Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Half an hour; I was hoping it might be 28 minutes. I am not going to speak for 28 minutes; I will try to keep my contribution as succinct and focused as possible.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart and I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for setting the scene incredibly well. This subject has to be discussed and highlighted, and the debate has given us the opportunity to do that.

This matter strikes at the very heart of the safety, dignity and privacy of our citizens, and most notably the protection of women and girls in our communities. We stand at a crossroads where technological innovation is outpacing our moral and legal safeguards. If we do not act, the consequences will continue to be felt by the most vulnerable on our streets. Other Members have made that point incredibly clear and I thank them for that.

Let us look first at the scale of what we are dealing with. We are not talking about a niche gadget or a far-off futuristic concept as some may think. The figures are stark. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of these smart glasses have already been sold right here in the United Kingdom. They are flooding the market, and they are sitting on the faces of everyday passers-by—people we do not know. Although many people wear them innocently, we cannot blind ourselves to the reality that these devices are a powerful tool of surveillance, masquerading as ordinary eyewear.

As we rightly focus our efforts on eradicating violence against women and girls, we must recognise how this technology changes the very nature of harassment, stalking and intimidation. That is not just my observation; the UK’s leading domestic abuse charities are also sounding the alarm, and they are clear in what they say. Refuge has given the example of perpetrators weaponising these gadgets to covertly track and film survivors—the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) clearly illustrated that—which has contributed to a horrifying 62% spike in tech-facilitated abuse. Furthermore, Women’s Aid has forcefully stated that pairing these glasses with AI facial recognition threatens the very safety of all women and girls and hands a digital toolkit to stalkers who want to identify and track strangers in real time without their knowledge.

For a woman walking down the street, the fear of being targeted is already a daily reality, but now the horror of upskirting is being magnified by technology that is completely hands-free and virtually invisible. A person could commit an act of visual violation without ever holding a phone, leaving the victim entirely unaware that her privacy, her dignity and her body have been captured and digitised.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman cited the figure from Refuge that referrals to its tech abuse team have increased by 62%. He said that we are at a crossroads, but it seems to me that we are already past that. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) said, this is an exact reflection of what happened with the social media ban: the Government are going to come along too late. We need to emphasise that smart glasses are an aggravating factor in humiliation and abuse, and we need more wraparound regulations to tackle this problem right now.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The threat is already here. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset has taken the opportunity to ask the Minister for legislative change in today’s debate, which is something I am also hoping for. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I welcome her to her role. She has been in Westminster Hall for two days running—it is becoming a habit, but it is a good habit to have.

Even more sickening are the reports from communities across our regions—tales of perverts sitting on benches at children’s play parks or walking dogs casually outside school gates. Under the guise of just going for a walk and looking around, wearing what appears to be standardised prescription lenses, these individuals can be recording very young girls and women. School safeguarding leaders have already issued urgent alerts to teachers and parents, because these sleek, modern frames make it near impossible to detect when a child is being filmed. The tiny indicator lights on these devices make a mockery of consent. They are easily covered up, as the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, with a bit of tape or a sticker. How are mothers, teachers or young girls supposed to feel safe when any stranger standing near a playground could be covertly documenting them and what they are doing? This is not just a nuisance anymore; it is a direct threat to public safety and an engine for child exploitation.

Let me clear: I am not a man who stands against progress. Innovation, when properly challenged, can be a force for immense good, and we have to recognise that. We see that in our invaluable national health service. Our dedicated district nurses, who travel the length and breadth of our communities to provide care to the vulnerable, are piloting these glasses for a good purpose. For them, the ability to stream real-time footage to a specialist consultant while treating a patient in their home is a magnificent breakthrough. That is one of the good things that modern technology can do. It saves lives, saves time and improves care.

But the fact that a tool can be used for good does not mean it should be given free rein in society—that is what this debate is about. The contrast is clear: those who use these glasses in the NHS, such as our district nurses, should be able to do so, under a strict, regulated licensing framework. Their devices must be fully auditable, restricted to secure clinical networks and bound by the highest standards of professional conduct and patient consent. We cannot allow the positive uses of technology to blind us to its profound capacity for abuse. Innovation cannot come at the cost of the safety of our daughters, wives and mothers. We need robust regulations and clear boundaries, and we must ensure that the law firmly protects women and girls from those who would use these devices to prey on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I have to say that I am not familiar with the work the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will undertake to look into it. Perhaps he could send me a copy of it—I will be glad to read it. His broader point that safety should be built into the design is important. The Government would be wise to consider that, and I have no doubt that they are doing so.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) brought up an incredibly important issue in his intervention, and when the Minister comes to speak, she might address that methodology for bringing regulation. We are focusing, as we should, on why people are taking advantage of smart glasses and using them illegally and criminally, but in my speech I mentioned the health workers who, when they go to visit people in their houses, use smart glasses for the purpose of their job. If we want to regulate them, should we not ensure that people who use them for the right purposes are able to do so?

[Blake Stephenson]

I think the hon. Member is saying that in anything that they do, the Government need to strike the right balance, because there are perfectly legitimate uses for these glasses that are useful to society, but of course there are harms. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) also talked about some of the cultural issues and problems and the education that is needed, particularly for young boys. I hope that the Government will be looking to strike the right balance.

Covert filming and online harassment of women are real harms that deserve a serious response. It is particularly concerning that people have used these glasses to record young women without their knowledge, and then used that footage for their own benefit, including commercial benefit. That is an absolutely despicable violation, and it should not be tolerated. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to it as “monetised misogyny”, and I agree with her entirely, so there is cross-party agreement on this issue.

Refuge has reported that referrals to its specialist technology-facilitated abuse and economic empowerment team rose by more than 62% in 2025. The Science and Technology Committee has launched a call for evidence on technology-facilitated abuse. I hope that the Committee will use this important opportunity to help us all understand the prevalence of abuse in our society.

It is important to recognise that this issue is complicated by UK laws on filming. As hon. Members will be aware, it is not inherently unlawful to take photos or videos of people in public without their permission, but it can, of course, cross over into criminality. That is why the Home Office worryingly released a poster warning illegal immigrants about the legality of recording people without their permission. The fact that such a poster needed to be produced by Government in the first place is difficult for many to comprehend. The criticism it received from the National Union of Journalists illustrates the challenge of balancing protecting existing rights with stopping the unscrupulous use of technology.

That makes it all the more necessary to examine the issue and work closely with companies to ensure that new technology does not increase the prevalence of crimes against women and girls. In 2019, Parliament considered the disgusting practice of upskirting and passed the Voyeurism (Offences) Act, which created targeted offences related to upskirting. That provides a useful example of Parliament addressing a particular harmful act without outlawing everyday cameras.

If changes to legislation are necessary, they must be based on evidence, and we must ensure that we create the best policies we can. I would therefore appreciate the Minister setting out what evidence the Government are gathering on the prevalence of covert filming with smart glasses, its harms and the effectiveness of existing safeguards. We must be able to recognise the public’s concern when they see people using these glasses, while also distinguishing between their wrongful use and their use for genuinely important reasons, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said.

I understand that the Norwegian Government recently announced their intention to restrict the use of these devices in specific locations. To the point of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, women and girls should be safe everywhere, but it is important that any action here supports clear policies for genuinely sensitive environments, such as changing rooms, schools and clinical settings. There are existing laws that cover some of those matters, but we must be explicit about how we keep people safe in those environments. If we do not, we undermine those who seek to use this technology to truly improve people’s lives.

One example, as we heard already this morning, comes from the Royal National Institute of Blind People. It has recognised concerns, as reflected on by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, but has also commented on how some blind and partially sighted people use smart glasses to benefit from enhanced access to information. Paul Arnold, the chief executive of the Information Commissioner’s Office, spoke about his experience using these glasses as a severely visually impaired person. The combination of AI and audio feedback has helped him to better understand his surroundings, access information and navigate the world with greater confidence.

This technology may also help those suffering from other serious health conditions. CrossSense, which makes AI smart glasses, recently beat 174 other inventions from around the world to win the prestigious £1 million Longitude prize on dementia. Furthermore, it is easy to see the uses for journalists working in the public interest, or the potential long-term benefits if the police could use the technology in a similar way to body-worn cameras or use facial recognition technology, an effective tool for identifying and catching criminals who commit violence against women and girls. I do not seek to downplay the risks posed by these devices with those examples, but rather to encourage the Government to consider those beneficial uses before introducing any blanket bans.

I recognise that the Minister’s Department is committed to the violence against women and girls action plan and to working across Government to encourage safety by design in smart and connected technology, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Rugby. There are concerns about delivery, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) raised concerns about missed deadlines in the development of the plan. As Dame Nicole Jacobs told the Home Affairs Committee last week,

“I do not believe that, to date, this strategy has been implemented in a way that shows that it is at the top of the priority list, in terms of resource and all those things.”

Can the Minister set out what measurable progress has been made on that commitment? Presumably, it involved the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—a Department that no longer exists given recent changes at the top.

To conclude, all too often we have seen new technology used in a manner that puts women and girls at risk. I hope that we can find proportionate, sensitive and sensible policies that enable the continued use of that technology, while ensuring that we can prevent it from being used to facilitate the abuse and exploitation that we have seen throughout our society.