(Image: Supplied)
Reform UK’s director of communications in Scotland has confirmed he regularly wears Meta smart glasses inside Holyrood, as politicians face calls to ban the technology over privacy and security concerns.
Tony McGuire told The Herald he does not use the glasses to record while working at the Scottish Parliament and routinely removes or switches them off during sensitive meetings.
However, he acknowledged concerns about camera-equipped glasses being worn around confidential conversations and constituent casework, while arguing a blanket ban would unfairly penalise responsible users.
His comments come as Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton has now called for smart glasses to be prohibited from the Holyrood estate.
Read More:
Mr Cole-Hamilton told The Herald: “Liberal Democrats have already written to the Speaker calling for him to ban smart glasses from the Westminster estate. The same prohibition should apply to the Scottish Parliament.
“Unlike phones, these devices can record sensitive constituent cases and private briefings completely undetected. Courts across the UK have already banned them.
“We need to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect privacy and national security.”
Westminster is reviewing its approach to wearable technology following controversy over Reform UK Senedd member Jason O’Connell, who was suspected of using smart glasses as a teleprompter during a speech in the Welsh Parliament. There is no suggestion his glasses were being used to record proceedings.
‘Deeply unfair’
Mr McGuire, whose Meta glasses contain his prescription lenses, said he mainly uses them for audio functions including calls and notifications.
Asked whether he records with them at Holyrood, he said: “No."
He said he often switches them off or removes them during sensitive meetings, including leadership discussions.
Tony McGuire, Reform UK’s director of communications in Scotland, has rejected calls for a blanket ban on smart glasses at Holyrood while acknowledging concerns over privacy and sensitive constituent information. (Image: Supplied)
Mr McGuire said the way smart glasses were being portrayed was “kind of deeply unfair to the vast majority”, arguing the focus should be on how individuals use the technology rather than the device itself.
But he accepted there were legitimate concerns.
“I do fully acknowledge the fact that those concerns are valid,” he said, “That could be a concern if somebody in the room is wearing glasses with that capability.”
He added: “I can't in good faith deny that that is a is a valid concern when it comes to constituency work.”
Mr McGuire disputed the suggestion that recording would necessarily be “completely undetected”. Meta says its glasses use a white capture light when photographs or video are being taken and that obstructing it disables the camera.
His pair cost around £600 with prescription lenses and he said he would comply with any restrictions introduced by Parliament.
However, he argued legitimate uses should form part of the debate.
Smart glasses can provide hands-free assistance to blind and low-vision users, including reading text, identifying objects and surroundings and navigating unfamiliar spaces.
For some disabled users, that can make everyday tasks more accessible and allow them to access visual information without relying on a phone or another person.
Previous concerns in Scotland
The row follows growing scrutiny of smart glasses in Scotland.
In August, Police Scotland was assessing videos recorded by TikToker Scott Margerison during a road trip around the country.
Margerison used camera-equipped Meta glasses to film members of the public, shop workers and CalMac ferry staff, apparently without their knowledge. Police said complaints had been received and footage was being reviewed to establish whether any criminality was involved.
The newspaper has also examined whether Scots law provides sufficient protection for people covertly filmed using the technology.
Solicitor advocate Paul Motion warned it was “inevitable” more people would seek legal advice after being secretly recorded, while questioning whether existing law could always provide the remedy victims expected.
He argued Holyrood should consider strengthening privacy protections, saying: “If the courts came close to recognising a standalone right to privacy in 2019, then maybe it's time for the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a standalone right of privacy.”
Mr Motion also stressed that smart glasses can have legitimate uses for people with visual impairments and said the technology should not be considered solely through its risks.
What are Holyrood’s rules?
The Scottish Parliament already restricts filming and recording, but its current published policy does not specifically prohibit smart glasses. Recording or photography in the chamber requires the prior permission of the Presiding Officer.
A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said: “The Parliament’s Visitor Behaviour Policy prohibits any videos or recording of Parliamentary proceedings. More generally, SPCB policy makes clear any filming at Holyrood should respect the privacy of other building users.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Any ban at Holyrood would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, not the Scottish Government.
“We recognise that filming and publishing footage of individuals in any location without their consent can raise privacy and security concerns.”