| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.45 pm
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): I support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). It is a useful measure.
I spoke on Second Reading and appreciate the fact that the Bill is making progress. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) rightly said, it deals with bad behaviour by people who drink too much and are disorderly. The Bill is not about terrorism and security, but at a time of heightened tension because of the security risks and threat of terrorism, people should understand that any disorderly behaviour that could cause other people alarm or make them feel threatened is a much more serious issue. Such behaviour is antisocial enough in its own right, but it adds another dimension to the problem because it could divert the crew, be frightening and, in some circumstances, lead to an overreaction.
I am slightly worried about the intrusion into the debate of the rights and wrongs of arming air crew. The idea of bullets flying around a plane does not enhance the prospects of security. That issue has to be addressed in a sensible, measured and practical way. The Bill has the merit of being specifically targeted at the type of
behaviour that has received a lot of media coverage. Eager young reporters are clearly anxious to get such stories disseminated.
Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman picks up on something that I said earlier. For the avoidance of any doubt, I want to make it clear that I was not necessarily advocating that course of action. I was simply making the point that it is under active consideration in the United States.
Malcolm Bruce: I accept that. In many ways, the US has much to do to catch up with airport and airline security.
Like every other Scottish Member, I have an interest because we fly an awful lot. In addition, Aberdeen airport was in my constituency for 14 years. It is just outside it now, but will be part of it again under boundary commission proposals. People who fly are worried that they might confront disorderly behaviour.
The Courtney Love incident, which I mentioned on Second Reading, is worth repeating. I am not aware that Richard Branson has apologised or retracted his comments. He has not shown the slightest regret or remorse. Quite the contrary, in fact. He said, "I have made my money out of the pop industry and, frankly, I don't mind how pop singers behave on my airlines." Whether Richard Branson minds or not is not the point; what matters is whether the other passengers mind and feel fear, alarm and concern. To my mind, that shows a proprietor of a business who has a high disregard for the vast majority of his fare-paying customers. He offers the privilege to misbehave to a few celebrities. That is an appalling example and I should like Richard Branson, who is happy to take accolades for his supposed business acumen—although not all his businesses are equally successful—to acknowledge that that behaviour was appalling.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said that rules are there to be obeyed and not argued about. He made it clear that when a plane is in flight, people should do what they are told by the crew and argue about it on the ground later. People must understand that if they are at all out of line, they face arrest or even imprisonment. That might make them realise that the regulations exist for a purpose.
I recall flying with Balkan Airways shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. As the plane was coming into land, I was more than a little astonished that people started to stand up, get down their bags and walk down the aisle to the front of the plane—we were still about 2,000 ft up in the air. The crew were remonstrating with them, saying, "Sit down. You shouldn't be moving about." Everyone was anxious to be the first off the plane, however, and they said, "We've had enough of these Communist regulations and we don't have to obey them any more." That demonstrated a lack of understanding that the rules were there for good reason, despite the fact that it was the bad guys who made the rules.
That illustrates the serious point that the number of incidents has increased in recent years, and the lack of punishment has made people feel that such behaviour is a joke, a bit of fun. Yet there have been incidents in which crew and passengers have been caused serious
fear and alarm. Regrettably, many of these offences are committed by women—Courtney Love being a case in point—who seem to have the same capacity to imbibe and behave badly as the men. I suppose that that is just a matter of equality, but there is no apparent difference in the likelihood of misbehaviour.Reference has been made to the fact that some people like to have a drink or two to calm themselves and to relax because flying is stressful. We must recognise that having a drink or two in that scenario is quite different from getting completely drunk, to the point at which, in the Minister's definition, one cannot control one's behaviour.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw has introduced a timely Bill that deserves the support of the House. I do not know whether it is by design or coincidence that we have a little package of Scottish-led Bills passing through the House today, but in those circumstances it is slightly surprising that the Benches behind me are completely empty. One would have thought that one of those Members could have found the time to be here, but that is a matter for them. Those of us who are here recognise that the Bill is worth while, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House.
12.52 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson : I, like other Members, rise in full support of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). It is an excellent measure in so far as it is intended to crack down on louts and people who endanger the lives of others in aeroplanes. We have heard some vivid accounts of people who had clearly drunk too much, were the worse for wear and should not have been on the plane in that condition.
We are paid to be precise in our use of language, and I want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) in turning to the question of what constitutes drunkenness, not because I think that it vitiates the Bill, but because the Bill would benefit from some refinement and reflection. The Minister intervened on my hon. Friend and said that he would define drunkenness as being a lack of self-control caused by taking alcohol.
We have to face the fact, however, that we are proposing to make it an offence for which one can be arrested, without a warrant, to be drunk—that is all—on an aeroplane. We have to be very cautious about what we intend by that, because as I understand it, there is no intention to have any system of breathalysers on board aeroplanes, to verify a person's blood-alcohol level, or to demonstrate beyond peradventure that someone is drunk. No one seems to have thought about whether the airline itself will be accessory after the fact to making a person drunk on board a plane. After all, they ply you—not you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; they ply one—with alcohol from the moment of take-off.
Mr. George Osborne : My hon. Friend raises an interesting point to which the Minister may wish to respond. If an airline or a steward or stewardess are aware that someone is drunk and continue to supply
that person with alcohol, how will they be affected by the Bill? Will they be guilty, as my hon. Friend suggests, of being an accessory to a crime?
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend amplifies the very point I sought to make. The legal position of the airline that supplies the alcohol to the passenger in flight is not clear.
We must accept that people have different susceptibility to alcohol, particularly when they have not eaten. It depends on their body size, and all the rest of it. People may, to all intents and purposes, become drunk under the definition in the Bill without drinking before they board the plane.
I recall a recent long flight to sub-Saharan Africa in the company of various representatives of UNICEF and a senior BBC figure, whom I shall not name.
Mr. Johnson: No, I shall not. He is a nice, distinguished man, and a passionate smoker, devoted to nicotine. He used to rely on nicotine to get him through the stress of a long flight, but, there being no possibility of smoking on our plane, he was driven to have a few, which calmed him down a great deal and was highly beneficial. I put it to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that one reason why people increasingly seem to be slightly the worse for wear for alcohol on board planes may be that so many flights are completely no-smoking flights. Might the Minister reflect on that, thinking whether, if there is to be a total ban on being drunk on a plane at any time, it may be necessary to consider some compensatory measure to bring back smoking sections on aeroplanes? Many people frankly find it difficult to put up with the rigours of a long flight without the sustenance and reassurance of a smoke. Indeed, one cannot even get peanuts nowadays on aeroplanes, because they have been banned. They will not serve me peanuts at all.
Mr. Johnson: It is because of nut allergies. One cannot smoke, and one is now not to be allowed to be drunk, without there being any definition of drunkenness in the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |