Heathrow Airport Closure: Resilience and Security

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Ludford

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that was a nice try but I am afraid I am not going to respond in the way the right reverend Prelate might wish—although, if we are talking about regional transport hubs, I hope that this year we can celebrate the reopening of the Kings Heath station in Birmingham.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government accept—I think this is less of a stretch—that one lesson to be learned is that Heathrow’s lack of contingency and resilience plans means that a third runway is not feasible?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not take that point at all. Clearly, Heathrow had a resilience plan. One of the points of the investigations is to see how effective it is, and we are mindful of the impact the closure had on thousands of people. The noble Baroness knows that the Government believe that we need to expand Heathrow. It is a hugely important asset to the United Kingdom, but we have to make sure that any expansion is in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Ludford

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, time is against us, so I will be really brief. From all our debates so far, I am convinced that the issue of inconsistent policing is the one where I would put most of my money in terms of improving the situation. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, which looked at the way police forces dealt with violence to women and girls, was very persuasive about the hugely patchy approach of police forces.

As far as the Law Commission is concerned, anyone reading its work will see that it is complex and that it did not come to an easy conclusion when it gave a provisional view that it would be helpful to add to the categories in the way suggested. Most notably, it identified the risk that hate crime laws could prove unhelpful in certain contexts such as domestic abuse and sexual offences. It then went on to quote evidence from the Fawcett Society, which argues that all sexual and domestic abuse offences committed by men against women should be understood as inherently misogynistic. There is therefore a risk that sex-based hate crime might disrupt this understanding because it would require juries to seek express evidence of misogyny in these contexts, potentially causing some offences to be non-misogynistic where there is insufficient evidence of this.

I am not qualified to comment on the detail, but it is clear that this is a complex issue, as are the issues of sex and gender. Given that the Law Commission will report by the end of the year, the key thing we want to hear from the Minister is that the Government will take the report seriously and it will not join other Law Commission reports in the long grass.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we are all impatient for the Law Commission report, but I believe it is best to await it before deciding how best to frame any law on hatred towards women. Sex and gender have become conflated in ordinary speech, even in legislation, but they are not the same. While “sex” has a clear meaning in law, as defined in the Equality Act, the term “gender” does not, and is taken to mean social roles or stereotypes associated with someone’s sex, and that is too tenuous, at least at this stage, to be a legal definition.

If the intention of adding “or gender” is to ensure that legislation also covers hate crimes perpetrated towards trans women, it is unclear why the law would not catch a crime directed towards a trans woman on the basis of presumed sex. In addition, crimes directed against someone based on their transgender identity are already covered by hate crimes legislation.