Aviation (Offences) Bill

House of Commons, 7 February 2003.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I thank hon. Members for being present today on what is obviously a very busy constituency Friday for all of us.

Antisocial behaviour by passengers on aircraft, commonly known as air rage, has become an increasingly common problem for people who fly and in the media in the past few years. Incidents have been reported in the media and the travelling public—our constituents—are now well aware of the possible danger that air rage incidents can cause while flying.

For many people, flying is already a stressful enough experience without having to worry about the behaviour of someone sitting in the next seat. We all know people who are terrified when they go on planes—they are terrified on take-off, when they are up in the air and, of course, when they land—but being confronted by a drunken and disruptive passenger sitting beside us is terrifying, too. It is terrifying to meet someone like that in the street as we go about our normal business or in pubs and clubs, or even family restaurants and fast-food stores on street corners.

Many of us naturally tend to step away from disruptive behaviour to find a safety zone because we are frightened for ourselves, our families and the people with us. We do not want confrontation—there is also an element of embarrassment about taking on such hoodlums—but when we are in a steel tube, flying at 500 mph, 30,000 ft in the air, it is a totally different problem. Where do we go on an aircraft? The disruptive behaviour is right next to us; we are aware how far off the ground we are and how fast we are travelling, but we have nowhere to go. Unfortunately, air rage has become more prominent in the past few years. Incidents of air rage can, if they get out of hand, have serious consequences for life, whether on a small aircraft or a 747.

Figures show that there has been a 400 per cent. increase in air rage incidents worldwide since 1995. More than 10 per cent. of those incidents have led to violent confrontations. In the United Kingdom, a total of 1,055 incidents were reported in the year up to March 2002. The Civil Aviation Authority categorised 50 per cent. of them as significant and a further 5 per cent. as serious. I repeat that 55 per cent. are significant or serious.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

How many of the significant events actually involved smoking in the loo?

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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 (Liberal Democrat, 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?

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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 (Labour, 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.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, 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.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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.

Eric Forth (Conservative, 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?

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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.

Tom Harris (Labour, 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?

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Disgraceful.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Disgraceful indeed.

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.

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, 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.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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 (Labour, 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.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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.

Russell Brown (Labour, 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?

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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 (Labour, 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?

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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.

Frank Doran (Labour, 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?

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, 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.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

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.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Once the Bill becomes law, the offences will be arrestable, but who will do the arresting on the aircraft? Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that no extra powers will be given to anybody on the aircraft? As very few aircraft carry policemen, these people will have to be restrained somehow by the cabin staff or other passengers and then await arrest at the airport; in which case, does the Bill improve the situation in the air?

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As the Bill stands, the people doing the arresting would be the police at the destination airport.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I am interested in the arrestable offences set out in schedule 1A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I notice that throughout that schedule references are made to any person being able to carry out the arrest. I would expect that if a passenger is doing something serious enough to be restrained on the aircraft, that would amount to an arrest.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Obviously in the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes, there could be a citizen's arrest, or the captain could order an arrest, but under normal circumstances arrests would be carried out by the local police at the destination airport.

The Bill would implement recommendations made by the police and supported by airline trade unions. From the many meetings that I have had, the Bill also has the complete support of those in the airline industry including the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK Flight Safety Committee, the British Air Transport Association, British Airports Authority, the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, and such airlines as British Airways, Britannia Airways, British European Airways and Virgin.

I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is a sensible and non-controversial proposal. It is designed to protect hard working airline staff and all our constituents, no matter where they live in the United Kingdom. It is a proposal that may one day save people's lives.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) has undoubtedly tried valiantly to explain to us why this Bill is desirable and what its effect would be, but so far he has not quite persuaded me. I do not think that he has persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) either, but we shall return to that.

At one level, as I said briefly about the previous Bill, this is a model private Member's Bill. It is succinct and narrow in its focus and the hon. Gentleman has explained why we need such a measure at this stage. For those reasons, such a Bill would normally be welcome. I am not yet saying that this one is not, but my slight suspicion is that it has that whiff of the Government handout disguised as a private Member's Bill—a practice that I have always deprecated. Because they cannot or will not find time in their own legislative programme to do something that they want to do, the Government wait for the private Member's Bill ballot and find a hapless or willing volunteer to do their work for them. That may not be exactly reprehensible—

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

My hon. Friend is the last person to need my defence, but the right hon. Gentleman should at least acknowledge that his record on campaigning on aircraft safety and other regulations is second to none. This is not a measure that has been forced on him by any Minister. I know personally that he has a long interest in the subject.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's stout defence. I shall not press the point unduly. I am saying simply that when Bills seem to have a provenance such as I am about to describe, one has reasonable grounds for suspicion that they may be Government Bills coming through the private Member's Bill procedure, and I would certainly deprecate that.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I do not know whether this information will assuage or inflame my right hon. Friend's suspicions, but I draw to his attention the remarks of Lord Whitty on 1 September 1999, then a Minister with responsibility for transport, when he said:

"I shall be considering with the Home Secretary increasing the maximum penalty to five years for endangering an aircraft or its passengers. This increase would be subject to parliamentary time being available."

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I did rather have that in mind when I was coming to my conclusion. We need not get bogged down in this, I am just saying that it is something that I bear in mind when I come to the House on a Friday, as I do whenever private Members' business is on, unlike other hon. Members who seem to have other things to do than legislate, because I am not sure that we should be making the Government's job easier and easing their legislative programme by allowing them to get part of it through the private Member's Bill route. One approaches a Bill such as this with some scepticism.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

This is an interesting constitutional point. My right hon. Friend occupies a distinguished place in the House. Is he suggesting that when the next Conservative Government are elected we will see rather fewer handout Bills?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. We are debating the Aviation (Offences) Bill.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I certainly hope that we would see far fewer aviation Bills, or indeed Bills of any other kind, that is for sure.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw rightly dwelt at some length on the problems caused by what has loosely become known as air rage. Let us redesignate it gross misbehaviour on an aircraft. I fly frequently myself and I fully understand what he is saying. Not only is it a cause of some fear and discomfort to other passengers and to the cabin crew, as has been mentioned, but ultimately, if it is a sufficiently serious incident, it could endanger the aircraft itself and be a danger to life.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Does my right hon. Friend believe that this would be a better Bill if it also addressed the behaviour of the pilot and the cabin crew? We recently had evidence of yet another captain of a commercial airliner being pulled off a plane at the last minute because he was allegedly under the influence of alcohol. If it did that, would it not be a better Bill?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend raises an important point, to which I shall come later when I start to analyse the Bill. However, I am only at the preliminary stages of my preamble to my analysis of the background to the Bill. I shall come to the Bill itself in due course. I have it here in my hand. In clause 1, proposed new paragraph 11A of schedule 1A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 refers to

"specified behaviour by a person in an aircraft towards or in relation to a member of the crew".

I shall want to discuss later whether that person could also be a member of the crew, in which case my hon. Friend's point might be covered. However, I am getting ahead of myself and I am sure that he would not wish to disrupt the rhythm of my thoughts or my remarks.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he is a frequent flyer, and I assume that he means from an English airport. Given his unsustainable and false accusation in the previous debate that somehow England subsidises Scotland, is he aware of the overpricing of flights from Scottish airports compared with those from English airports?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Bill.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am almost sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have rightly prevented me from engaging in that discussion. It may be for another day, but let us park it, as I think they say in modern parlance, and press on.

What puzzles me is not only what happens on the aircraft, but what happens before people board it—a point that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw rightly mentioned—and when they disembark. We need to get it clear in our minds how far we believe that provisions such as those in the Bill will affect those different stages of the journey in relation to misbehaviour, whether brought about by alcohol consumption or anything else. I shall broadly characterise those issues—with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough sitting beside me, I am slightly nervous to do so—as the jurisdictional elements.

However, before we even get to that matter, what puzzles me is whether the number of incidents is increasing. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said with great conviction that incidents of so-called air rage were increasing, although I do not think that he provided many figures to support that assertion. My figures do not bear that out, and I do not think that the circumstances are necessarily quite so simple. Indeed, I have some figures suggesting that the number of incidents has decreased in the past two or three years, partly because of the measures already taken by the airlines themselves, for which we must give them due praise.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The number of incidents did indeed decrease for a while after 11 September, after which they started to increase again.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which is helpful. My figures refer to the 1,055 incidents in the year to 31 March 2002 that I think he mentioned. That represented a decrease on the 1,250 incidents in the previous 12 months. I do not want to fall out with him about that issue, as it is not crucial. There are a lot of incidents, they are a problem, and that is what must be dealt with, so I do not want to get distracted too much by whether the figures are going up or down.

On the seriousness of the incidents, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked whether a significant number were caused by people smoking in lavatories. The figure that I have is 36 per cent., or one in three. That activity may be in breach of the law—for example, United States federal law certainly prohibits smoking on aircraft over the United States—and it may or may not be a hazard, but I would not have thought that it falls into the category with which the Bill is concerned. We must be circumspect about considering all incidents in the same way and threatening to apply similar penalties in respect of each of them.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I wonder whether smoking itself might be an issue. The fact is that people who smoke tend to become tetchy if they are denied the ability to do so for a substantial period. A more liberal smoking regime might solve part of the problem.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Funnily enough, it relates to what the promoter said in the context of alcohol. We can all agree that drinking in moderation can help to settle people's nerves and make them less nervous on aircraft—or anywhere else. The same may apply to those who are addicted to nicotine. The issue arises when they go beyond that and move from being relaxed by a drink or a cigarette to becoming violent. However, I am not aware of many violent smokers, so the issue applies only to drink. That is what we are considering, although I do not think that we should be sidetracked into reopening the issue of whether smoking on aircraft is a good or a bad thing. In the United States, a solution that has been tried is all-smoking flights. That is an interesting thought, but I do not think that the idea ever got off the ground.

Let me return to jurisdiction. My brief tells me that the 1963 Tokyo convention established jurisdiction over offences committed on board aircraft and involved the extradition of offenders. Apparently, the country in which the airline is registered has the authority to apply its own laws to passengers on board. If anything happens on a United Kingdom-registered aircraft when the doors close, UK law is applicable. We have jurisdiction over any aircraft that lands in the UK. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw graphically described the lacuna in that: people who misbehave or drink excessively before they board the aircraft cause the problem after boarding that the Bill is intended to tackle.

Sadly, I cannot understand how the measure will deal with such a problem. If the authorities on the ground do not prevent people from boarding, can the people in charge of the aircraft deny access to it? My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, with his extensive legal knowledge, may be able to help, but I fear that the Bill cannot tackle the problem. Perhaps the Minister can help us.

If those in charge of an aircraft in another country were able to deny access to it, that would solve the problem. For example, if I am in Malaga, have too much to drink and attempt to board an aircraft but the people in charge say, "You cannot come on board in your condition," that would go a long way to resolving the difficulty that the promoter identified. I shall deal with drinking on the aircraft later.

Clause 1(1)(b) relates to

"a provision which prohibits a person from being drunk in an aircraft".

One reading suggests that access to the aircraft could be denied to someone who had drunk excessively, but another suggests not. If the person has not boarded the aircraft, the Bill may not apply. I hope that the Minister can help us with that important point.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I broadly agree with my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that if someone on board a domestic airliner in a foreign airport is to be given the power to refuse entry to passengers who are inebriated or pose a threat to others, it should be the captain? He or she should make the ultimate decision.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That sounds right, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion. It ties in with the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough raised earlier about the identity of the person who will have the new power of arrest under the Bill. The promoter implied that only Mr. Plod had that power. Perhaps the captain of an aircraft should be the person to whom the powers in the Bill are granted, or perhaps a citizen's arrest can be effected. However, the Bill does not provide for that. That may pose a difficulty in Committee.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It is not up to me to try to explain the Bill, but the opening description of it was inadequate. The law is clear: the Bill will make no difference to the powers of anybody on the aircraft to let people on the aeroplane or to arrest them when they are on board. Existing common law and rights of property will deal with that. The Bill will simply allow the police to arrest someone who has caused a disturbance once the aeroplane has landed in the United Kingdom.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation, because I was afraid that that was the case. If the Bill is a Government measure, the blame attaches to the Government, not the promoter. Worthy though it may be, it will not do much good.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I disagree. I hope that the Minister will clear up the confusion. I understand that the Bill tries to create an arrestable offence, which carries a five-year penalty or falls within schedule 1A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The schedule makes it clear that the offence is arrestable by any person, not necessarily a police officer. I presume that that applies to all arrestable offences.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am partly encouraged by that helpful comment, although it could lead to some interesting possibilities. If we are talking about what I, in my layman's terms, would call a citizen's arrest—

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

indicated assent.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

In that case, we are talking about anyone on an aircraft being able to arrest anyone else. Once we open up that possibility, life really does get interesting. What if the person who was misbehaving attempted to arrest a member of the crew? I am not sure that my hon. Friend has been as helpful as he intended to be. The schedule to which he has become so attached may not help him in this matter. Perhaps he could have another look at it, and expand on the idea when he seeks to catch your eye later—as I hope he will—Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for his efforts, but I am not totally sold on his idea.

My next point links in to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said a moment ago. I have here a list of cases in which action was taken effectively to deal with these problems. I will not go through all of them, but one involved a flight from London Gatwick to Montego Bay in Jamaica, on which a group of passengers became disruptive and demanded alcohol. Another passenger complained and threw a drink over one of them—he did not try to arrest him; he just threw a drink over him—and an altercation broke out, and the cabin crew had to restrain them. When the plane landed in the United States, the FBI boarded it and removed the offenders. They were returned to the United Kingdom and one was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for endangering the aircraft. Cases such as this—one or two others are mentioned in this briefing document—suggest that adequate powers to deal with them already exist. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw is arguing that these powers should come into effect only in extreme cases.

I do not want to go through the entire list of incidents that I have here, but recent history seems to suggest that there is a fair degree of discretion and powers to deal with these problems. As I said, that flight was going from London to Jamaica, and was diverted to the United States. The US authorities exercised their powers and the people were returned to the UK—I guess it must have been a UK-registered aircraft—and one was then sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. I am unsure whether the hon. Gentleman has yet made a case for the additional powers in the Bill, taken against the background of what already seems to be happening. A new offence has already recently been created, and despite his valiant efforts, I am not persuaded that his case has been made beyond doubt.

We are always very ready, in the House, to have a knee-jerk reaction and to say that, if there is a problem of social misbehaviour, criminality or whatever, we should increase the penalties available. I would not normally shrink from that, but we must be pretty certain in our own minds that simply increasing the penalties will have the effect that we desire.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I was just wondering whether my right hon. Friend's attention had been drawn to the list of incidents that have already taken place. I notice that one of those involved, Victor Mardell of Wood Green in north London, who was indicted by a grand jury for being abusive and trying to open the door during a flight, now faces up to 20 years in prison in the United States and a fine of £163,000. I am not sure that penalties, of themselves, will provide a sufficient deterrent, bearing in mind the fact that people are often drunk when they do these things.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

This is the time-honoured debate about deterrence, and about how clearly the kind of people who are prone to this kind of misbehaviour on an aircraft will be thinking about the penalties that they might suffer if they misbehave. Almost by definition, they are unlikely to do so.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Would not one way of dealing with repeat offenders be for airlines to refuse to carry them for a fixed period—five or 10 years, for example—and to make the necessary information available to other airlines? Such people would thus be effectively grounded

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I suspect that airlines can do that already, and no doubt they do. One hears of cases in which either one airline or all airlines ban people, as I am sure airlines are free to do. I do not think we need the Bill for that purpose.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

In fact, the exact opposite has taken place in the last few days. Courtney Love, having created an incident on an aeroplane, was detained by the police for some hours and as a consequence received four tickets entitling her to travel on Virgin Atlantic Airways.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am reluctant to become too involved in that, but I think I am entitled to comment briefly. Whether Sir Richard Branson was wise to do what he did is something I hope he will think about, because the next time there is an incident on one of his aircraft he may find it rather difficult to explain the action that he is reported to have taken recently. I shall say no more, because although this is relevant, I do not want to be diverted too far.

I now want to talk about what happened following the publication of the December 2000 consultation document on air transport policy entitled "The Future of Aviation". I have no doubt that it is dear to the Minister's heart. According to my brief there were only 92 responses to the document, which does not seem very many to me. I should have thought that if the problem dealt with in the Bill was as widespread and as serious as has been suggested, the document might have elicited a few more responses than that.

Anyway, apparently the majority of those 92 felt that passengers should be prohibited from drinking alcohol other than that supplied by the carrier. I am not sure how that came about. Presumably, it means prohibiting—or trying to prohibit—passengers from consuming alcohol before they board the aeroplane, and then giving them alcohol.The document goes on to say—is this not typical of a Government consultation exercise?—that the majority were in favour of further action. Well, well, well. That really takes us forward, doesn't it?

Apparently, safety is paramount. So far, this does not seem to have been a terribly fruitful consultation exercise.

We are also told, much more helpfully in the context of the Bill, that respondents felt that powers of arrest and punishment were inadequate and needed to be strengthened. That is exactly what the Bill would do: we are getting on to something a bit more positive here. It was also felt that the police should have powers of arrest for offences under an air navigation order, not just the power of caution. There was mention of increasing the penalty to five years, making drunkenness on board an aircraft an arrestable offence, and making threatening or interfering with crew an arrestable offence as well. Excellent! All that is highly relevant to the Bill.

Apparently—I mentioned this earlier—many respondees suggested that drunken passengers should not be allowed on board aircraft, and that there should be guidance for aircrew and ground staff to screen out drunks, prohibit them from boarding and refuse to serve them on board. It was also felt that offenders on board should be left at the nearest airport. Those strike me as sensible suggestions, but they are not in the Bill. I hope the Minister will tell us how much thought his Department gave to incorporating further measures such as that in legislation—although, of course, that cannot happen in the case of a private Member's Bill.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Airlines have power to take such action now but choose not to, presumably because they want to go on enjoying the profit from carrying a passenger even if he appears somewhat inebriated. That illustrates the limitations of statute: it is possible to legislate for anything, as we are doing yet again today, but it makes very little difference.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Indeed. Let us consider some other suggestions produced by the consultation—my briefing uses the words "thrown up", rather infelicitously. They include banning alcohol from aircraft, which I should have thought was a matter for the airlines; introducing a tracking system to ban disruptive passengers from future flights, to which the same applies; making duty free available only on arrival—it is possible to purchase duty free on arrival at many airports, including, I believe, Heathrow; and better liaison with police at airports. There are a whole series of things that can surely be done already, and if they cannot, one asks why the airlines themselves are not doing them. Do they require legislation? I should have thought not. Another suggestion arising from the consultation is

"relaxing the ban on smoking".

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, who made that point earlier, will like that one. Other suggestions include

"increasing the seat pitch, and improving air quality."

So here are a series of perfectly sensible-sounding measures that one would have thought were completely consonant with the Bill's aims, but which do not require legislation.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

They do, however, require some thought. Although I accept that the requirement to revisit smoking would be helpful, I am not sure that it is entirely compatible with improving air quality.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Indeed. That simply illustrates the inherent contradictions that tend to emanate from an exercise in which well-meaning people come up with different suggestions that perhaps make a degree of sense when taken in isolation, but which begin to show flaws when one puts them together.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

It is difficult to see where all this might end. As my right hon. Friend made clear earlier, there is another factor: those who, in addition to having taken some kind of medication—perhaps to calm themselves down before flying—are served drinks by cabin staff who have no knowledge of their use of such medication. Such a combination can make people highly excitable. How does one attempt to legislate against that? If we are to carry this legislation to its logical conclusion, perhaps people should be asked to sign a form before embarking on the aeroplane, stating whether they are taking any medication which, if combined with alcohol, might give rise to extraordinary behaviour inside the cabin.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yes, and the clever person might say that they should have a blood test before they get on the plane, or a big sign around their neck stating what medication they have taken recently. What my hon. Friend says illustrates the question of how far one should try to go in this direction to deal with a perceived problem. I think we all agree that there is a problem. Those of us who fly know of the dread of sitting beside or near someone who has had too much to drink, or who is misbehaving. It is a horrible experience, and none of us would deny that, but what we are trying to get at is whether the Bill will do what it is supposed to do.

That, rather felicitously, brings me to the Bill itself. Although it is commendably short and commendably focused, I wonder, looking at the wording, whether it is as helpful as its promoter would like to think. Before I embark on my brief analysis, let me say that I am well aware of the pitfalls of a layman such as me seeking effectively to analyse a Bill that is drawn up by a parliamentary draftsman, who comes from another planet. However, that is what we must try to do, because we are here to try to bring a lay interpretation to the language of statute, and it is always a challenge.

Let us consider the first substantive provision in this modest Bill. Subsection (2) of clause 1, which deals with arrest without warrant, refers to

"an offence of contravening a provision of an Order in Council under section 60 of that Act (air navigation order) where the offence relates to—

this is the meat—

"a provision which prohibits specified behaviour by a person in an aircraft towards or in relation to a member of the crew".

The provision is targeted at behaviour towards members of the crew only, and not, presumably, at behaviour towards other passengers. This gives rise to the question of whether the person concerned might also be a member of the crew, a point that was touched on in an earlier intervention. I am wondering whether "specified behaviour" is intended to be an all-encompassing, completely flexible phrase that will be interpreted on the spot, or whether the intention is to give some detailed underpinning to that phrase. In other words, would there be a list of things that might be covered?

I am open-minded on the point; I do not know which provision would be more sensible. It depends who discretion is being given to. Here, we return to our old friend the citizen's arrest. Although I should be pretty comfortable about the captain of the aircraft having that power, it is quite another matter to rely on its exercise by anyone at all.

I do not want to nitpick, but some important considerations arise from the words

"a provision which prohibits a person from being drunk in an aircraft".

How will that be interpreted? Will a subjective judgment be made of the person's behaviour by someone in uniform—perhaps a member of the crew? The provision continues with the words,

"in so far as it applies to passengers".

That suggests that if a member of the crew was drunk they would not be covered by the provision. I suppose the assumption is that the crew member would be identified before they boarded the aircraft and took charge of it, as happened in a recent case.

I am not very happy about the wording of the Bill. It is not as helpful as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw suggested. I hope that when the Under-Secretary makes his contribution, he will, in his usual way, exemplify and elucidate what is in the Bill and convince us that it will be more effective than I am currently persuaded to believe. I should like to hear his comments on "specified behaviour" and on whether the drunken person might be a member of the crew. I should also like some clarification about the definition of "drunk". Will aircraft carry breathalysers or will it simply be a subjective judgment: "Oi, mate! You're drunk. You're nicked. I am exercising my renowned powers of citizen's arrest under the Aviation Offences Act."

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

In Scottish law, there is an offence of being drunk and incapable in a public place and police officers make exactly the subjective judgments to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I do not know whether the same would apply in English law.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure that he can see the problem as well as I do: a police officer may not be available at the appropriate moment. Under the Bill, someone else on the aircraft will make that judgment and make the arrest. Sufficient doubts have been raised about those provisions to make us all somewhat anxious about their meaning.

I am aware that if we are to give the Bill a fair wind, there is not much more time for this debate, so although there is much more that I could say, I shall exercise uncharacteristic self-restraint and resume my seat. I hope that we shall receive full explanations from the Minister, perhaps after he has heard other hon. Members' contributions. How will the Bill work? Why is it a significant step forward? Why should we allow it to go into Committee?

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. I hope that we are able to persuade the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that the Government must include it in the legislative programme. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) will respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised.

The Bill has been long awaited and deals with a problem that has affected many of us. Some people believe that drunkenness on aircraft is a recent phenomenon. It is not; I had personal experience of such a disturbance in the early 1990s. It was most unpleasant.

I do not imagine that many Members have experienced such situations, so I want to try to give the House a sense of just how terrifying it is to be on an aircraft when an incident takes place. I was returning from Florida with my family, after a wonderful holiday. We were only one hour into a seven-hour flight when a disturbance broke out. The incident was entirely drink-related. Two men, who had clearly been drinking before they went on to the aircraft, began an altercation. Imagine the noise. Their wives tried to calm them down and their terrified children were screaming. Many of the 300-plus people on the aircraft were aware only of the noise, not of what was causing it, but those of us who were nearby were afraid that someone would be injured.

People sitting near that kind of event have nowhere to move. They cannot remove themselves or stop their children experiencing it, and they are upset. There is no safety zone. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) talked about safety zones. Normally, the minute an altercation starts, parents remove their children from the area, but they absolutely cannot do that in an aircraft.

The staff were eventually able to calm down those two individuals, with the assistance of a female passenger, who spoke in the most severe terms to those two chaps. They were absolutely terrified. [Hon. Members: "Was it you?"] No, it was not—I was in great awe of the person who did it, and she clearly had my admiration. Even after things had calmed down, the anxiety remained for the rest of that six-hour flight. We were all absolutely terrified to move and the children were upset. We were unable to relax and enjoy the flight. It really was the most horrendous experience.

In fact, I am absolutely certain that such incidents can have long-term effects on young children. They do not want to go back on to an aircraft if they have had that experience. They are put off flying when they are very young, and young children can be very easily affected by nightmares. It is damaging for them to encounter that kind of incident, particularly when they have had a wonderful experience at Disneyland in Florida.

David Hamilton (Labour, Midlothian)

I have seen one or two altercations on flights, and they are terrifying for people who are already scared of flying. It is important that people in England, Scotland and Wales all work together, just as the British Transport police work in the rail system. With the massive increase in air transport, that might be a very good way forward. We should all do a bit of joined-up thinking and work together to eradicate such behaviour.

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We can address the issue in many ways. The Bill will be a definite deterrent, and it will give the police powers to deal with individuals who cause that kind of distress. Of course there are many reasons why people behave in that way. I have sat beside someone who was very drunk on an aircraft; there was no disturbance, but it was a most unpleasant experience.

I shall conclude now because we want to ensure that the House agrees to the Bill today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on being successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills and on choosing this subject. He is absolutely right to choose this issue. This is an important Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) who, regrettably, has had personal experience of this relatively recent phenomenon. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) on securing this Bill and on introducing it so eloquently.

May I remind the House of my personal interests in aviation? My husband is an airline executive. He is currently with Delta airlines, having spent 34 years in the airline industry. On a personal note, that is a remarkable achievement—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted that my right hon. and hon. Friends recognise it. As for other personal interests, I have a small, modest interest in BA, BAA and BAE Systems, which is not registrable, but, for the purposes of this debate, it is important to declare.

Air rage has been identified as a phenomenon for some years, and it appears to be growing. It has caught the attention of the Department for Transport, which, for some time, has been monitoring annually the incidence of air rage. That monitoring is performed by the Civil Aviation Authority. I am most grateful to the House of Commons Library for finding me the Department's most recent report on disruptive behaviour on board UK aircraft, and the analysis of incident reports between April 2001 and March 2002. I confirm the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who took some issue with the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), the promoter of the Bill, about whether this phenomenon is growing or declining. The Department's figures show that, overall, in the last reporting period, which is April 2001 to March 2002, the number of reported incidents of disruptive passenger behaviour fell by 15 per cent. compared with the previous year. As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw rightly said, however, some of that may be accounted for by the decrease in passenger numbers following 11 September 2001, most notably in transatlantic air traffic—regrettably, as my husband's business is in that sector.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Is my hon. Friend aware of the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation document, "The Future of Aviation", of December 2000, which says that air rage

"is not as widespread a problem as media reports would sometimes suggest."

She says that, subsequently, it has declined. Is she telling me that it is even less of a problem that it was in 2000?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The figures speak for themselves, but, clearly, it is a matter for debate. Right hon. and hon. Members may draw different conclusions, but my hon. Friend is right to refer to the most recent consultation document. Although, in part, the 15 per cent. decline in the last reporting period follows a decrease in passenger numbers post 11 September, the decrease in reported incidents since September was much greater than the fall in passenger numbers. The pattern of incidents reported was very similar to the corresponding data in the previous year. Such significant differences are not identified in the notes of the Department. According to the Department, the figures confirm that air rage

"is not a widespread phenomenon, and the probability of any individual passenger being affected by an incident of disruptive behaviour is extremely low."

That shows that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth was extremely unfortunate in her experience in the early 1990s. I sympathise with her, as all of us would admit to some fear of flying: I admit to being an anxious flyer. As she said, if one is in a confined space, there is no safe zone to which to go.

The Department says, however, that

"there remains a low level of anti-social behaviour, which on occasion escalates into serious incidents which could pose a threat to the safety of the aircraft and/or its occupants."

The Department is conscious that airline employees working on board aircraft are more at risk of harm than the average passenger by virtue of the fact that they are flying more frequently and, because of the nature of their responsibilities, more exposed to disruptive passengers.

I think that it is important to share the figures with the House, particularly in view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) provided figures for smoking and for alcohol-related disruption. In the last reporting year, of the 1,055 incidents reported, the CAA categorised 50 per cent.—528—as significant. A further 52 cases—only 5 per cent.—were judged to be serious.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

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."

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is, indeed, the case.

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.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

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?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Will my hon. Friend admit that while that may be disgusting, it is a lot less disgusting than an air rage incident?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

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."

I hope that the Under-Secretary will have the opportunity to tell us what stage ICAO has reached.

In document A33-4, ICAO calls for the adoption of

"national legislation on certain offences committed on board civil aircraft".

The appendix to that document reveals that ICAO is considering offences such as assault and other acts of interference against a crew member, other acts endangering safety or jeopardising good order and discipline, and questions of jurisdiction.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

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?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am delighted to say that Lord Whitty pressed for international action to ensure that crimes committed on board aircraft are prosecuted appropriately in all states. I hope that we hear that that provision is to be extended to preventing offenders from boarding aircraft in an unfit state. We learned this from Lord Whitty in the January 1999 debate:

"The . . . problem relates to offences committed abroad which are pursued abroad and prosecuted in foreign courts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 155.]

That point is slightly different from the one that my right hon. Friend raises. I hope that the Minister takes note of his question and replies to the point. While the ICAO is aware of the question of jurisdiction, the point is slightly different in that regard.

I note for my right hon. Friend's benefit that in the early years of civil aviation the main international concern was the problem of gaps in jurisdiction over offences committed aboard aircraft. There is a distinction in that common law countries, on the whole, claimed territorial jurisdiction only and did not always consider their aircraft to be part of their territory. Civil law countries, on the other hand, claimed jurisdiction over offences committed by their own nationals abroad, to a greater or lesser extent.

Some states might grant extradition only if their national law allowed, but they were under no international obligation to do so. Many states refused to extradite their own nationals, and most refused that for political offences. My right hon. Friend referred to the 1963 Tokyo convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft, which is concerned with establishing jurisdiction over offences committed on board aircraft and the extradition of offenders. It is important to draw it to the Minister's attention that there is a gap in law, which, I note with some disappointment, the Bill fails to address. However, there is still time to amend the Bill being considered in Committee, and I shall seek to do that.

On a point of information, the Tokyo convention was enacted in UK law by the Tokyo Convention Act 1967, which was replaced by parts of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, section 92(1) of which applies criminal law to aircraft. Section 94(1), (2) and (3) implement article 6 of the convention, which provides the commander of an aircraft with the power to impose reasonable measures on a passenger to protect the safety of the aircraft. That is the scenario that my hon. and right hon. Friends referred to during this excellent debate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will be interested to know that the European Commission published a communication on the protection of air passengers in the European Union. It was considered by the European Parliament, where he served with great distinction for a number of years, early in 2001. The European Parliament considered whether there was a need for more and broader legislation to combat air rage.

What is air rage and how is it described? We are probably hampered by the fact that we do not have an adequate definition of air rage. One might have looked to this Bill to define air rage, but I am disappointed to find that it provides no assistance in that regard. I thought that it would be helpful therefore to look at how air rage has been dealt with by other jurisdictions.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is touching on the phrase "specified behaviour" which is the only term that appears in the Bill. Perhaps she is about to suggest—it might be a good idea—that when the Bill is considered in Committee some of the wording that she has found might be suitable for inclusion, perhaps in a schedule, to help those who, in difficult circumstances, seek to interpret that term, the better to exercise the powers that they have been given under the Bill. Will she consider that when she gives us these helpful examples?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is a helpful suggestion. Unfortunately, the Library has given me the German law in the original language, so I shall have to look further into that. I have only a conversational knowledge of German, so I shall refer to other jurisdictions.

I know that my right hon. Friend is a great admirer of all things American, particularly the American legal system, so I shall start with the Federal Aviation Administration which is the responsible authority in the United States and issues operations bulletins to air carriers. Its most recent air carrier operations bulletin, No. 1-94-1 on service of alcoholic beverages, states:

"The boarding of a passenger who appears to be intoxicated is a violation of . . . the Federal Aviation Regulations."

Having drawn that provision to the Government's attention, one has to ask why it has not been included in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend has suggested, it would fit neatly into clause 1, which amends paragraph 11 of schedule 1A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, inserting paragraph 11A which would prohibit "specified behaviour".

US federal aviation regulations also require operators to report passenger disturbances associated with alcohol within five days. That highlights another gap in the Bill. Should an offending passenger fail to be arrested because a police officer has not arrived in time or because other passengers on the flight are too nervous and frightened of a particularly aggressive or disruptive passenger, is there a time frame within which the offence cannot be prosecuted because the offending person has not been arrested?

The Federal Aviation Administration bulletin states:

"interference with a crew member"—

which is an offence under its regulations

"may also be a criminal violation under... the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended."

I commend this document to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State and will be happy to pass it to him after the debate.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

What is wrong with the formulation that was used in the amendment to the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995,

"acting in a disruptive manner",

which covers the use of threatening or abusive language to a crew member, behaving in a threatening or abusive manner to a crew member and interfering with a crew member in the performance of his or her duties? I thought that the Bill sought simply to bump up the penalty for that to five years so that it would become an arrestable offence. [Interruption.] I see from the Minister's body language that I have misunderstood.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That seemed like the start of a helpful suggestion. Perhaps the Minister will put us right.

Under the German law on air rage offences, there are two main provisions pertinent to what is called the unruly behaviour of passengers on a German aircraft. Most of the offences committed as a consequence of drunkenness, such as insult or assault, are covered by the respective articles of the German criminal code. According to article 315, it is an offence seriously to endanger an aircraft, for example by destroying equipment. One hesitates to think what equipment might be destroyed. Alcohol is not specifically mentioned and where passengers are concerned the consumption of alcohol is not an offence in itself.

Article 29, paragraph 3, of the German air traffic law holds the captain responsible for security on board and authorises him to take any necessary measures. Under the ICAO and US and German law, and, I believe, our own law, which applies across the kingdom, the captain is responsible and authorised to take any necessary measures. Although not explicitly stated, it is understood that that might include preventing a passenger from drinking alcohol. If there is a German law in that regard, it is right that we in Britain should seek to introduce one, particularly in regard to a passenger who is already a little the worse for alcohol. Certainly, such passengers should be prevented from taking their own alcohol on the plane.

However, both provisions applying in Germany are restricted to cases where danger is concrete. A specific law concerning unruly passengers is being drafted. As I mentioned, regrettably, the German law is available only in German, but before Committee stage I shall endeavour to obtain clarification.

As I am half Danish and have family in Denmark I am particularly interested in the Danish situation, and the Danish Air Navigation Act is available on the internet. While there is nothing in the Act about passengers being drunk, chapter 5 contains provisions for the breath testing of crew suspected of drinking, which may be of interest in the context of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. Why, if we are introducing prescribed limits for aviation crew—flight crew and attendants—can the Minister not extend the provisions of that Bill to passengers? There should be some mechanism for preventing passengers already a little worse for wear from boarding a plane.

Chapter 5 of the Danish Act repeats that the pilot in command has supreme authority on board, and goes on to state in article 44(2) that when necessary in the interest of aircraft safety or protection of passengers or goods on board, crew members and passengers may, without being asked by the pilot in command, implement preventive measures, including the use of force, to the extent that it can be justified in the circumstances.

Article 45 goes on to say that if a serious offence is committed on board an aircraft, the pilot in command shall, to clear up the matter, take all necessary measures that cannot be postponed without being detrimental—presumably to the flight.

I should like to refer to three recent court cases illustrating the legal implications of air rage. The judgment pronounced in the case of Regina v. Julian Ayodeji on 31 August 2000 held that a sentence of eight months' imprisonment was appropriate. The defendant was a 32-year-old male—another male, Madam Deputy Speaker—who pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk on an aircraft, contrary to article 57(1) of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995. The judge was entitled to consider the fact that fellow passengers must have been utterly terrified. The verdict did not mean that he had been sentenced on the basis of the more serious offence of endangering an aircraft.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Will my hon. Friend comment on the case that will not now come to court—that of Courtney Love? The offence to which I have already referred is on the statute book. If cases are not prosecuted and no action is taken, an incentive is created. The proper remedy is to take the action, rather than put new offences on to the statute book.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If time permits, I hope to turn to a number of cases reported in the press. My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. I am sure that the House will agree—I certainly hope that the Under-Secretary will do so—that there should be one rule for all passengers, regardless of whether they are celebrities. Hon. Members fall into the category of celebrities and I believe that we should be exemplary in our behaviour on aircraft, regardless of whether we are nervous flyers. The law should not recognise whether the passenger in question happens to be well known and should be applied irrespective of such considerations—a point to which I shall return in a moment.

Secondly, in the case of Regina v. David James McCallum, which was judged on 5 October 2001, a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for affray was deemed not manifestly excessive where the appellant had sustained abusive conduct on an airplane for a considerable period. Thirdly, in the case of Regina v. Heather Susan Tagg, it was judged on 30 April 2001 that there were clearly vires in section 60(3)(h) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to prohibit drunkenness in an aircraft—as in article 57 of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995, Statutory Instrument No. 1995/1970— because drunkenness on an aircraft was one sort of conduct capable of bearing on the safety of the aircraft and the people therein. In my view, those sentences could have been tougher in view of the gravity of the offence.

I promised briefly to mention for the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West some rather disgusting examples of air rage. Mr. Finneran, a banker, was recently fined $50,000 by United Airlines after he assaulted an attendant and then, regrettably, defecated on a first-class food cart on a flight from Buenos Aires to New York. I hope that that is not something that the House would condone. I shall not refer to the next case in my notes, as it is rather vulgar. On another occasion, a passenger named Mr. Misiak put his hands around the throat of a flight attendant and threatened her because she had spilt a drink on him.

Another passenger, a Miss Pennix, grabbed a flight attendant's finger and bent it backwards. Miss Pennix explained to the authorities that she had not liked the way in which the flight attendant had told her to put her tray and seat in an upright position before landing. As a result of cases such as those, airline crews have begun to take drastic measures, which sometimes have disastrous consequences.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

A $50,000 fine seems to be in proportion for a first offence such as the one that my hon. Friend cited. However, she has not told us what the penalties were for the other offences. Were the penalties appropriate? In this Bill, we are considering a five-year sentence.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am handicapped by the fact that the newspaper report did not give that information, but a maximum five-year sentence would have resolved the situations in the court cases that I referred to. The maximum penalty that was handed down in those cases was two years. I believe that five years is much more appropriate.

Courtney Love, the widow of Kurt Cobain, is not the only celebrity to have displayed air rage. She was said to have become verbally abusive towards cabin staff and to have gone berserk. In a case that we have already heard about, a Boeing 737, which was flying 148 fans back from Santiago in Spain to Glasgow after a football tie, was diverted to Cardiff after the pilot sent out a mayday. I could use up my remaining time by going through endless reports in the press. However, the case has been made for a more severe penalty.

Alcohol has been shown to be a contributory cause in 45 per cent. of all incidents of air rage. In 40 per cent. of those cases, the passengers were drinking their own alcohol; and in 42 per cent. of cases, the passengers had been drinking alcohol before boarding. Regrettably, there are omissions from the Bill. I believe that it will have to be either amended or, more appropriately, considered as part of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Although I would a support a ban on passengers consuming their own alcohol, I hope that my hon. Friend is not tempting the Minister to prevent law-abiding people from consuming alcohol on aeroplanes.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Citizens may be law-abiding before the consumption of alcohol.

I hope to demonstrate why the Bill is lacking. As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, the promoter of the Bill, said, on football day excursions people may end up waiting hours before returning home. Many of them—perhaps because they are of a nervous disposition—drink excessive amounts of alcohol. The Bill does not deal with that.

The Bill is flawed in that it does not deal with the 42 per cent. of passengers involved in such offences who have been drinking alcohol before boarding, or with the 40 per cent. who drink their own alcohol on board the plane. The Bill is also deficient in that it does not explain who would be the authority with the power of arrest. Could the authority be a fellow passenger? Will the Under-Secretary put my mind at rest by assuring me that it does not mean that a passenger will be able to arrest a member of the crew? We wish to give the Bill a fair wind, but we hope that the Under-Secretary will answer our questions.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Lady has certainly left me a lot of time in which to respond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) on winning a place in the ballot and on the exemplary way in which he opened the debate. I commend him for his long-standing campaign on air rage.

The Government take seriously the problem of disruptive passenger behaviour on aircraft. It rightly became a matter of increased public concern after a serious incident in 1998 when a stewardess was attacked and injured on board a United Kingdom aircraft. The Government took action in two ways. First, we set up a working group on disruptive passengers, which the Department chaired. It included representatives from the Civil Aviation Authority, the Home Office, the police, airlines and unions. Its remit was to advise Ministers on measures to minimise the frequency and potential impact of disruptive behaviour on board aircraft.

Secondly, on the group's advice, we introduced a standardised reporting scheme for disruptive behaviour on board United Kingdom aircraft. At the time, little hard evidence was available and it was agreed that statistics were necessary to establish the nature and scale of the problem.

I am pleased that the statistics that have been gathered to date confirm that air rage is not as widespread as media reports sometimes suggest. However, some antisocial behaviour escalates into serious incidents and thus poses a safety threat to the aircraft and its occupants. In the past reporting year, more than 1,000 incidents were reported on United Kingdom aircraft, of which 52 were classed as serious. Several hon. Members said that the number of incidents was small, but 52 incidents multiplied by the number of people on an aircraft suggest that a large number of people had been put at risk. However, the figure equates to one serious incident for every 2 million passengers. Any incident of antisocial behaviour on board an aircraft, however serious, can be an unpleasant and frightening experience for those affected, as several hon. Members made clear in the debate.

United Kingdom legislation to deal with offences on board aircraft is among the most comprehensive in the world. Several specific offences relate to behaviour on aircraft: endangering the safety of an aircraft; being drunk in an aircraft; smoking when that is prohibited; disobeying a lawful command by the commander of an aircraft; and acting in a disruptive manner.

Normal criminal law applies on board United Kingdom aircraft and powers also exist for acting against offenders on board non-UK airlines whose next destination is the UK, provided that the act is an offence under both UK law and the law of the state where the aircraft is registered.

However, it is essential that offences can be properly enforced and that penalties are appropriate. In the case of the offence of endangering the safety of an aircraft, there is consensus that the maximum two-year sentence is not proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In at least one case, a judge commented that if he had been able to pass a longer sentence, he would have done so.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, the police have been worried that their powers are not always sufficient with regard to some of the offences. I confirm that that sometimes prevents them from taking effective action. Clause 1 deals with that. The police have asked for their powers to be strengthened to allow other offences to become arrestable by statute but without increasing the penalty.

As my hon. Friend made clear, all those who work in the airline industry support the changes and our working group on disruptive passengers also welcomed them. The Government want the offences to be prosecuted effectively and to ensure that offenders are punished appropriately, thereby sending a strong message that such behaviour is unacceptable. The Bill will help to achieve those aims. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for promoting the Bill and happy to record the Government's support for it.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I came here to oppose the Bill but the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) has persuaded me of the need for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not clear what the situation now is. We have less than a minute in which to try to dispose of further business and I wonder whether there are any provisions in Standing Orders which say that, when we are this close, it would be unwise to start a new debate.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I will adhere to Standing Orders and continue with the business that is before the House.