Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Aviation Banning Orders (Disruptive Passengers)

24 May 2023 · 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

  • Mr Johnson argues for banning disruptive passengers from flying due to rising violent incidents on planes.
  • He notes that aviation lacks specific prohibitions despite unique risks compared to other forms of transport.
  • The Bill seeks to allow courts to issue bans after conviction or police application to protect aircraft safety.

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

Mr Johnson argues for the necessity of prohibiting disruptive passengers from flying, highlighting increasing violent incidents on aeroplanes and advocating for court orders to prevent such individuals from boarding planes. He points out that similar prohibitions exist for other forms of transport but not for aviation despite its unique risks due to confined spaces. The Bill aims to empower courts to issue bans based on conviction or police application, helping protect cabin crew and passengers while deterring violent behaviour.

Other contributors (1)
  • Gareth Johnson Con Dartford

    Violent incidents on aeroplanes are rare but increasing. Mr Johnson suggests that people should be banned from flying if they become violent, similar to how driving bans and football banning orders work. He emphasises the need for courts to intervene as airlines cannot share information about passengers who have been banned by one airline with others.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy