HC Deb 25 May 1973 vol 857 cc950-62

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I am happy to have the opportunity to raise the question of missing persons. Indeed, it is appropriate that this subject should be debated at this time, shortly before we go into recess, because this problem has reached staggering proportions, such as have never been recognised in this country. It involves the almost certain disappearance from home, during the three days of the Whitsun holiday, of some 1,500 people, of whom 75 per cent. will be below the age of 18.

The figures are remarkable. They are not yet fully established, but they show not merely anguish and misery within individual families, affecting something like a million people in this country in the course of a year, but also a dreadful growth in the problem of homelessness as a result of young people leaving their homes with nowhere suitable to go.

The estimates which I am about to give to the House arise out of some of the most unsatisfactory figures ever to have been produced by a Government in answer to a Member's Question. On 7th May I asked how many people—men and women, boys and girls—were reported to the police as missing during 1972. In a letter from the Minister of State, Home Office dated 9th May I was given figures of missing people amounting to some 70,000. These figures are startling and reveal a vast human tragedy. But the figures themselves were clearly incorrect. I say this because it was impossible that an area such as Leicester should have about 1,600 missing people, whereas London, with a population some 40 times greater, should have 3,815 missing and West Yorkshire, not including Leeds and Bradford, should have a figure of no less than 6,147.

It being Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Mr. Janner

In other words it was very nearly double the figure for London. The letter from the Minister, sent with the figures, said: I should give a warning against making too close a comparison between the different forces. There may be some variations in the definition of a 'missing person', such as inclusion or exclusion of absconders from Remand Homes or Local Authority Homes, which should not materially effect total figures"— In other words, the Minister was saying that there may be variations between one area and another but that the total figures should not be materially affected—that total amounting to 70,000. I asked what was the position in London. I asked how many men, women, boys and girls under 18 were reported to the Metropolitan Police as missing in 1972 but were not listed as missing or included in the numbers supplied to me. The Minister of State replied: Many people, although reported to the Metropolitan Police as missing, are traced during the initial inquiries and are not recorded as missing for statistical purposes. In addition to the total given to the hon. and learned Member on 9th May, of 3,815 persons recorded as missing by the Metropolitan Police in 1972, a further 15,887 persons were reported as missing in 1972 but traced during initial inquiries." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 411.] So the figure should not have been 3,815 but 19,702, namely, five times as many. By any stretch of the imagination that is a highly material difference between the figures as given and the figures which should have been given. Indeed, it cannot be attributed to a mere variation of definitions of "missing persons", such as an inclusion or exclusion of absconders. This represents a group of people traced during the first few days after being reported as missing by their anguished families. Seventy-five per cent. of them were under 18 and they were not included in the Minister's reply. Why not? It could be that this was a deliberate exclusion, but I do not believe that, because I know personally of the concern which the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary have over this problem.

The Government were supplied with the wrong information by the police because, presumably, the police do not regard someone as missing until he has been missing for a few days. That is an astonishing and ridiculous attitude, because for the family the first few days are often the worst. The mere fact that a person is traced does not mean that he has gone back home—far from it. Tracing is only the first step. I pay tribute to the police for the manner in which they trace missing persons. It is truly remarkable in the absence of a central register. They trace something like 99 per cent. of those who go missing. It is a considerable achievement, which costs a vast amount of time and effort on their part, and one that would be made very much easier and swifter if there were a central register.

I do not understand why there is not a central register, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure us that consideration will be given to the possibility of setting one up to make it easier for the local forces to trace those who are missing. The police do not trace adults who are above the age of consent and are unlikely to be a danger to themselves, and who leave home deliberately because they are unhappy—usually through matrimonial troubles. These are not the people who the police—at least in Leicester—feel it is their duty to trace. Let us, therefore, concentrate on the youngsters who are under 18 and who represent 75 per cent. of the total. The first essential is to find the correct figure. The figure of 70,000 is vastly incorrect. If I challenge only one figure out of the 47 supplied, I find that the difference is between 3,815 and nearly 16,000. In other words, the figure provided was only one-fifth of the true total.

This is a startling inaccuracy. I trust that the Minister will give an assurance that the figures contained in the letters of 9th May will be brought up to date, corrected and supplied, so that the minor variations that remain are immaterial. But we shall know that the figure—which was 70,000, is now 100,000 and probably should be nearer 150,000 at least—is accurate.

That is not all, because in addition to the figures reported to the police—they must be 125,000–150,000 on the basis of those figures—there are all those who are not reported. They may even be in the majority. So the total cannot be less than 175,000 missing in a year. That means that 500 people in England and Wales alone leave home in any one day, go missing, so that their families report their absence to the police. That very high figure cloaks the misery and tragedy which are sometimes unnecessary. They are often avoidable, and have never been recognised or properly dealt with in this country. That is the importance of the matter.

Secondly, I appeal to the Minister to give an assurance that the Government will now reconsider all the questions raised by these staggering figures, recognising that in one year alone they affect about 2 per cent. of all our families. Those who go astray in one year are not the total, because there are people left behind from years before. The figures of the totally homeless, the people who cannot cope, often from good homes, reveal a situation that must be dealt with by the Government and the voluntary organisations assisted and succoured by, and in some cases brought to life by, the Government.

We arrive at a situation in which there are no fewer than 150,000 missing and probably not more than 200,000. If the figures I give are estimates, that is not my fault; it is because the figures we have are admittedly totally inaccurate. I presumed that after the figures were given for London there would be an apology, as is the normal custom. There has been none. I presume that the Minister will now wish to express his regret that the figure for London was only one-fifth of the true figure. I asked for the number of people reported missing. They were not 3,800 but 19,700. That merits, if not an apology, at least an expression of regret that the wrong figures were provided.

When we have the figures, they will reveal, as even 70,000 reveals, a startling and serious problem which must be dealt with. How great is that problem? The answer depends on some other questions that I have asked, against which the Government have thrown up a brick wall of silence. I cannot conceive why. I asked for the same information about Scotland as has been provided for England and Wales, and the answer was "No". I asked how long it has taken to trace missing youngsters, so that parents may know, all else being equal, the hopes of getting their children back quickly. The answer I received was "We will not tell you." I asked how many of the people were found dead. The answer was "We do not think that we would be justified in asking the police even to look in the records for that figure."

The Leicester police have looked, and they have found that only one was found dead, and he was dead before he was reported missing. That is important information, because it sets parents' minds at rest. At least they know that the chances of the child being dead when he has gone are remote in the extreme. They should know the comforting facts as well as the discomforting ones. Those facts will come out of the figures that I hope will one day be provided.

I was given no figures for Scotland, no figures for how many missing people died and no figures about the past, to show the size of the problem and whether it is growing.

In Leicester the number of young people who have gone missing has almost doubled since 1968, when the figure was 946. Last year it was 1,667. Boys and girls under the age of 18 were in the majority, as is the case throughout. It is interesting to note that the Leicester figures for last year show totals of 482 boys and 390 girls missing from home. We do not know any more about the facts than those which the Minister has seen fit to reveal, but we know the harvest of homelessness that this helps create, and it is superimposed on a great shortage of homes in many areas, certainly in Leicester. Compared with other areas, I understand that ours is somewhat better off.

What is being done? There is a Consortium for Homeless and Rootless people composed of a number of mainly voluntary organisations working together in the hope of providing refuge for those who cannot cope. The organisations range from the Salvation Army, which does a magnificent job for older people, to New Horizons here in London, which looks after youngsters and tries to help them keep away from the drug scene and to help them when they are adrift to find new roots. They are run by dedicated champions of humanity who are overworked and who operate without the funds that they need. In Leicester there is only one refuge for the young. It is known as "The Vicarage". It is run by Mervyn Thomas who, with his helpers, does a marvellous job in difficult circumstances. There are rumours, which I hope are groundless, that even here the time will come when they have to move.

The situation is not being met because it is not recognised. Before dealing with a problem we must see that it is there. We must recognise that this is no longer a problem simply for the families of these people. The young people who go adrift are boys and girls of 16 and 17. They are from ordinary average families, some of them very good families. They feel that they want more independence, and they demand it. They cannot communicate properly with their parents. These youngsters are at work and are earning far more than many of us thought of earning at their age. They have money. They demand independence. They do not get it. The result is that they fight with their families, something bursts, and they leave. It shows no lack of love on the part of parents that they cannot cope, it shows a lack of understanding of how to deal with the problem. It shows no lack of love on the part of the youngsters for their parents; they simply do not know how to cope with the situation, and they go adrift and need help.

This debate is taking place just before the Whitsun Recess when most of us will head into the sunshine with our families for what we hope will be a happy time. It is a time when 1,500 families will for the first time have to face a situation where members of their intimate home surroundings are missing and there whereabouts are unknown.

What do I ask of the Government? I ask first for a central register and for more help to be given to the police to do what they are trying admirably to do in tracing missing persons quicker, more effectively, and more cheaply.

Secondly, I ask for the true facts. It is no answer to say that it would take a certain number of policewomen X number of hours to discover the true facts. This is not a party problem. The All Party Parliamentary Committee for Rootless People is not a party committee. It is one which feels that the facts should be made known. We differ very much in our approach to the type of help that is required, but we are united in our belief about the need for help. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not only provide an apology for his Department's past error but provide an assurance that the correct facts will be given.

Thirdly, I ask for an assurance that those who help people who are adrift to find roots of some kind will be given more assistance so that young people may know that there are places in their areas to which they can go for help and do not need to go adrift. In that way, it may be that the problem will diminish and not increase to the point where in five years we have another doubling of this staggering figure.

Finally, we must recognise that there must be help to the youngsters who are adrift and are not going home—the 16-and 17-year-olds who will not go home. There is not enough hostel accommodation or homes for them. They need guidance and help and perhaps a new Government agency to look after them, or, alternatively, a voluntary agency with Government help. I hope that with the assistance of the Department of Health and Social Security it will be possible to look into this matter.

This is a vast and increasing problem. It is essentially one of understanding of the young, and if it is dealt with in the four ways I have suggested—by a central register, the making known of the facts, help at home and help to those youngsters still adrift—there is some hope of some reasonable peace for people, if not at this Whitsun, then at Whitsun in years to come.

4.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane)

As this is the last oration before the recess, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I may convey to you and, through you, to the Officers and staff of the House our very good wishes for your and their relaxation during the recess and our appreciation of what you, your colleagues and the staff do to help our lives in this place.

I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) has taken the opportunity today to enlarge on his interest, which I know is a very keen one, in missing persons. I appreciate the reasons why he has put down a number of Questions to my right hon. Friend, because it is easier for us to reply to questions or to a debate of this kind when we know more precisely what the areas of interest are.

The hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised three points above all. First, he called for a central register. I will think very carefully over what he has said about the present arrangements. I cannot go beyond that now.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's second main point concerned the statistics. I reject his lurid phrase about a brick wall of silence. There is nothing of the kind.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's third main area of concern, which I share, is homelessness, to which this problem partly relates in wider aspects—the need for more hostels and agencies and helpers. I will draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that aspect is more his problem than mine.

I want to try to put the general question into perspective. If I have any criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, it is that he tended to get it out of perspective. I want to put it back into perspective as well as one can.

Everyone shares the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern over the large number of people reported missing. Whatever one's views of the precise figures and definitions, we do not need much imagination to realise what misery, worry and fear is caused to the families, however short the unexplained absence from home of the loved one may be. But the figures which individual police forces keep and which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been given, although he is not satisfied with them, demonstrate that the great majority of missing persons are traced—in many cases very promptly.

I can condense the figures into one sentence. In the majority of areas from whose police forces we accept statistics, more than 99 per cent. of the people missing are traced sooner or later. My understanding is that the police do a very thorough and conscientious job in tracing missing persons, and tracing them as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Greville Janner

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House now, or promise that he will do so later, what he means by "sooner or later"? How long does it take? How many of these persons return home when they are traced?

Mr. Lane

I cannot give a precise analysis of how many are found in one week or in two weeks or in three weeks. The pattern varies over days, weeks and months. I want to impress on the hon. and learned Gentleman what the police do—and this is the guts of the debate —when someone has been reported missing in the Metropolitan area in particular, and initial inquiries have failed to trace him. Details are recorded in the Missing Persons Index. In addition, local forces elsewhere which may think that a missing person has left their area may also record him as missing in the index.

In the London area—I stress this particularly because the hon. and learned Member made much of it—in all cases where someone is taken to hospital by the police as the result of an accident or an illness in the street and for some reason relatives are not informed, or cannot be notified, or when someone is found wandering, a message is sent to the missing persons index and particulars are there recorded to see whether they match those of any missing persons. Similarly, in all cases where juveniles coming to the notice of the police may be missing persons, the index is invariably checked.

The hon. and learned Member mentioned publicity. When the police think that publicity would be useful, particularly with juveniles, they offer particulars to the local and national Press, and the Police Gazette which goes to all police forces, is used regularly to circulate details of missing persons nationally.

The hon. and learned Member rightly made much of the problem of missing young people, and here I should like to refer to a programme on BBC 2 on Wednesday night, "Man Alive", which dealt with this problem, but which I was not able to see myself. Two cases particularly were brought out in that programme—Sarah Way and Kevin Barnes. It was also brought out in that programme that boys and girls in this age group, 14 to 17, cause the most difficulty, because they can so easily be taken to be older people and in most instances are capable of keeping themselves by casual employment and of making a life of their own.

However, I should like to dispel the impression, which may have been given to some people who saw that programme, that there is little police action in such cases. In these two instances the children are now listed in the missing persons index at Scotland Yard, where records are kept of all persons missing in the Metropolitan area and people who have left home elsewhere where the forces think that they may be out of the area.

Particulars of the children have been circulated in the Police Gazette, which goes to every force in the country, with a photograph of Sarah Way and a photo-kit impression of Kevin Barnes, for whom a recent good photograph was not available. Both the local and the national Press have been informed. The children's disappearance was reported, and articles about Kevin appeared in at least two national and two local newspapers, while articles about Sarah Way appeared in three national and one local newspaper.

The third individual mentioned in the programme was Susan Manning. I understand that she has now been traced and that her whereabouts in the Notting Hill Gate area are known. I should like to put straight the picture given in that programme, for it was distorted and unduly alarming.

The hon. Member made much of the statistics, implying that they were inadequate. He accused us almost of issuing misleading statistics, and I should like to deal with what he said about London. He understimates the difficulties. There are difficulties of definition and of timing—at what point should one record someone as missing? Is someone missing who has strayed round the corner? Is a child missing if it has been distracted at the local playground or has called unexpectedly on the way home?

It is easy to use the expression "missing persons" to cover a wide range, but it is not easy to define when a person shall be regarded as missing. The definition in Metropolitan police area usage is that people under 18 years of age, or old people, or physically or mentally handicapped people, or people whose disappearance gives rise to fear for their safety are always accepted as missing for the purpose of police inquiries in the Metropolitan area.

I shall deal with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about statistics, and I shall give an explanation, not an apology, for he made far too much of this. He drew attention to the different figures for people missing in the Metropolitan area during 1972, a figure which we said was 3,815, whereas the number actually reported at local stations was 19,702. There is no mystery about this, and I am glad of the opportunity to make the matter clear.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman was told in reply to his Question, the number recorded as missing in the missing persons index applies to those whom official inquiries have not traced. Obviously it is a matter of opinion and judgment whether every reported case should at once be considered as a missing person for statistical purposes. I do not think it is unreasonable to ignore a large number of cases; for example, when a child has gone off to play for a short time with a friend without telling its parents or when an old person has dozed off for a while on a park bench. We should surely regard these people as temporarily out of touch rather than missing. Including them in the missing persons statistics would indicate that there was a much greater problem than there is. Having said that, I am not at all complacent.

What we should regard as the test is not so much the absolute completeness of statistics or the precise details of them but the success in finding the people who are missing and improving our methods, if we can, to see that they are found, as I said earlier, sooner rather than later. Of course we shall consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said but I reject the rather lurid charges that we are in some way trying to conceal or deceive. That is not the case. When we can see reasonable ways of improvement we will adopt them.

It is perfectly fair to say, as my right hon. Friend has said, that we must keep a sense of proportion about the additional work we ask police forces to do. That is all I can say. We will think over very carefully the arguments and criticisms made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I believe that we will have a chance of returning to this at Question Time on 14th June when the hon. and learned Gentleman has a Question down to be answered by my right hon. Friend.

The other important topic raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was that of homelessness. I join him in paying tribute to the various organisations which deal with this harrowing problem, mainly in urban society. If the police have any reason to think that a vagrant is listed as a missing person they do all that they can to reassure his relatives about his safety and whereabouts. I do not accept that there is a direct correlation, as implied by the hon. and learned Gentleman, between the number of missing people and the number of homeless people who wander the streets of our large cities. It is true that some people who leave their homes are unable to cope with normal life and may, tragically, end up on the streets.

It is surely equally likely that people living on the streets do so because they have no homes and no one to care for them. If the police find young people among the homeless they do all they can to trace their relatives and return these young people to them. It is not primarily the job of the police to do the same for adults. If an adult has left his home of his own free will and does not want to get in touch with his relatives, this is a matter for him. It would not be right to ask the police to put pressure on him.

I have tried to put this in perspective in relation to the police work on missing persons. I accept that there is a need for more work in various directions by the agencies dealing with the homeless, and the Government are trying to develop this all the time under the leadership of my right hon. Friend. We recognise that there is an important problem here. I do not necessarily accept that it is as lurid as the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

We realise the enormous human misery that these cases cause to individuals and their families. I am in no way implying that this is not a matter with which the police ought to be concerned. I maintain that the details which have been sent to the hon. and learned Gentleman show that the majority of police forces keep their own individual statistics and that the annual report of chief constables leaves no doubt in my mind that individual forces keep a close check on missing persons in their area. Had I the time, I would have been able to give some examples. I mention particularly the Hertfordshire Force and the Bedfordshire and Luton Force. Those areas are examples of how thoroughly the police try to do their job. They deserve our support. Let us remember that their primary task is the prevention and detection of crime. Their other work must be seen in proportion to this.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock till Monday 11th June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 22nd May.