| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 586—continued
Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth): I have personal experience of air rage. However, during that incident, I have been assured by constituents that
the pilot overreacted. Perhaps part of the problem was the lack of a criminal charge, which the Bill would rectify.
Mr. Roy: I understand my hon. Friend's remarks. Indeed, I have spoken to one or two people who were on the flight and they emphasised that the pilot overreacted. However, eight people have been arrested.
John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland): My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I have not talked to anyone who was on that flight. However, in the spirit of friendship, I agree that the pilot did perhaps overreact slightly. It may be that he did not understand the songs.
Mr. Roy: Perhaps my hon. Friend is right. I am surprised that he has an interest in European football.
Eight people have been arrested and a lot of police time has been wasted travelling between the Glasgow area and Cardiff. Frankly, the last thing the police in Cardiff needed was to waste their time on that case.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): My hon. Friend gave facts and figures on the number of air rage incidents. Can he break them down to determine how many have been on UK internal flights and on overseas flights?
Mr. Roy: I do not have the specific figures, but the industry told me that it is a problem throughout all classes of travel, whether it be economy or first class, domestic or international.
On the destructive behaviour in December, many Labour Members know that I am greatly interested in football. I have regularly attended European matches abroad for nearly 30 years, although I usually go only once a year, because my team does not normally do very well. I have spoken to the airline industry and other sports bodies about the growing phenomenon of people being drunk on aircraft. It used to be the case that many people from Scotland who went to football games abroad stayed overnight because it was not possible to return until the next day. Now a club can expect to take 4,000 or 5,000 supporters to a game and return immediately after it. That contributes to the growing problem and we need to address it. No drink was allowed on the flight from Vigo to Cardiff and I am glad that drink is not allowed on most similar flights.
Hon. Members should think about what happens when constituents go to watch their football team on a day trip to Spain or wherever. If, for example, the flight leaves Glasgow airport at 7.30 am, people will have been in the airport since about 6, and they will have got up at 3 or 4 to get there. If the flight is to Spain or central Europe, people will arrive in the centre of the destination town by midday. I like to go to the museums, cafés and other social areas in any town that I am visiting, but many people will spend their whole time drinking in pubs and cafés. They will have been drinking before they got on the plane and they will spend the afternoon drinking.
The football match may not be until 8 o'clock at night. People will drink during the game and then will return to the airport at about midnight. We must remember that they have been out of their bed since 4
am, and many of them will have been drinking all day. The security people at the airport are not concerned about whether people are drunk or whether they enjoyed the game; they simply want them off the bus and on to the plane as quickly as possible. It makes no difference whether people are drunk or sober.On many occasions during the past few years, I have seen people who are far too drunk to travel being put on a plane. They fall asleep, and they wake up when they arrive back in the United Kingdom. Even worse, in Porto a year and a half ago, I saw someone who was absolutely out of his mind with drink being carried up the steps to the plane and being put into a seat. Some people think that that is funny; they say, "Look at that guy. He's obviously had a great time." But we must ask ourselves what would have happened if there had been an emergency on that flight.
People who are that drunk would be incapable of strapping themselves into their seat, following instructions or vacating the aircraft quickly, so they would be a danger not only to themselves but to everyone else. On a plane carrying 300 people, even if 10 per cent. of the passengers have far too much drink in them—and hon. Members know that that is a conservative estimate—the potential for disaster is great.
I hope that the airline industry takes note of this warning, and I hope that it speaks to football and rugby clubs. It must stress that their members have to be treated the same as every other passenger, and, if they are not to commit an offence, they also have to behave the same as every other passenger. For their own sake, and for everyone else's, they should not be allowed to board the aircraft if they are drunk and incapable.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr): It gives me great pleasure to support my hon. Friend's Bill. Does he agree that many people flying to football matches in Europe are likely to go from Glasgow Prestwick airport because there are so many low-cost flights available? That has opened up access to people who could not previously have afforded to go to such matches. Does he agree that the majority of people who take those flights have every right to do so safely and that they should not be adversely affected by the minority who cause trouble?
Mr. Roy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been talking about the football charter flights that go from Glasgow international airport, but the same number of people will travel from Prestwick with companies such as easyJet and Ryanair to the airport that is nearest the football game. However, such flights are used not only by boisterous football supporters—I am not saying that they are unruly, but they will certainly have been drinking—but by passengers who are travelling on business or on holiday. Those people may be with their husband or wife or their children. Such flights can be a frightening experience. That is why both chartered airlines and scheduled airlines must take account of this ongoing problem.
Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, Central): My hon. Friend is making a persuasive case, but as one who does not have his experience of travelling abroad with his football team, mainly because my team does not have
the same opportunities, although we are working on that, I am concerned about the heavy responsibility on the airline industry.From my hon. Friend's remarks, I take it that he feels strongly that the airlines are not meeting that responsibility, although the problem is not new, as we have had it ever since the railways were invented. British Rail was forced to have a railways police, and that became part of the provision for passenger safety. Does he see the need for a similar arrangement to be made on our airlines, with them paying the cost of policing?
Mr. Roy: That is a good idea, and it is worth looking into. If a company charters a plane, it gets two or three part-time stewards to go to the game and steward people all through the day, but they cannot, with any authority, tell people what to do on the flight.
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and he makes a valid point about the mix of family and business travellers who perhaps get caught up in the culture of a weekend away for football followers; but what are his feelings about flights that, over the summer months, are increasingly dedicated to sybaritic behaviour as people fly out to clubs in Ibiza or Majorca? They are encouraged to go clubbing all night and return the next morning, and that must have a bearing on what he suggests.
Mr. Roy: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right—that is a problem as well. I mentioned it to the industry and asked whether the Ibiza flights are worse, but it said that they are no worse than family flights to Florida, Tuscany or anywhere else. That surprised me, but the industry also said that the problem certainly exists with bigger groups of perhaps 10. The peer pressure is slightly different and people are noisier, which tends to create problems. It also said that, equally, domestic arguments and domestic disruptive behaviour on flights are a problem. It is embarrassing if a husband and wife start arguing or fighting beside people. They say, "It's nothing to do with me," but at 30,000 ft it has to do with them.
Mr. Swire: I fully take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is a distinction between what I would call mixed flights and those dedicated to sybaritic behaviour. I am not seeking to be Cromwellian—if people want to fly out of Exeter or anywhere else to spend 24 hours clubbing at Manumission, or whatever it is called, in Ibiza and then come home, that is entirely up to them and to be encouraged—but their behaviour has an effect, perhaps a potentially negative one, on the cabin crew, although not necessarily on the other passengers, who would probably largely be in the same state. I am concerned about the security of the cabin crew.
Mr. Roy: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I hope that the airline industry reads the debate and takes on board everything that has been said.
The Bill would put into law recommendations made by airport police commanders in respect of in-flight offences. Clause 1 would introduce police powers of
arrest to deal with drunk or disruptive passengers on aircraft. In England and Wales, an arrest by a police constable without a warrant can be made only if the alleged offence is classed as arrestable under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. To be arrestable, an offence must carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or more. However, the offences cited carry only a maximum two-year penalty. Therefore, to make them arrestable, it is necessary to include them in a list of specific arrestable offences.As PACE covers only England and Wales, to make the new offences arrestable in Northern Ireland and Scotland they must be inserted at the end of article 26(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and after section 82(3) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which covers Scotland.
Clause 2 would amend the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to allow the possibility of introducing a maximum penalty of five years for an offence relating to endangering the safety of an aircraft or a person in an aircraft. That is clearly serious compared with drunkenness or disruptive behaviour, and the current two-year penalty is insufficient for such a serious matter. Increasing the maximum penalty to five years would automatically make this offence arrestable. Although the Bill is short and modest in its scope, the changes that it proposes would undoubtedly make enforcement of the law more effective.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |