| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 603—continued
Mr. Forth: I am familiar with the figures, but it is helpful for the House to hear them. However, do we have any idea what the categories of "significant" and "serious" mean? The definitions can be arbitrary. As we have learned from the example of smoking, I do not think that anyone would argue that finding someone smoking in the lavatory on an aircraft—however serious an offence it may be—is the sort of thing that should be subject to an arrest. Can my hon. Friend help us and tell us whether there is any description of what the terms mean?
Miss McIntosh: My right hon. Friend touches on a personal point that I hope to cover when I discuss the Bill's wording. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport in his place, and we shall seek his assistance. As my right hon. Friend suggested, clause 1(2) refers to "specified behaviour", and it would be helpful if it clarified whether an incident was "serious" or "significant".
The Under-Secretary, the Minister for Transport and I have the pleasure of each other's company in the Committee stage of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. Like me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst appears to have noticed that part 5 of that Bill relates to "Aviation: Alcohol and Drugs". Clause 89 is about the crew "Being unfit for duty", and prescribed limits are set in clause 90. Clause 91 defines "Aviation functions", and it will come as no surprise to the Under-Secretary that I am seeking to write new provisions into that Bill.
Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend consider whether that is necessary? She has said that the incidence of air rage has declined since the DETR document was published in December 2002. Paragraph 101 of that publication says:
- "There is already a considerable body of legislation, both criminal and aviation-specific, to deal with offenders."
To satisfy the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the fact that the Bill does not deal with a potentially disruptive passenger boarding an aircraft in a drunken state, I thought that it would be helpful to refer to the Air Navigation Order 2000. It was made under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which was passed under the Conservative Administration. The order covers aviation safety and article 65 makes it an offence—I do not
believe that it has been amended, but the Under-Secretary might confirm this—to enter an aircraft when drunk, to be drunk on an aircraft and to endanger the safety of an aircraft or any person therein. I hope that that satisfies my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend might know that I am not that easily satisfied. I am not sure whether the provisions that she has described would meet the problem that the Bill's promoter and I have described. How does that solve the problem of people presenting themselves at the door of an aircraft in a foreign port having gone through all the formalities? Can we deal adequately with such people by not allowing them admittance to the aircraft?
Miss McIntosh: Nothing in existing law or the Bill would deal adequately with that problem. Indeed, the Government do not believe that the Bill would rectify it. That is why a noble Friend of the Under-Secretary is on the record as saying in another place that the Government will look to the International Civil Aviation Organisation to deal with the gap in the law.
It would be more appropriate for the Government to take the opportunity to include such provisions in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, although that would, of course, deprive the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw of successfully promoting his Bill. I regret that that has not happened and expect the Under-Secretary to explain why. The House and Parliament in general are accused of over-legislating. Why do we need two Bills when one would do?
The House will be interested to know that 77 per cent. of all incidents involve male passengers, which is perhaps not unsurprising. The figure has remained almost constant over the past three years. I also learn from the Department for Transport's note that the majority of offenders were in their 20s, 30s and 40s, so happily my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is exonerated.
Mr. Swayne: On the gender of the offenders, how does that marry up with the overall proportion of air travellers? Are they preponderantly male, or is it half and half?
Miss McIntosh: I am not sure that the Department's note covers that, and I look to the Under-Secretary for assistance having been accused in Committee earlier this week of answering the Government's questions for them. Hopefully, he will have the answer.
A third of incidents involved people who travelled alone. Worthy of specific mention is that 21 incidents involved groups of 10 or more. Some 5 per cent. of incidents occurred in business or first class. In the last reported period, alcohol and tobacco were the two main contributory factors to disruptive behaviour. As a non-smoker, I have more sympathy with those who turn to alcohol in times of anxiety either before boarding or while on board an aircraft than I do with those who turn to smoking, which is a separate offence.
Alcohol was identified as, or suspected of being, a contributory cause in 45 per cent.—almost half—of all incidents. That was an increase from 43 per cent. in the previous reporting period. Around 40 per cent. of alcohol-related incidents involved passengers drinking
their own alcohol, which was also the case in the previous reporting period. So why is the Bill silent on prohibiting passengers from boarding a flight with their own alcohol? Regrettably, we have lost duty free travel throughout the European Union because the Danish Government blocked its continuation. I understand that people who purchase alcohol are not allowed to drink it during the flight. I was therefore surprised to find that 40 per cent. of alcohol-related incidents involve passengers drinking their own alcohol, and that there is no provision in the Bill to prevent passengers carrying their own alcohol on to the plane. We expect the Under-Secretary to explain why, when his Department has identified that as a rising problem, the Bill does not deal with it. The figures up to March 2002 show that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst so eloquently spelled out, drinking prior to boarding has a knock-on effect on behaviour on the aircraft.Smoking, or the desire to smoke, featured in 385 incidents, or 36 per cent. of the total, compared with 33 per cent. in the previous reporting period up to March 2001, so there has been a rise. A staggering 79 per cent. of those incidents involved smoking in the toilet. That offence, I am told by the Department, implies a degree of premeditated deception which poses greater safety risks to the aircraft. That invites the question why the Bill, albeit only five clauses long, does not extend to imposing higher penalties on those who commit such a serious, premeditated offence as smoking in the toilet, which, I have to say, is the most disgusting thing that I can think of.
Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend admit that while that may be disgusting, it is a lot less disgusting than an air rage incident?
Miss McIntosh: If time permits, I would like to share some rather horrendous air rage offences with right hon. and hon. Members.
The number of recorded incidents must be seen in the context of the number of flights operated by UK carriers and the number of passengers carried. It may help the House if I record that during the 12 months to the end of March 2002 UK airlines operated about 1.1 million passenger flights and carried 104 million passengers. The figures are similar to those for the previous year. As I said, in the year up to March 2002, only 52 serious incidents were reported, why have the Government seen fit to draft a separate Bill rather than including these clauses in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. I do not make light of air rage. It is, I accept, a terrifying experience being cooped up with drunk or disruptive passengers or with someone who is going berserk because they would appear to need a cigarette in the middle of a flight.
I turn briefly to the International Civil Aviation Organisation's role in the matter. ICAO's member states are required to have regulations for the prevention of alcohol and drug abuse by aviation personnel. In its document A33-12, which is short but worthy of note, ICAO is currently considering harmonising member states' alcohol and drug-testing programmes. It directs
- "the Council to review existing guidance for improvements aimed at helping States to develop consistent prevention and testing programmes."
In document A33-4, ICAO calls for the adoption of
- "national legislation on certain offences committed on board civil aircraft".
Mr. Forth: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would touch on that. We are in that part of her analysis that deals with the international aspects and the ICAO, but has it become seized of the problem of misbehaviour before boarding the aircraft—the Bill's promoter described that so eloquently—which usually involves drunkenness, but may involve other things? I would have thought that we must look to the international body to begin to take effective action on such people who seek to board an aircraft. A UK-registered aircraft is subject to UK law, so we could deal with it when it landed in the UK, but we are considering what happens in a foreign airport before the aircraft takes off. Does the ICAO have proposals on the stocks? Is it considering that problem?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |