Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Aviation Banning Orders (Disruptive Passengers)

10 March 2020 · 1 other contributor

Opened by Gareth Johnson Con Dartford

Crime & Law Enforcement

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Gareth Johnson raised concerns about aviation banning orders (disruptive passengers) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Moves a bill to give courts power to ban individuals convicted of using or threatening violence on planes.
  • Aims to prevent air rage incidents and protect passengers and crew.
  • Estimates show 4,145 cases of air rage in the past year, a 9% increase from the previous year.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Gareth Johnson Con Dartford

Moves a bill proposing that the courts have the power to ban individuals convicted of using or threatening violence on planes for a period set by the court, aiming to prevent such behaviour and protect passengers and crew. The Bill addresses an increase in 'air rage' incidents, estimated at 4,145 cases in the past year, which represents a 9% rise from the previous year.

Other contributors (1)
  • Gareth Johnson Con Dartford

    Proposes that banning individuals from flying after being convicted of using or threatening violence on planes would help protect cabin crew and passengers, acting as a deterrent to potential violent incidents. Emphasises the need for targeted measures against selfish, violent behaviour rather than broad restrictions like alcohol bans.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy