same harassing behaviours replicated across potentially dozens of women.
All that currently matters in the law is that it's not done repeatedly to the same woman. As such, this disgusting behaviour is not only legal but profitable. It's monetised misogyny, plain and simple. For those who claim, like the men filming these videos, that it's just a bit of fun, you only have to read the impact a few seconds of non-consensual filming has on the women who are victims to 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 and asked her whether she knows she is TikTok famous.
Others have moved away from London altogether after being filmed non-consensually. I will give.
10:03
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank the honourable lady for giving way. She's making a very compelling speech and. Does she agree with me that in addition to perhaps changing legislation and the need for greater enforcement, there's clearly a huge amount of work to be done around educating, and I'm afraid to say that the education that needs to be done is men and sadly, boys, because the statistics are very clear, 91% of people prosecuted for sexual offences are men aged 18 plus. And I really do think, and I wonder what she thinks about this, that we need to be in schools and into the spaces that men and boys are talking and explaining to them just how disgusting this behaviour is and that there will be consequences.
10:04
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Well, the honourable member makes a really important point and I thank him for his intervention. Yes, I agree with him, but I would also like to say that we have to go after those who promote and normalise this sort of behaviour. And by that I mean the online platforms. You know, they are essentially broadcasters now. It used to be that to be able to reach a mass audience, like through television, for example, you used to have to have a broadcasting licence and, and be held to a high standard. Yet these online platforms get away with promoting disgusting, misogynistic content over and over again.
And because people see it, it gets normalised, I will.
And because people see it, it gets normalised, I will.
10:04
10:04
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
She's been very generous with her time. I want to reassure her. I completely agree with her. I think there needs to be much tighter regulation of the social media companies. The tech bros, frankly, have had it too easy and too good for too long, and we need to do far more. I personally think that we ought to be finding a way of holding them liable in law, responsible and liable 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 these concepts?
10:05
10:05
10:05
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank the honourable member for his very important intervention. Absolutely. This proves what a difficult and complex subject this is, and everybody has a role to play in it. And and very much so not just the victims and what has been said. Indeed, by my honourable friend, the member for the member for Frome and East Somerset. I need to get her constituency right. Is. It's really important that we don't leave it just to the victims. So absolutely manufacturers, absolutely. Broadcasters, social media platforms, etcetera, etcetera. And the so-called content creators. I really struggle with that with that phrase.
But they're posing themselves as content creators. They're making lots of money out of it as well, which is one of the disgusting things monetizing misogyny. As I as I've said. Just everybody has a role to play in this. It's important that we focus on that. But unfortunately, legislation, as we've seen, is falling woefully behind advances in technology such as smart glasses and changes in behaviour and social media. That's why when we legislate, we have to have foresight about what might come later as well, not just what's happening right now and what's happened in the past, but what might come.
And we need to write legislation in that way. So I urge the minister to review the effectiveness of the 1997 protection from Harassment Act to ensure that this harassment loophole, as I was describing, is closed. I'm sure she doesn't doubt 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 this is a reality, not just a slogan or an aspiration, we have to act decisively.
So, as the member for East Somerset has already laid out, the problem isn't a lack of understanding around the issue. There are simple steps that we can take right now that we know would mitigate the issue. And this misuse. We must begin by enforcing hardware level standards that ensure smart glasses are tamper proof. As other members have said across the House, and ban modifications that disable or remove the recording indicator. I would also add that might cover up the recording indicator. A bit of electrical tape might do the job, as others have suggested, and that should not be okay either.
And we must expand the scope of sexual harm prevention orders to completely prohibit the purchase or use of smart glasses by sex offenders where appropriate, including as a condition of release. These problems with emerging technologies don't exist in isolation. They are amplified by and rely on social media. The government, I implore the government. Actually, it must take stronger action to hold social media giants to account companies who don't just facilitate but promote this type of content. Stories like the ones detailed in London centric wouldn't exist without the impunity that these companies currently operate with. We have to acknowledge that profit must never be placed above the safety and dignity of our 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 real, tangible consequences for those companies who fail to comply. 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. Now, as we've heard, it's important that we acknowledge that developments in technology can still be harnessed for the better. Smart glasses do act as genuinely life changing technologies for blind and partially sighted people.
By providing hands free access to information, object recognition , and descriptions of their surroundings. As we've heard, they can dramatically increase an individual's personal independence. This, however, is all the more reason for action because, as other honourable members have mentioned, the Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported 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 being used for predatory and covert filming will not only protect women and girls from abuse, but also help to protect legitimate users from suspicion, so that those who benefit from this technology can use it with confidence.
So I hope the minister takes today's cross-party calls for much stronger action very seriously 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 to ultimately provide a stronger legal framework for smart glasses so that those who genuinely benefit from them aren't subject to suspicion or threats themselves.
But they're posing themselves as content creators. They're making lots of money out of it as well, which is one of the disgusting things monetizing misogyny. As I as I've said. Just everybody has a role to play in this. It's important that we focus on that. But unfortunately, legislation, as we've seen, is falling woefully behind advances in technology such as smart glasses and changes in behaviour and social media. That's why when we legislate, we have to have foresight about what might come later as well, not just what's happening right now and what's happened in the past, but what might come.
And we need to write legislation in that way. So I urge the minister to review the effectiveness of the 1997 protection from Harassment Act to ensure that this harassment loophole, as I was describing, is closed. I'm sure she doesn't doubt 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 this is a reality, not just a slogan or an aspiration, we have to act decisively.
So, as the member for East Somerset has already laid out, the problem isn't a lack of understanding around the issue. There are simple steps that we can take right now that we know would mitigate the issue. And this misuse. We must begin by enforcing hardware level standards that ensure smart glasses are tamper proof. As other members have said across the House, and ban modifications that disable or remove the recording indicator. I would also add that might cover up the recording indicator. A bit of electrical tape might do the job, as others have suggested, and that should not be okay either.
And we must expand the scope of sexual harm prevention orders to completely prohibit the purchase or use of smart glasses by sex offenders where appropriate, including as a condition of release. These problems with emerging technologies don't exist in isolation. They are amplified by and rely on social media. The government, I implore the government. Actually, it must take stronger action to hold social media giants to account companies who don't just facilitate but promote this type of content. Stories like the ones detailed in London centric wouldn't exist without the impunity that these companies currently operate with. We have to acknowledge that profit must never be placed above the safety and dignity of our 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 real, tangible consequences for those companies who fail to comply. 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. Now, as we've heard, it's important that we acknowledge that developments in technology can still be harnessed for the better. Smart glasses do act as genuinely life changing technologies for blind and partially sighted people.
By providing hands free access to information, object recognition , and descriptions of their surroundings. As we've heard, they can dramatically increase an individual's personal independence. This, however, is all the more reason for action because, as other honourable members have mentioned, the Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported 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 being used for predatory and covert filming will not only protect women and girls from abuse, but also help to protect legitimate users from suspicion, so that those who benefit from this technology can use it with confidence.
So I hope the minister takes today's cross-party calls for much stronger action very seriously 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 to ultimately provide a stronger legal framework for smart glasses so that those who genuinely benefit from them aren't subject to suspicion or threats themselves.
10:10
10:10
10:10
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Very much, Mr. Wishart, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Can I first congratulate the honourable member for Frome and Somerset for securing this very important debate, and for all of the very thoughtful contributions from honourable members from across the House. 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. So like honourable members, I expect the stockings this Christmas to be filled with AI glasses. It's therefore essential that we examine examine how to keep women and girls safe .
As this market expands. The technological innovations are too often accompanied by consequences that harm people, including women and girls. As a catalyst, technology can take the worst behavior that already exists in our society and accelerate it, whether that be the pervasive use of early cameras that 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 is trying to combat day in, day out. There are, of course, design issues with these smart glasses, and we've heard some of those today.
But of course, this does not mean that the technology itself was designed to cause harm, but rather that problems arise from how it is used and exploited by those with the worst of motivations in our society. That is why it's important to recognize that smart glasses are part of this wider pattern, and present acute problems that impact women and girls. There have been numerous stories, and we've heard some of them today from honourable members that illustrate the need to ensure these glasses are not being used to harass women and girls in our country. Covert. I'll gladly give way.
As this market expands. The technological innovations are too often accompanied by consequences that harm people, including women and girls. As a catalyst, technology can take the worst behavior that already exists in our society and accelerate it, whether that be the pervasive use of early cameras that 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 is trying to combat day in, day out. There are, of course, design issues with these smart glasses, and we've heard some of those today.
But of course, this does not mean that the technology itself was designed to cause harm, but rather that problems arise from how it is used and exploited by those with the worst of motivations in our society. That is why it's important to recognize that smart glasses are part of this wider pattern, and present acute problems that impact women and girls. There have been numerous stories, and we've heard some of them today from honourable members that illustrate the need to ensure these glasses are not being used to harass women and girls in our country. Covert. I'll gladly give way.
10:12
10:12
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Gentleman for giving way. Disagree with me that the work of my hon. Friend the member for Worcester around digital product safety is worth considering. He makes the point very effectively in a white paper that he published in July, 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. So we should insist, through a process that he has set out in his white paper, that digital products, and I think this would come into the scope, should be safe, and the manufacturers of those products should be required to ensure that they are safe.
10:12
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Can I thank the honourable member for that intervention? I have to say I'm not familiar with the work that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I'll undertake to look into it. Perhaps he could send me a copy of it, and I will be glad to read it. But his broader point, which is that safety should be built into the design, I think, is an important one. And I think it's one that the government would be wise to consider.
And I have no doubt they're doing that. Yeah. Gladly.
And I have no doubt they're doing that. Yeah. Gladly.
10:13
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
The honourable gentleman and his intervention brought up an incredibly important issue. And if there's a methodology when the minister comes to speak of, of bringing in regulation, because although we're focusing, as we should be on why people are taking advantage of of the smart glasses and using them illegally and criminally. There are those. And I mentioned in my speech about the health workers who, when they go to visit people in their houses and it gives them an opportunity to use smart glasses for the purpose of their job. So if we want to do something looking forward and regulate it and ensure that people who use it for the right purposes are able to do so.
Is that not the way that we should be moving forward?
Is that not the way that we should be moving forward?
10:13
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I think the can I thank the honourable member for that intervention? I think the honourable member is saying that in anything that the government does, it needs 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. And honourable member has previously talked about some of the cultural issues and problems and education that's needed, particularly for young boys. So I think the government will be looking I hope, to strike the right balance. Covert filming and online harassment of women and real harms are real harms that deserve a serious response.
It is particularly concerning how people have used these glasses to record young women without their knowledge, and then use that footage for their own benefit, including commercial benefit. This is absolutely despicable, despicable, violation and should not be tolerated. And as the Lib Dem spokesperson, the honourable member for Chelmsford, referred to this as monetised misogyny. I believe , and I agree with her comments entirely. So there is cross-party support on this issue. Refuge has reported that referrals to the charity 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 honourable members will be aware, it is not inherently unlawful to take photos or videos of people in public without their permission. This can, of course cross over into criminality, which 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 is the criticism it received from the National Union of Journalists illustrates the challenge of balancing existing rights with stopping the unscrupulous use of technology. This 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. When Parliament considered the disgusting practice of upskirting, it passed in 2019 , the 2019 Voyeurism Offences Act, which created targeted offences related to Upskirting. This provides a useful example of Parliament addressing a particular harmful act without outlawing everyday cameras. So if changes to legislation are necessary, they must be based on evidence and ensure we create the best possible policies that we can.
I therefore appreciate if the minister could set out what evidence the government is gathering on the prevalence of covert smart glasses, filming 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 being able to distinguish between their wrongful use and individuals using these devices for genuinely important reasons. Appoint the hon. Gentleman made earlier. I understand that recently, the Norwegian government has announced its intention to restrict the use of these devices in specific locations. To the honourable lady's point from 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 these matters, but we must be explicit about how we keep people safe in these environments. If we do not, then we undermine those who seek to use this technology to truly improve people's lives. One example, as we have heard already this morning, is the Royal National Institute for the blind, who have recognised concerns as reflected by the honourable member for Frome and East Somerset, but have also commented on how some blind and partially sighted people are using smartglasses 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 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. Cross sense, who make 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 were able to use the technology in a similar way to body worn cameras, or perhaps to utilise facial recognition technology, an effective tool for identifying catching criminals who commit violence against women and girls.
These examples don't seek to downplay the risks posed by these devices, but rather encourage the government to consider these beneficial uses before introducing introducing any blanket bans. I recognise the Minister Minister's Department is committed to the Violence against Women and Girls Action Plan to work across government to encourage safety by design. Point made earlier by the Honourable Gentleman for smart and Connected technology. However, there are concerns about delivery and my hon. Friend the member for Leicester East did raise concerns about missed deadlines in the development of the plan. As Dame Nicole Jacobs told the Home Affairs Select 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.
So can the minister set out for all of us here today? What measurable progress has been made on this commitment, particularly as presumably it involved a department that now no longer exists? Given recent changes at the top. So to conclude, chair, all too often we have seen new technology used in a manner which puts women and girls at risk. So I hope we can find proportionate and sensitive policies and sensible policies that enable the continued use of this technology, whilst ensuring that we can prevent it from being used to facilitate the abuse and exploitation that we have seen throughout our society.
Thank you chair.
It is particularly concerning how people have used these glasses to record young women without their knowledge, and then use that footage for their own benefit, including commercial benefit. This is absolutely despicable, despicable, violation and should not be tolerated. And as the Lib Dem spokesperson, the honourable member for Chelmsford, referred to this as monetised misogyny. I believe , and I agree with her comments entirely. So there is cross-party support on this issue. Refuge has reported that referrals to the charity 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 honourable members will be aware, it is not inherently unlawful to take photos or videos of people in public without their permission. This can, of course cross over into criminality, which 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 is the criticism it received from the National Union of Journalists illustrates the challenge of balancing existing rights with stopping the unscrupulous use of technology. This 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. When Parliament considered the disgusting practice of upskirting, it passed in 2019 , the 2019 Voyeurism Offences Act, which created targeted offences related to Upskirting. This provides a useful example of Parliament addressing a particular harmful act without outlawing everyday cameras. So if changes to legislation are necessary, they must be based on evidence and ensure we create the best possible policies that we can.
I therefore appreciate if the minister could set out what evidence the government is gathering on the prevalence of covert smart glasses, filming 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 being able to distinguish between their wrongful use and individuals using these devices for genuinely important reasons. Appoint the hon. Gentleman made earlier. I understand that recently, the Norwegian government has announced its intention to restrict the use of these devices in specific locations. To the honourable lady's point from 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 these matters, but we must be explicit about how we keep people safe in these environments. If we do not, then we undermine those who seek to use this technology to truly improve people's lives. One example, as we have heard already this morning, is the Royal National Institute for the blind, who have recognised concerns as reflected by the honourable member for Frome and East Somerset, but have also commented on how some blind and partially sighted people are using smartglasses 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 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. Cross sense, who make 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 were able to use the technology in a similar way to body worn cameras, or perhaps to utilise facial recognition technology, an effective tool for identifying catching criminals who commit violence against women and girls.
These examples don't seek to downplay the risks posed by these devices, but rather encourage the government to consider these beneficial uses before introducing introducing any blanket bans. I recognise the Minister Minister's Department is committed to the Violence against Women and Girls Action Plan to work across government to encourage safety by design. Point made earlier by the Honourable Gentleman for smart and Connected technology. However, there are concerns about delivery and my hon. Friend the member for Leicester East did raise concerns about missed deadlines in the development of the plan. As Dame Nicole Jacobs told the Home Affairs Select 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.
So can the minister set out for all of us here today? What measurable progress has been made on this commitment, particularly as presumably it involved a department that now no longer exists? Given recent changes at the top. So to conclude, chair, all too often we have seen new technology used in a manner which puts women and girls at risk. So I hope we can find proportionate and sensitive policies and sensible policies that enable the continued use of this technology, whilst ensuring that we can prevent it from being used to facilitate the abuse and exploitation that we have seen throughout our society.
Thank you chair.
10:20
10:20
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you. Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chair, Mr. Wishart. I am grateful to the honourable member for Frome and East Somerset for securing this important debate and to all members for their powerful contributions. There is a lot we can agree on. It is fair to say that today's discussion reflects a truth about the age in which we live in. That rapid development of technology has sadly, with. It presented new ways to exploit and abuse women and girls. Whilst today's discussion mainly centred on smart glasses, I recognise many of the issues raised go much further than any single device.
They speak to a broader challenge to ensure innovation develops alongside the safety and protection of everyone, including women and girls. Our response must be unwavering on this and under this government it is. Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone's business. This includes tech companies taking their responsibility to keep people safe seriously and where they fail to do so, we will act. An example of this 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.
This is a ten year strategy, with the one year anniversary coming up where important, measurable should be assessed and reviewed. We know that when used responsibly, as it's been mentioned, new technologies like smart glasses can be hugely beneficial. For example, those that are visually impaired smart glasses have been a game changer, 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 member for Freeman East Somerset asked. I thought quite an important question about whether these glasses were designed just with just with blind people in mind.
And I think the honest answer is probably not. The Lib Dem spokesperson said we've. Or they've made it too easy for perpetrators. I agree. Companies must consider the risks of their products being misused by those determined to abuse women and girls, and to mitigate these risks through design, safety by design of smart and connected technology means we can better protect victims and survivors and stop perpetrators misusing technology. On the question of a complete ban or restrictions on smart glasses, the benefits of smart glasses must be weighed against the harms they can cause. The government is already looking into options to restrict smart glasses in certain settings and restricting the sale to certain users.
This 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 further recognises the concerns that have been raised about the use of smart glasses on the parliamentary estate. These concerns are serious.
I share them and appropriate next steps are currently being considered. Notwithstanding the decisions a parliamentary commission and speakers of both houses can make on this matter, everyone, including women and girls, have a right to feel safe going about their daily lives without worrying that images or videos of them being made, and then potentially shared online without their knowledge. The Sex based Harassment in Public Act, which was brought into force earlier this year, makes it illegal for someone to harass another based on their sex presumed sex, with perpetrators already being held to account as a result of this.
This could include taking images or videos without your 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, and this work is supported by Project Vigilant, which the member has now disappeared. Mentioned funded by government, which is a proactive police tactic of trained officers to identify and disrupt perpetrator behaviour in public spaces. Yes of course.
They speak to a broader challenge to ensure innovation develops alongside the safety and protection of everyone, including women and girls. Our response must be unwavering on this and under this government it is. Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone's business. This includes tech companies taking their responsibility to keep people safe seriously and where they fail to do so, we will act. An example of this 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.
This is a ten year strategy, with the one year anniversary coming up where important, measurable should be assessed and reviewed. We know that when used responsibly, as it's been mentioned, new technologies like smart glasses can be hugely beneficial. For example, those that are visually impaired smart glasses have been a game changer, 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 member for Freeman East Somerset asked. I thought quite an important question about whether these glasses were designed just with just with blind people in mind.
And I think the honest answer is probably not. The Lib Dem spokesperson said we've. Or they've made it too easy for perpetrators. I agree. Companies must consider the risks of their products being misused by those determined to abuse women and girls, and to mitigate these risks through design, safety by design of smart and connected technology means we can better protect victims and survivors and stop perpetrators misusing technology. On the question of a complete ban or restrictions on smart glasses, the benefits of smart glasses must be weighed against the harms they can cause. The government is already looking into options to restrict smart glasses in certain settings and restricting the sale to certain users.
This 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 further recognises the concerns that have been raised about the use of smart glasses on the parliamentary estate. These concerns are serious.
I share them and appropriate next steps are currently being considered. Notwithstanding the decisions a parliamentary commission and speakers of both houses can make on this matter, everyone, including women and girls, have a right to feel safe going about their daily lives without worrying that images or videos of them being made, and then potentially shared online without their knowledge. The Sex based Harassment in Public Act, which was brought into force earlier this year, makes it illegal for someone to harass another based on their sex presumed sex, with perpetrators already being held to account as a result of this.
This could include taking images or videos without your 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, and this work is supported by Project Vigilant, which the member has now disappeared. Mentioned funded by government, which is a proactive police tactic of trained officers to identify and disrupt perpetrator behaviour in public spaces. Yes of course.
10:25
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank the Minister for giving way. She's making some really important points, and I'm really pleased to hear that the government is listening. What I would just gently say and repeat is that an image or a video? Some video footage of a woman who's been recorded without her knowledge, then being posted online often doesn't meet the threshold of stalking or harassment in itself. And yet the effect on the woman is is just absolutely awful. And that's what the police are grappling with at the moment, and that they don't feel that they can prosecute. And then even when the victim themselves ask the platforms to take down the footage, the platforms just aren't doing anything about it.
What more does she think the government can do to tackle those specific points?
What more does she think the government can do to tackle those specific points?
10:26
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I think she's right to focus on the victim. And actually, this shouldn't just be the responsibility of the victim. First, we need to design up the issue so it doesn't happen in the first place. Platforms 1,000% have a responsibility and should be taking down any images that weren't put up there by consent as well. And actually, the sharing of those images without consent is illegal. Where content captured, as I was going to say, using smart glasses is illegal and uploaded or shared, the Online Safety Act provides important protections and platforms must remove non-consensual intimate images, prevent users from encountering it, and prevent their services from being used to carry out the offence.
Also, as I was asked directly. Oh yeah, of course.
Also, as I was asked directly. Oh yeah, of course.
10:27
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I had the dubious pleasure of questioning representatives of the social media platforms during the Foreign Affairs Committee's inquiry into misinformation and disinformation. And while I take the minister's point that there may be online safety regulation that directs them to remove it, the problem is, is that the spread of engaging content is fundamental to their business model, and by the time you have gone through the process of flagging something to a social media company, then removing that instance of it, it is already spread by a dozen different accounts because they're monetizing it. This is inherent to their business model.
Until we start tackling the profitability of sharing this content, we're never going to force them into action. My plea would be, can we have something that allows for us to find the hell out of them for sharing this information so that it stops making them money?
Until we start tackling the profitability of sharing this content, we're never going to force them into action. My plea would be, can we have something that allows for us to find the hell out of them for sharing this information so that it stops making them money?
10:28
10:28
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Do you . Honorable minister, giving way. Making an additional point to my colleague. Okay. If we are talking about profitability and our social media platforms, going back to the shadow Minister said that the manufacturers of these companies are intending it to be good. I think we may be a little bit naive. The company that makes the most popular smart glasses in our market is a £28.5 billion company, and they are very smart people, and they know how these things can be utilised. So does the minister agree that the product manufacturers hold a great deal of responsibility, and we must be able to legislate for that as well.
10:29
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I thank the member for that intervention. And he, of course, would have heard the beginning and opening of my my speech, where I talk about designing out the problem, and that is actually really targeted on manufacturers. So whether you're an Apple or a Google. So rather than the platforms themselves, which is why one of the examples of where we're going further, where tech companies have failed is through device level controls, because we need to nip this in the bud rather than allowing it to get out of control. And actually, one way to do that is designing out the problem in the first place.
Yes. Of course.
Yes. Of course.
10:29
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I just wanted to take this opportunity to clarify that earlier. I didn't make the point that social media or these manufacturers were intending to do good. I said that they weren't intending in their design to cause harm to women and girls, which I think is is different. I don't think they are intending to cause harm, but through their design, harm is being caused. I just wanted to clarify that maybe the minister agrees with me.
10:30
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I do, although I would say tech companies are very clever and they equally have a risk. While they may not intend to, they absolutely should feel their responsibility when producing this product when designing it to safeguard individuals and women and girls, which I know we both agree on. And also, as I was asked directly, let me be clear the sharing threatening to share an intimate image without consent is a criminal offence. This includes creating or requesting the creation of deep fake images, intimate images of adults without consent. The Crime and Policing Act strengthens these offences further.
And on the points. Yeah, of course.
And on the points. Yeah, of course.
10:31
10:31
10:31
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
If I may just make the point that I feel that this is how debate should work in this place. Actually, it's really good to have that backwards and forwards, and I thank her for her time. And lots of honourable members are making really good contributions just to make that point, because she said a couple of times now about intimate images, and I just want to make the point that these aren't all intimate images, but they are nevertheless really distressing when they are being shared across across social media. So I'm worried about that. Focus on intimacy because it's not always about intimacy and the way that we might understand it.
10:31
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
No, absolutely. And irrespective, if your image is out there without your consent, we've got a problem on the harrowing story of Isabella that the member for West Dorset shared with us. I want to thank him for sharing that and for Isabella for for allowing you to do so. It is completely unacceptable and it does make me. And stories like that which I sadly now hear on a very regular basis, make me and this government even more determined to tackle this and really focus on supporting the victim, but not just this being, because I'm sure we've heard this so many times about how women and girls can do and act differently, which nothing frustrates me more.
And actually, we really need to go for perpetrators and really need to go for those that are creating the harm, which are big tech companies. I want to reassure him that misogyny, and particularly online misogyny is being taken seriously by this government. It's why an online. It's why a misogyny taskforce has now been created and in. The recent budget received £15 million to do its work within schools. Healthy relationships are now being taught . And actually having been part of one of those sessions, I found them really insightful and powerful and slightly a little bit sad hearing teenagers of their experiences and what actually they think is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Where we sit on these, these chairs and benches and think, surely children must know when actually they don't. And it's because what they've been receiving online and to reassure, reassure him. Further, the government has looked at domestic violence protection orders, ensuring that it's not just about violent behaviour, but actually we take we broaden the scope to include abuse, which is why domestic violence protection orders are being evolved into domestic abuse protection orders. There's a pilot already happening. We're hoping to roll it out nationally by the end of this year so that it should and will better protect victims.
So it goes much broader than violence. And it can include things like coercive control and stalking and other measures. And today, the pilot has already seen over 2000 police led depos being introduced. So I really see this as a bit of a turning point to widening the scope and understanding of it as well, giving police more powers to close. Chair, I wanted to thank the member for three many. Somerset again to the and to the invaluable contributions we've heard this morning. This is not the end of the journey. It's very much the beginning. Government is committed and I am personally determined to ensure everyone, but especially women and girls, can live their lives without fear of abuse.
This must include a clear and robust response to the technical. 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 and this government will hold them to account for it, and we will not hesitate to act where they are failing. The scale of the challenge is vast when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls. It will only be achieved by everyone playing their part and I am confident together, including working cross-party. We can do that together. Thank you very much.
And actually, we really need to go for perpetrators and really need to go for those that are creating the harm, which are big tech companies. I want to reassure him that misogyny, and particularly online misogyny is being taken seriously by this government. It's why an online. It's why a misogyny taskforce has now been created and in. The recent budget received £15 million to do its work within schools. Healthy relationships are now being taught . And actually having been part of one of those sessions, I found them really insightful and powerful and slightly a little bit sad hearing teenagers of their experiences and what actually they think is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Where we sit on these, these chairs and benches and think, surely children must know when actually they don't. And it's because what they've been receiving online and to reassure, reassure him. Further, the government has looked at domestic violence protection orders, ensuring that it's not just about violent behaviour, but actually we take we broaden the scope to include abuse, which is why domestic violence protection orders are being evolved into domestic abuse protection orders. There's a pilot already happening. We're hoping to roll it out nationally by the end of this year so that it should and will better protect victims.
So it goes much broader than violence. And it can include things like coercive control and stalking and other measures. And today, the pilot has already seen over 2000 police led depos being introduced. So I really see this as a bit of a turning point to widening the scope and understanding of it as well, giving police more powers to close. Chair, I wanted to thank the member for three many. Somerset again to the and to the invaluable contributions we've heard this morning. This is not the end of the journey. It's very much the beginning. Government is committed and I am personally determined to ensure everyone, but especially women and girls, can live their lives without fear of abuse.
This must include a clear and robust response to the technical. 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 and this government will hold them to account for it, and we will not hesitate to act where they are failing. The scale of the challenge is vast when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls. It will only be achieved by everyone playing their part and I am confident together, including working cross-party. We can do that together. Thank you very much.
10:35
10:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Very much, Mr. Chair and I won't do that thing of rehashing everything everyone has said, but I genuinely think it's been a really useful discussion, and I also really appreciate the fact that the way everyone's been so generous with their time makes it much more conversational, actually is a much more useful debate. Arguably, I just wanted to clarify that I'm not calling on either the Liberal Democrats for a total ban on this technology. I just worry that we are sleepwalking into a position where we will find it's out of control before we've managed to do anything about it.
And I also know that as an MP, and I'm sure many other members will feel that when we're out and about in public spaces, we can sometimes feel rather exposed. We wonder who's looking at us and clocking what we're doing. I wonder whether, when we see a number of MPs being covertly filmed by these, tech will suddenly find this shoves up the political agenda. But I would like it not to not to get to that point. And I really welcome the cross-party consensus on this. And I welcome the Minister's desire to work across party on this.
I certainly know we would like to. I just wanted to finish by saying to the member for West Dorset, I hope you will pass on our thanks to Isabella. It's only by people like her and her mother sharing their story that this becomes personalized and we can hope to affect change, and I hope you will pass on the thanks of those of us at this debate for her sharing her story. I've just seen a mouse running behind the member for West Dorset, so I'm going to draw my remarks to a close and exit the room as briefly, as quickly, as quickly as possible.
Thank you very much.
And I also know that as an MP, and I'm sure many other members will feel that when we're out and about in public spaces, we can sometimes feel rather exposed. We wonder who's looking at us and clocking what we're doing. I wonder whether, when we see a number of MPs being covertly filmed by these, tech will suddenly find this shoves up the political agenda. But I would like it not to not to get to that point. And I really welcome the cross-party consensus on this. And I welcome the Minister's desire to work across party on this.
I certainly know we would like to. I just wanted to finish by saying to the member for West Dorset, I hope you will pass on our thanks to Isabella. It's only by people like her and her mother sharing their story that this becomes personalized and we can hope to affect change, and I hope you will pass on the thanks of those of us at this debate for her sharing her story. I've just seen a mouse running behind the member for West Dorset, so I'm going to draw my remarks to a close and exit the room as briefly, as quickly, as quickly as possible.
Thank you very much.
10:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that this House has considered smartglasses and violence against women and girls, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the country. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order! Order! The chamber is suspended until 11 a.m. and thank you for. Order. Order! Jamie Stone to move the motion.
14:30
14:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I beg to move the motion. As in my name. As printed in the order paper. Madam chair, I do want to thank all the many members who have come along today to this important debate. It's about addressing the growing impact of rising heating oils on rural households. And I am very grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate. It is an issue which is causing real anxiety, I would say, to the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and particularly in my Far North constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. And I would say that in the hands of Scotland, for many people, the using heating oil is not a choice, but it is the only practical way of heating their homes, especially during the winter months when it's a lot colder than other parts of the UK.
This is because we know why. But houses. Homes are scattered across a vast geography and where access to the main gas grid is not really accessible. In fact, it's not many access points in my constituency. So lots of households will rely on heating oil. Don't benefit from the same protections as those who are connected to the main gas grid and electricity networks. This is a point that's been made several times in this place. So the regulatory safeguards don't really cover these people, and they are very much hit by sudden price increases. Now, my office tells me that across the UK, about 1.5 million homes rely on heating oil, and a substantial proportion of this number are in rural communities.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that rural households typically spend 10 to 20% more on everyday essentials compared to urban counterparts. They're also more susceptible to higher levels of fuel poverty. This is because they are often in older properties, which detached more difficult to insulate, meaning they have poor energy efficiency. As members will be aware, the conflict in Iran has caused severe disruption to our global energy markets. I will give way, sir.
This is because we know why. But houses. Homes are scattered across a vast geography and where access to the main gas grid is not really accessible. In fact, it's not many access points in my constituency. So lots of households will rely on heating oil. Don't benefit from the same protections as those who are connected to the main gas grid and electricity networks. This is a point that's been made several times in this place. So the regulatory safeguards don't really cover these people, and they are very much hit by sudden price increases. Now, my office tells me that across the UK, about 1.5 million homes rely on heating oil, and a substantial proportion of this number are in rural communities.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that rural households typically spend 10 to 20% more on everyday essentials compared to urban counterparts. They're also more susceptible to higher levels of fuel poverty. This is because they are often in older properties, which detached more difficult to insulate, meaning they have poor energy efficiency. As members will be aware, the conflict in Iran has caused severe disruption to our global energy markets. I will give way, sir.
14:32
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I thank the honourable member for giving way. He's making his usual excellent, well-informed speech. But does he agree with me that it's rather sad that, given the absence of any support in the budget, that people in our constituencies are now looking to the midterm elections in America to actually lead to peace in the Middle East and a reduction in prices? Well.
14:32
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The honourable member makes the characteristically interesting point, to say the least. There may be some truth in exactly what he says, but the price increases because of the war in Iran are has lead to some households having their bill double or even treble now. Age UK has given me some stats. Here's a couple of examples. 180 year old man with serious health problems saw the cost of filling his heating oil tank.
Quote double. Let me get this right. From £400 in January to £800 in March. Can you imagine another household? I will give way.
Quote double. Let me get this right. From £400 in January to £800 in March. Can you imagine another household? I will give way.
14:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
One of my constituents got in touch with me last week to say that she'd had to order a minimum order of 500l of oil. It had cost her £560, and she was out of cash for the rest of the month. Does he agree with me that we need to bring down minimum orders, as well as look at issues that affect the price of oil?
14:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I could not agree more with my my good friend. Let me give you one more example. A couple in their 70s. The increase has been equally alarming. Their bill rose from 300 to £700 despite. Despite one of them having suffered a stroke and needing to be kept warm for obvious health reasons. Now, these are not abstract stats. These are real people, vulnerable people who are trying to manage their household budgets, pay the bills and keep their house warm. And several times in this place, I've talked in the past about elderly and vulnerable people having to make that invidious decision either to freeze or to switch on the heating and worry about running into debt.
Certainly will.
Certainly will.
14:34
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Service bringing this matter to our to our consideration in my constituency, like his, those vulnerable people are often isolated communities. I think of Holbeach, Saint John's, Gedney, Fleet, Hargate those people depend on heating oil and they don't enjoy the same kind of protection that other energy users do. It's as simple as that. Government needs to act.
14:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The point is extremely well made, and being a sort of a cheeky chap from the north of Scotland, I thought it would be wise to write to the Chancellor ahead of the budget to make the case for targeted support for heating oil customers. I have a little bit disappointed that the measures announced did not go quite as far as I would suggest, but on that point.
14:35
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
We're bringing this incredibly time sensitive and critical debate and thank him for the points that he has made so far. Does he agree with me, similar to my colleague, that it was incredibly disappointing for the people in our constituencies who were looking to this budget to provide solutions for them, that not a single penny of this budget has been allocated to support those who rely on heating oil. And to see further agree with me that the UK government should take lessons from the Scottish Government, who have implemented the Emergency Heating Oil Support Fund, which has so far helped over 7000 people.
14:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, the honourable member makes a good point. She may be cornering me into agreeing with something the Scottish Government has done, which doesn't necessarily go with the grain of my psyche. But put it this way the United Kingdom government will be hearing from me again with yet another of my letters. I certainly will. It's a pleasure.
14:35
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
And I agree with him that households reliant on heating oil, including those in my constituency in West Lancashire, face particular issues, particularly around price volatility and the absence of consumer protections that users of electricity and gas might have. But does he not welcome the government's previous £50 million investment in supporting the sector, including working with Ofgem, the industry and consumers to bring forward a consumer protections?
14:36
14:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. Aren't these divisions annoying things? Are. The honourable member for West Lancashire did make an extremely fair point, actually, and I have actually previously welcomed the government's previous commitment of, as she said herself, £53,000,053 million to help households struggling with soaring heating oil prices. That was a move in the right direction. I give credit where it's due. The support was well meant, was well meant. But the trouble is that when you think it bounced that money against the 1.5 million homes using heating oil, it's only about £35 per household.
I certainly will.
I certainly will.
14:46
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thousands of my constituents rely on heating oil, and whilst the government has taken that off electricity, that does nothing to help customers on heating oil. The government has also announced the removal of standing charges for electricity customers. But again, that does not help heating oil customers. Does the minister does the member agree that the government really needs to focus on those customers to ensure they are getting the help that they need?
14:46
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I do agree with my my honourable colleague, and I think hopefully a debate of this nature will gradually, through goodwill on all sides of all political parties, shift the focus, if you like, onto the sort of people we're talking about. There is also concern about the take up, the actual take up of schemes, and the practical difficulties involved in identifying households. Age UK has highlighted highlighted the challenges facing organisations and local authorities in reaching out to the people out there who do desperately need the help. So I think if we could all collectively look with the government to ensure that steps are taken to support people actually getting what they desperately need.
Now, turning to my own party's specific proposals, we have called for a three month, three months of zero rated VAT on domestic heating oil. That said, I do appreciate that the VAT reduction would not necessarily reverse the international price increase, which is so bedevilling this issue, it wouldn't solve the underlying problem. However, it would provide practical assistance at a time when households are facing exceptionally high bills. To quote somebody who's more August than me, it would be a breathing space. For this reason, I do encourage the government to properly assess the cost and practical implications of a temporary reduction in VAT, and we'll see what comes out of that, and I will make an appeal to the government benches opposite.
I will gladly give way.
Now, turning to my own party's specific proposals, we have called for a three month, three months of zero rated VAT on domestic heating oil. That said, I do appreciate that the VAT reduction would not necessarily reverse the international price increase, which is so bedevilling this issue, it wouldn't solve the underlying problem. However, it would provide practical assistance at a time when households are facing exceptionally high bills. To quote somebody who's more August than me, it would be a breathing space. For this reason, I do encourage the government to properly assess the cost and practical implications of a temporary reduction in VAT, and we'll see what comes out of that, and I will make an appeal to the government benches opposite.
I will gladly give way.
14:48
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I'd like to support this idea of a of a VAT freeze. I'm a pensioner. You know, hundreds of my constituents are on heating oil. A pensioner couple in my constituency ordered oil at £60 a litre in February. The order dragged on, was cancelled. They were told they could reorder at 120 £0.04 per litre, so more than double. And whilst the VAT freeze would not roll that back, it would go a long way to helping these people out.
14:48
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yes. Absolutely correct. And perhaps turning to my own experience of of buying oil, I live in a in an old stone stone built house in the Highlands, which its only source of heating , apart from the electric put on is the boiler, the oil fired boiler. And people have raised with me issues about around price transparency. The. Whether the quotation is really what it says between the quoted price and the final delivery price. These are sometimes not always the same things. And indeed, we don't seem to have a proper complaints process or redress process. So for older and vulnerable people, the people I talk about who worry about whether to put the heating on or to run into or what to do, it can be particularly difficult to navigate, but I also welcome the government's acceptance, in principle of the Competition and Markets Authority's recommendations and its commitments to bring home heating oil customers within Ofgems regulatory remit.
This would can only be a good thing, but I would ask for a clear timetable on this. Households have waited a long, long time. It is not the first time, as hon. My hon. Colleagues know that I've gone on at some length about this particular issue, so that would be handy. And finally, because a lot of people want to speak, and again, I thank each and every one, Madam Chair, for coming along. We must look beyond the immediate crisis and towards the long term solution. I think we would all agree with this. It is not sustainable to simply respond every time international events cause heating oil prices to rise.
We do need to make rural homes warmer, more energy efficient and cheaper to heat. I will gladly give way.
This would can only be a good thing, but I would ask for a clear timetable on this. Households have waited a long, long time. It is not the first time, as hon. My hon. Colleagues know that I've gone on at some length about this particular issue, so that would be handy. And finally, because a lot of people want to speak, and again, I thank each and every one, Madam Chair, for coming along. We must look beyond the immediate crisis and towards the long term solution. I think we would all agree with this. It is not sustainable to simply respond every time international events cause heating oil prices to rise.
We do need to make rural homes warmer, more energy efficient and cheaper to heat. I will gladly give way.
14:48
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
And he's absolutely right what he's saying, because the challenge is compounded by the nature of the housing stock in rural constituencies. Friends of the earth say that in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, 12% of people are living in fuel poverty and 62% of homes have an Energy Performance Certificate rating of D or less. So would he agree with me that part of the solution to this problem is actually making our homes more sustainable in terms of energy?
14:48
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I do entirely agree. And of course, as we know, some of the older properties are incredibly difficult to do this work to it. And I'm bound to say that if I just return to where I started, which is my constituents in the Highlands in the very, very far North, if. In many households, if I say, well, what about a heat pump? They sort of laugh at me and say, you're joking in this old Croft house. This is not a feasible thing at all. So we have to be practical in what we can do. But I do.
I'm very grateful for so many members turning up to this debate. I believe it is a start of a discussion which, as we I think we're all on the same sheet on this one. Let's make it happen. Let's see what we can do for some of the most vulnerable in society. I thank you, Madam Chair. Well done.
I'm very grateful for so many members turning up to this debate. I believe it is a start of a discussion which, as we I think we're all on the same sheet on this one. Let's make it happen. Let's see what we can do for some of the most vulnerable in society. I thank you, Madam Chair. Well done.
14:48
14:48
14:48
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I thank the member for Caithness Sutherland Easter Ross for bringing this important debate before us and pay tribute to the Labour Government for putting heating oil on the agenda for the first time. Most governments have ignored off grid homes for a long time now. I know the right hon. The honourable member will recognise a Peter if it were thrown at him, and that is how most of the homes in my constituency were heated traditionally. But of course, most homes have now been converted from peat to oil. 48% of homes in the Western Isles rely on heating oil to heat their homes.
But because of the conditions of the homes, old houses, because of the Atlantic weather and because of the demographics of the population, 40% of households are in fuel poverty. And in fact, it's worse than that because 24% of households are in extreme fuel poverty. They spend over 20% of their income on keeping their homes warm in winter. Heating their homes is a huge challenge. That is why this. 1053 million. 10 million to Scotland heating oil support scheme was very welcome. The Scottish Government added, of course 5.4 million to the 4.6. The UK government.
They had to do it bigger and better. They did it centralised and. The result, of course, is that none of the money is going into the Western Isles. Only 324 households in the Western Highlands have received support. Another 337 have been turned down for for the credit. 3% of homes have nearly 13,000 households in the Western Isles, and yet only 300 had support. And the picture in Scotland is no better. 13,900 applications. Only 7000 have been declared eligible, and there are 169,000 households in Scotland relying on heating oil, most of them in rural areas.
And instead of bleating about the midterms, election, what the budget can do with them, I think SNP members should do what I've done and write to the Scottish Minister and ask for the rules and eligibility eligibility for heating oil to be expanded to take into account rurality and isolation and insularity, and
But because of the conditions of the homes, old houses, because of the Atlantic weather and because of the demographics of the population, 40% of households are in fuel poverty. And in fact, it's worse than that because 24% of households are in extreme fuel poverty. They spend over 20% of their income on keeping their homes warm in winter. Heating their homes is a huge challenge. That is why this. 1053 million. 10 million to Scotland heating oil support scheme was very welcome. The Scottish Government added, of course 5.4 million to the 4.6. The UK government.
They had to do it bigger and better. They did it centralised and. The result, of course, is that none of the money is going into the Western Isles. Only 324 households in the Western Highlands have received support. Another 337 have been turned down for for the credit. 3% of homes have nearly 13,000 households in the Western Isles, and yet only 300 had support. And the picture in Scotland is no better. 13,900 applications. Only 7000 have been declared eligible, and there are 169,000 households in Scotland relying on heating oil, most of them in rural areas.
And instead of bleating about the midterms, election, what the budget can do with them, I think SNP members should do what I've done and write to the Scottish Minister and ask for the rules and eligibility eligibility for heating oil to be expanded to take into account rurality and isolation and insularity, and