| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 583—continued
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): How many of the significant events actually involved smoking in the loo?
Mr. Roy: Unfortunately, I do not have those figures, but I know that the CAA would be happy to get them for the hon. Gentleman. However, he is right to mention smoking because it starts a series of events on aircraft, and I will say more about that later. About 45 per cent. of the air rage incidents were categorised as alcohol-related.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): Does the hon. Gentleman feel that Sir Richard Branson is setting a bad example by
suggesting that Courtney Love, who has behaved disruptively and abusively on a plane, is welcome at any time to fly on his aircraft? Is that really the message that should be given?
Mr. Roy: No, it certainly is not the right message. I do not care whether people are famous or infamous—they should behave, and if they do not behave, as a fellow passenger, I would not like to see them back on an aircraft that I was on.
I had not realised the trouble that has often been caused and what has actually happened in air rage incidents. Worryingly, there are many times when an aircraft must divert to another airport while on its flight, or discontinue take-off and taxiing procedures and return to its stand at the airport. We also know of incidents in which passengers had to be physically restrained by handcuffs or straps at the order of the airline captain. Alternatively, a member of the crew or a fellow passenger who came to the aid of the crew had to sit beside that disruptive passenger to calm them down or, depending on their size, to frighten the life out of them to make sure that they do not carry on with their behaviour. I ask all Members: how would they, their families or their constituents' families feel if that happened just two rows away from them? It must be an absolutely horrendous experience.
Fortunately, serious incidents are rare, but we must remember that it is often the hard-working cabin crew who bear the brunt of air rage: those who earn their living by serving passengers and helping them to enjoy their flight as much as possible. When air rage occurs, a cabin crew member, perhaps a young female or a young male, will find themselves up against an unruly passenger.
Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire): I commend my hon. Friend for this worthwhile Bill. Will he agree that a number of air rage incidents are dependent on what happens prior to getting on the aircraft? Last Friday, when attempting to get home to Scotland from work, we were subjected to the worst kind of congestion caused by 2 in of snow at London Heathrow. People were subjected to disgraceful conditions. It is any wonder that there are problems on aircraft when people are treated like that?
On the specific point about staff, the way staff at Heathrow airport were treated by the general public—and by some first class passengers, who were certainly not first class citizens—and some of the comments to which they were subjected were disgraceful. My hon. Friend is right: they suffered the brunt of the incompetence at Heathrow last Friday.
Mr. Roy: My hon. Friend is quite right. Sometimes, the bad behaviour and nervousness starts before people get on the plane. There is no doubt about that. When I first considered this Bill—for the record, I am teetotal, but I am not against drink—I asked myself whether taking alcohol off flights was the answer to some of the drunken and destructive behaviour. That would not be right either, however, as people enjoy a drink, many find it relaxing, and I have been told by the industry that it defuses the situation for many, as a glass of wine offers an escape valve. It is not the alcohol that causes the problem but the people who drink it and how it affects
them. There is absolutely no doubt, however, that people's behaviour pattern starts at the airport if they are held up on their way or are badly treated, as they were last Friday.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North): I strongly support my hon. Friend's Bill and what he is saying. For the great majority of people, a drink on an aeroplane is a pleasure, and they behave well. It is the tiny minority of people for whom alcohol induces aggression about whom we are concerned.
Mr. Roy: Absolutely. Alcohol is a pleasure for many people. As the airline industry has said, it helps people to relax. Very nervous people, for example, might like to drink one or two glasses of whisky or wine to calm them down. That is not the problem. The problem comes when people take it too far. From speaking to the industry over the last couple of weeks, I know that it lays great store by cabin crew assessing the situation quickly and seeing the danger of someone drinking alcohol on a flight. Indeed, earlier this week, I was lucky enough to be shown a training video of a conflict management course produced by Air 2000. I was greatly impressed by the professional training given to cabin crews. The video showed how the staff were able to recognise potential problems and to calm people down, and it also showed the wrong way to calm people down and to remove potential conflict. Air 2000 attaches such great importance to conflict management that, when its staff take the course, it insists on a 90 per cent. pass mark.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Has the thought occurred to the hon. Gentleman that it might be helpful for him to invite the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House to a conflict management course?
Mr. Roy: The right hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. [Interruption.] Perhaps he could run the course—or he may have even caused the conflict.
In addition to requiring its staff to obtain a 90 per cent. pass mark, Air 2000 asks them to come back once a year for a refresher course. No matter how long someone works in the airline industry, things change and it is possible to become complacent. It is right for the company to carry out reassessments annually. I have also been acquainted with some of the training schedules carried out by British Airways and many other airlines. Over the past couple of months, they have all emphasised to me their ongoing concerns about air rage.
Should an incident occur, both cabin crew and passengers have the right to expect the law to be an effective deterrent. Offenders should be arrested and ultimately prosecuted. The Bill is intended to make enforcement of the law much more effective than it is at present.
The Bill has its origins in the report published in 2000 by the UK airports police commanders group. In recognising the potential of disruptive behaviour to endanger the safety and security of the travelling public, the Association of Chief Police Officers commissioned a group of senior officers from airports throughout the country to investigate the adequacy of police powers to deal with aircraft and airport offences.
The report concluded that the powers of the police and the courts to crack down on air rage offences were inadequate. It highlighted the fact that the police were prevented from taking effective action, because they did not have the necessary powers to search and arrest many of those suspected of committing criminal offences on aircraft and at airports. In addition, the report found that a number of potentially serious offences carried relatively outdated minor penalties.
A number of offences in UK law relate to disruptive passenger behaviour on aircraft. However, quite unbelievably, none of those offences carries a statutory power of arrest. When an offence does not carry such a power, the police may arrest suspects only if they are likely to injure themselves or others, or if their identities cannot be established. In this day and age, the latter is unlikely because passengers carry passports or, on domestic flights, different forms of identification.
Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart): My hon. Friend's comments on the Bill's impact throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland, are extremely important. Does he share my disappointment and anger that no Member from the Scottish National party, which purports to stand for Scotland, is here to take part in this very important debate?
Mr. Roy: I am very surprised and disappointed. Aviation law affects everyone in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. The 5 million people in Scotland will be very disappointed that the Scottish National party has divorced itself, as it normally does, from anything to do with the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The lack of powers to detain suspects creates a number of practical problems for the police. It means that they are unable to search, fingerprint or question suspects or take witness statements. For charges to be made, the police must travel, for example, from the airport areas of Luton, Manchester, London or Cardiff to a suspect's address, which may be hundreds of miles away in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or any region of England. The police have to do the same thing when they take statements from witnesses. Once witnesses get off a plane, they go to all parts of the country, and the police have to follow the complaint up.
An incident that is well known in Scotland took place on 13 December when a football charter flight from Vigo in Spain to Glasgow airport was diverted to Cardiff. The captain issued a mayday call because he and his cabin crew thought that they had lost control of the passenger area.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |