Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses

Debate between Shockat Adam and John Slinger

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this important debate.

I declare my interest as a practising optometrist. For my whole working life a pair of glasses has been my livelihood, and it has been nothing but an object of trust and good, allowing people to see and changing their lives. It is one of the most trustworthy pieces of clothing we could have. No one has ever been deceived by a pair of glasses, except perhaps when Clark Kent prevented us knowing he was Superman. My son likes to wear glasses with no lenses, so he can look very intelligent posting on social media with books in coffee shops. It is a matter of debate how convincing that is, but generally glasses are a product for good.

I am not a technophobe. I have seen in my practice, and that of colleagues, what this technology can do, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members. It can be used for good. More than 2 million people in this country live with sight loss and 250 more begin to lose their sight every day. For a blind or partially sighted person walking down the street to be able to ask their glasses what is front of them and hear that, for example, a van is unloading scaffolding, is genuinely life changing. I will not argue that we should take that away—I suspect nobody here would—but we cannot ignore what is happening.

It has been reported that more than 7 million pairs of one brand alone were sold last year in this country. We have all witnessed men using these glasses covertly on our streets, posting the footage online and then demanding money to take it down. There are reports of women being filmed during sex without knowledge or consent. As the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) mentioned, a small LED is supposed to warn of recording, but it is easy to miss. I sell these glasses and know it is not always possible to see the lights.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am not familiar with the glasses the hon. Member is discussing, but it strikes me, as a lay person, that it would not be difficult to cover a small LED on a pair of glasses. Does he agree?

[Shockat Adam]

I absolutely agree. We must ensure that they are tamper-proof. Somebody will always create something to supersede technology, which I will come to. A woman cannot move away from a camera if she cannot see it.

I also want to consider what these glasses could do in school changing rooms. We know children can be cruel. It could be devastating to record a child—girl or boy—in their insecure period, upload the footage and threaten them with blackmail.

Harm does not stop at the wearer. It was reported earlier this year that workers paid to label footage for AI training were viewing intimate recordings captured by these devices, including people using the toilet. The people in the footage had not consented and were not aware that it was being used for training purposes.

The National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection told us last month that at least one in five flagged online VAWG crimes are image-based abuse, with almost 75% of the victims being female. Every digital form of this abuse is rising, yet when we ask how many arrests have been made for covert filming, the answer is that the information is not held centrally, so we are legislating in the dark. I would like a response from the Minister on that point.

This abuse is not restricted to cameras, because hearing technology is now arriving in spectacle frames. Hearing glasses with directional microphones are already in our practices, and the patients starting to lose their hearing are often the same patients who are fitted with varifocal glasses. Again, I welcome that because live captions, conversation boosting and real-time translations are incredible. I tried the technology and even though I was in a noisy room, it did not just help me hear the conversation I was having—I was able to hear somebody else’s conversation on the other side of the table. If we take all that into account, we have facial recognition, which manufacturers are reportedly exploring, and a device that can know who we are, where we are and what we say without us even knowing it is there. The wearer knows they are using the device; people around them do not.

What is the law doing about that? Filming in public is generally lawful and data protection laws do not apply to individuals acting in a personal capacity, but the Information Commissioner has said that doxxing is largely outside their remit, wearables are not regulated in any particular category and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy does not mention smart glasses. As Doughty Street Chambers put it,

“English law was not written with this technology in mind”.

The industry already knows what is good. At this year’s 100% Optical, EssilorLuxottica, which makes the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, told practitioners that devices should show people nearby that they are in use, that encryption is

“not nice to have, but an absolute must”,

and that only necessary data should be collected.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Shockat Adam and John Slinger

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The crux of today’s debate is an interplay between our objectives and missions as a new Government and our inheritance from the previous Government. It is about the choices we have taken to achieve our objectives while mitigating and navigating the dire inheritance we received.

First, our objectives were clearly stated to the British people in our manifesto in July:

“to begin the work of national renewal. A rebuilding of our country, so that it once again serves the interests of working people.”

Secondly, the previous Administration bequeathed us the following: the highest tax burden on working people since the second world war; an economy built on weak foundations, with little or no industrial strategy, low productivity, low investment and low strategic visions; public services on their knees, having been cut to the core; staff undervalued and underpaid, but overburdened due to the previous Government’s failure; and after the cuts and chaos came that cut-and-run election, with unfunded spending commitments and, yes, a £22 billion black hole.

I turn to the choice that we face. The people resoundingly rejected a return to the chaos and cuts of the previous Administration. We rejected making further cuts to services when the people who voted in the election need those services so desperately. We rejected insulting people by increasing taxes on their pay packets after those dark, high-tax Tory days. We rejected increasing borrowing; we are keeping it under control with our stability rule in order to bring the current Budget into balance, so we will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending.

Therefore, we have had to take difficult choices. Some groups will have to contribute more, which is never popular. We are asking employers, not employees, to contribute more, but we fully recognise the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities. We have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 and expanded it to all eligible employers, including charities. The OBR expects 250,000 employers to gain and an additional 820,000 to see no change.

The change that we are debating today should be seen in the context of the overall Budget—a Budget of huge, long-term investment in our economy; setting the right environment for better jobs, more opportunities for businesses, stronger public services and a more confident, optimistic future, particularly for our young people.

The last Government were very good at some things: kicking the can down the road, finding carpets and sweeping things underneath them, and making promises while dressed in the emperor’s new clothes. This Opposition are good at crying crocodile tears about the changes we are making, and wanting to have their cake and eat it. They seem to want all the benefits, but they do not want to say how they would pay for them. That is not this Government’s approach.

What is being proposed today is reasonable and proportionate; it is necessary, given our objectives and the inheritance we received; and it is part of a transformational Budget that will put the economy, our public services and our country on a proper footing, for a fairer and more prosperous future for the people of our country.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an optometrist. I will speak to amendment 7, which stands in my name, which calls for GP surgeries, pharmacists, the often forgotten profession of optometrists and other health professionals to be excluded from the national insurance rise, along with charities with fewer than 50 employees.

We have seen the over-strain and burden on our GP services being taken over fantastically by the Pharmacy First programme. However, the National Pharmacy Association has voted for action, which could include reducing opening hours, in response to the increased costs that will be caused by the national insurance hike. This hike is going to cost each pharmacy business an estimated £12,000, which is absolutely unattainable for many of the pharmacists I speak to.

My constituency of Leicester South has the second-highest ratio of patients to GPs, with 3,260 patients to a single GP. This already overburdened service is going to be hit even further with this rise in national insurance, with the Royal College of General Practitioners warning in November that the national insurance hike risked GP practices making redundancies or even closures. Nearly 450 GP practices have already closed or merged since 2018, according to a survey by the GPs’ journal Pulse. This is simply an untenable state for the national health service and healthcare workers.

Pharmacists, dentists and optometrists employ their professional staff. Many people I have spoken to are now going to have to remove employment and bring in locums. I would like to ask the Minister whether any impact assessment has been made on the loss of earnings for employed staff if locum staff are brought in. Primary care services are the bedrock of the NHS and many are already on a financial tightrope due to years of austerity. The national insurance hike will see many community GPs, pharmacists and optical health facilities reduce services or completely close down.